Are the Atlanta Falcons going to get a new stadium?

[testa50]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

That's what LA's been saying for over a decade.

We do NOT need to lose another pro sports team. We can justify losing the Thrashers, but losing an NFL team as well? That would not be a good sign for us.

Arthur Blank's desire to build a new stadium is entirely economic. Apparently some of the newer stadiums, such as Indianapolis's (you know, the one we saw last night), have a lot more revenue-generating bells and whistles than those that are a little older. And the nice thing about the dome is that--well, it's a dome. We can keep it for indoor events that just won't fit in an arena.

That being said, given the current political climate, I think most opposition to a new stadium will ease as long as it is guaranteed that not one dime of taxpayer money will pay for it. The minute they try to raise any taxes, even stuff that residents rarely pay such as hotel taxes and rental car taxes, the opposition will quickly stiffen.

My understanding is that the bolded is guaranteed to be not true. Taxpayer money has already gone towards paying for it.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by testa50

My understanding is that the bolded is guaranteed to be not true. Taxpayer money has already gone towards paying for it.

Huh. Well, the opposition will happen then. But, because the proposed site is in the city of Atlanta, only its citizens' and politicians' opinions will truly count (unless we return to the days of retards crashing town hall and city council meetings)

[tonygeorgia]

Use some of that money to help fund the Civil rights museum and the College Football HOF

[tv_racin_fan]

I understand the appeal of a dome but I was not happy that a dome was built in Atlanta. I loved watching them in the open air on a beautiful fall day. Still I do not want to see any taxpayer funds used to pay for a stadium of any sort. Maybe to finance it and get paid back with interest but not pay for any portion. What they could do is put a place on the state tax forms for a donation for things like the Stadium the Civil Rights Museum and the College Football Hall of Fame, taxpayers should not pay for them unless they wish to donate.

And about those supposed tax cuts for the rich. I suppose you mean the so called Bush tax cuts. Check the tax brackets pre Bush and after those cuts and tell me again that they were tax cuts for the rich. In 1999 a single person with income less than $8500 was in the 15% bracket, in 2010 he was in the 10% bracket. In 1999 a single person making less than $35K was in the 15% bracket in 2010 that person was still in the 15% bracket but now he paid only 10% on his income up to $8500. << that is the group that got the shaft. In 1999 a person who had income up to $85 k was in the 28% bracket in 2010 he was in the 25% bracket. In 1999 a person with income up to $176K was in the 31% bracket in 2010 he was in the 28% bracket. In 1999 a person with income up to $382K was in the 36% bracket in 2010 that person could make up to $385K and would be in the 33% bracket. In 1999 the top rate was 39.6% in 2010 that rate was 35%. In short everyone got a cut not just the rich.

[cqholt]

There is nothing wrong with the Dome. The Superdome is twice as old and still host Super Bowls. Why are we so concerned about hosting Super Bowls when Atlanta host the SEC Championship game both football and basketball Tournament, ACC Basketball Championship Tournament, Chick-fil-a Bowl, and Chick-fil-a kick-off game. How many other cities can say that?

[Staysean23]

Originally Posted by cqholt

There is nothing wrong with the Dome. The Superdome is twice as old and still host Super Bowls. Why are we so concerned about hosting Super Bowls when Atlanta host the SEC Championship game both football and basketball Tournament, ACC Basketball Championship Tournament, Chick-fil-a Bowl, and Chick-fil-a kick-off game. How many other cities can say that?

Because Super bowls gets more exposure plus the parties and events afterwards.