Speaking of who gets comforted by the media and who gets afflicted, the Denver City Council held a hearing on Monday about the mayor’s plan to spend $160 million on upgrading a rodeo arena, and here’s what happened:
At least 40 people signed up for a chance to weigh in on measures that will collectively request $450 million in general obligation bonds. … And it was clear from the start the most people were there to voice their opinion on one specific measure: The one asking Denver voters to borrow $190 million to pay for a new arena and to redevelop a facility at the National Western Center…
“We feel like this isn’t being done right,” Nola Miguel, of the Globeville Elyria-Swansea Coalition, a group who formally opposing the projects, said during Monday’s meeting. “This is being rushed.”…
“As a resident of Swansea, I feel completely disappointed for everything that’s happening in our surrounding, in our community, with the development of the Triangle, the development of I-70,” [GES member Mercedes] Gonzales said in Spanish. “It’s something that it’s affecting all of us as a community and I think the most affected are the most vulnerable.”
You get the idea. There’s also concern about a potential community benefits fund that is supposed to accompany the arena project, since it turns out no one knows how the fund will be funded.
On the other hand, one person did testify to how important the arena project is, and it just happened to be the president of the livestock show and rodeo that would benefit from it:
Paul Andrews, President and CEO of the National Western Stock Show, said the new arena would be the “centerpiece that makes everything else work.” He estimated it would host more than 150 events a year, including the Stock Show, and possibly generate $230 million in annual economic impact.
“The successful business model of this 115-year old Colorado institution hangs in the balance as you cast your vote tonight,” Andrews said.
So, okay: Denver residents — at least those who showed up to testify, there hasn’t been a poll on the arena project yet that I can tell — are mostly negative about spending $160 million to benefit a rodeo promoter, and the rodeo promoter is very positive about the city spending $160 million on his behalf. How does one write a headline that conveys both of these things, Denverite?
The one big, long-planned item in Denver’s $450 million proposal that has people most upset just happens to be the “centerpiece that makes everything else work”
Nope, sorry, that is incorrect. But we do have some lovely parting gifts.
t isn’t yet about spending that money; the City Council held a meeting with open comment time as part of its decision-making process into whether a bond measure that would fund a rebuilt arena should be put in front of voters. The city arguably has issues that would be better to spend the money on, and perhaps a bond measure would go before voters who aren’t sufficiently informed about their choices, and who would be lied to by council members and promoters about them, but we’re still at the stage where voters don’t yet have anything to vote on.
You did prompt me to check on one thing; this new arena would replace the existing Coliseum. I understand that part of the focus of this blog is whether it’s ever smart for public funds to be used to build stadiums/arenas for private uses – teams, entertainment, etc. I will say that the Coliseum, which does host events besides rodeo, is quite old and it feels and looks that way. Whether that’s sufficient reason to issue bonds to replace it, I don’t know.
Considering that, where I live, we recently updated the 65+ year old Indiana Farmers Coliseum with a very lengthy renovation in order for it to host year-round events for decades to come and feedback was widely positive, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible to use that money to take older venues and spruce them up if you can as opposed to just building new arenas given real estate and cost, not to mention the value of architecture preservation. Now, I’m not saying all old venues are worth saving because there’s places like San Diego and Baltimore that need new arenas in the absolute worst way possible (hell, there’s some relatively young venues I’d be happy to see torn down, like Tropicana Dump), but by and large, if you can save a venue, you should.
But, it’s much easier, as well as better on your resume, to say “I got the new event arena built” than “I took the old arena nobody liked and made it prettier, I guess”.
I hope Denver does not choose to spend millions of dollars on organized animal abuse.
Just saw this:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/glendale-terminating-coyotes-arena-lease-2021-22-season/