Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The team apparently hasn't even formally submitted a proposal to the city/state. It's particularly confusing as to what their motives are for hiring these consultants when no proposal has been submitted. I think they need a consultant to advise them, but only after an official proposal is received.
I wouldn't bank on the consultants sinking it. The first company seems to specialize in getting stadium deals done.
I think we should demand that the taxpayer does not pay to get this done. If the taxpayer does pay to get this done, then the stadium should be publicly owned.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,901 posts, read 2,841,662 times
Reputation: 1660
^Good read.
Well it certainly doesn't help on the property tax issue. But it at least keeps the land in public hands. Of course, if the team pulls up stakes and walks away after we've built it for them, then what do we do with the stadium sitting on the land? So maybe public ownership of the stadium is not the right idea.
I reiterate: the team should fund this 100%. If it means they move somewhere else, I wish them well.
That said, again, I don't trust Raimondo, Mattiello, Paiva-Weed, et al. to stop this train on its tracks. How then do we keep the taxpayer whole?
Well it certainly doesn't help on the property tax issue. But it at least keeps the land in public hands. Of course, if the team pulls up stakes and walks away after we've built it for them, then what do we do with the stadium sitting on the land? So maybe public ownership of the stadium is not the right idea.
I reiterate: the team should fund this 100%. If it means they move somewhere else, I wish them well.
That said, again, I don't trust Raimondo, Mattiello, Paiva-Weed, et al. to stop this train on its tracks. How then do we keep the taxpayer whole?
I don't think that either way the taxpayer will be whole. And, unfortunately, I don't think the public is going to have the opportunity to say yea or nay. It's up to the politicians at this point, and we know how well that usually turns out.
Unless I have misread about the project and it's going to end up on a ballot at some point..
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,901 posts, read 2,841,662 times
Reputation: 1660
^well... The lease is only through January 2021, right? I think I heard Skeffington say it is $35,000/year. My guess is they're only on the hook for the balance of the lease. How can you legally justify making them refund the whole $12M? At best, I would think you could hope for a pro rata refund. Did they legally commit to Pawtucket for some number of years in order to get the rehab of McCoy?
But that's exactly the point. We ought to learn from past mistakes. If we pay for anything, the leaders have to put something in place to keep them from leaving town down the road. A poison pill clause, if you will.
It's unlikely that thing is going on the ballot, but it should.
The construction unions strongly support the plans to build a stadium. I guess they don't care if it is a bad deal for the tax payers, as long as it creates construction jobs.
The construction unions strongly support the plans to build a stadium. I guess they don't care if it is a bad deal for the tax payers, as long as it creates construction jobs.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,901 posts, read 2,841,662 times
Reputation: 1660
^Who knows, not enough luxury amenities?
I heard part of an interview with Skeffington in which I believe he dismissed staying in Pawtucket because it was not an "urban" environment. I think that's a little silly but I guess his point is they want it in a downtown environment and apparently even downtown Pawtucket isn't enough. If so, then all the speculation that Foxboro is in the 'competition' for their new stadium location is wrong. So that leaves Worcester, and possibly Springfield.
Providence metro is the 2nd biggest New England metro area.Providence is a nicer city, the owners have ties here, and it's a much bigger market. We have to remember this when they make the subtle threats of going elsewhere...
Does anyone know the financial situation in Worcester? Are they likely to make a big offer to draw the team into their city?
Hartford metro is bigger than Worcester but they just got a new AA team...
I heard part of an interview with Skeffington in which I believe he dismissed staying in Pawtucket because it was not an "urban" environment. I think that's a little silly but I guess his point is they want it in a downtown environment and apparently even downtown Pawtucket isn't enough. If so, then all the speculation that Foxboro is in the 'competition' for their new stadium location is wrong. So that leaves Worcester, and possibly Springfield.
Providence metro is the 2nd biggest New England metro area.Providence is a nicer city, the owners have ties here, and it's a much bigger market. We have to remember this when they make the subtle threats of going elsewhere...
Does anyone know the financial situation in Worcester? Are they likely to make a big offer to draw the team into their city?
Worcester has a lot invested in Downtown revitalization. City Square is a $500+ Million project that's been chugging along. They've also rehabbed their transit hub (Union Station) in recent years and seen a bit of a cultural renaissance downtown. It's not Providence by any means (actually, Providence is quite a bit bigger even though city limit populations are similar... Worcester has 39 sq mi and Providence has 18... same people in less than half the area plus PVD has urban neighbors like Pawtucket, Cranston, Warwick, East Prov. Etc).
Worcester would make a strong pitch and claim recent investments in downtown plus a "central" New England location make it ideal. Providence and even Pawtucket is still better, but Worcester has enough going for it to make an interesting offer that the ownership group may consider. They'd probably offer some serious tax breaks.
The construction unions strongly support the plans to build a stadium. I guess they don't care if it is a bad deal for the tax payers, as long as it creates construction jobs.
I think Raimondo is probably the first politician we have had who has had the guts to say this at all. I agree that she might have said that taxpayers should not be on the hook for anything, but the fact that she said what she did is very encouraging to me. Most others would have cut fast back room deals and we would have a stadium at any price to the taxpayer.
PS Downtown Worcester has nowhere near the charm of downtown Providence- I've been there often enough to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
