Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 124 of 124

Thread: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

  1. #101
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,180

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bill,
    How many landlords lease a bldng for 1.00 per year and pay maintenance and utilities?

    And that 15M they are asking for included things like advertising and various salaries.

    I could use a new building for my business. Where do I find these landlords paying these type of expenses, utilities, maintenance, etc. and charging 1.00 per year for the lease?
    Like I said, the $1 lease but pay all expenses is the current deal.

    I can probably find you a number of places where you could lease them for $1 if you pay all the maintenance and upkeep costs. I doubt if you'd like it very much.

    However, if you were already in a position where you were doing that and you could renegotiate your lease, which would you do - ask for what you want (relief on the maintenance and upkeep without a rent increase) or ask for what your landlord wants?

    It all comes down to whether they really think they can get a better deal somewhere else.

    I am also waiting for someone other than Kravitz to say that the Pacers have rejected the supposed counter-offer from the city, especially since Kravitz didn't even put it in those terms (he stated what the two sides "want", not what they've even counter-offered or rejected/accepted). Until then, the idea that the Pacers made an inflexible demand is not supported.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  2. #102
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,492

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Like I said, the $1 lease but pay all expenses is the current deal.

    I can probably find you a number of places where you could lease them for $1 if you pay all the maintenance and upkeep costs. I doubt if you'd like it very much.
    Well... if it's not up to my standards in design, size, or location then I want the city/taxpayers to build me one that is. I'm not paying my hard-earned 1.00 per year for a building that isn't going to be exactly what I want.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  3. #103
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,492

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't know if that's true today, but years ago I was affiliated with a business that paid a % of sales to one of the major shopping malls in Indianapolis. I don't recall whether it was based on total gross sales or on a % of sales over X amount.
    Was it a Simon Mall?
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  4. #104
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,180

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well... if it's not up to my standards in design, size, or location then I want the city/taxpayers to build me one that is. I'm not paying my hard-earned 1.00 per year for a building that isn't going to be exactly what I want.
    Ah. So, since this would be unfair, in your business you would take the first building offered at whatever the rental cost, pay the utilities and the maintenance, and make do with whatever the layout and facilities are, without any "shopping around" to find a better deal.

    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  5. #105
    Member Swingman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    726

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He's not talking about property taxes, he's talking about the ticket taxes. I don't pay ticket taxes on any property I own, do you? I know somewhere here someone posted the calculation for the amount of money generated by CFH ticket taxes and compared it to the cost of the building. Considering those ticket taxes would not have come in at all if the building wasn't running, I think it is perfectly right and proper to use that as a value vs. the cost of the building.

    It is also very common for a landloard (in this case, the CIB, because they do in fact own the building) to pay for maintenance and even certain utilities and other upkeep expenses (building management, etc.) when a business leases space. The landlord neither gets nor expects to get any % of profits from the business the lessee is engaged in.

    The tangled $$ chain here is because in lieu of rent the Pacers are paying all of those expenses. The Pacers are saying they believe those costs should be borne by the landlord without an increase in rent. The city is saying that there needs to be income in the form of something in exchange - rent is not an option, maybe since it isn't able to be renegotiated per the contract, but obviously other things (like % of revenue from non-basketball operations) are.

    Bottom line is that as a business, it is the obligation of the Pacers to ask for the sky. It is the obligation of the landlord to try not to give it to them. What we end up with is why it is called negotiation.
    That is really your argument. I don't care what the tax is on, it never goes towards ownership of the building. Wouldn't ticket tax be akin to sales tax? When did any kind of sales tax go towards ownership of the building?

    Sure the Pacers leaving would hurt the city. If any big business left, then it would hurt the city. Should the City or CIB bend over for every business just because they threaten to leave if they don't get their way?

  6. #106
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,180

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Swingman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That is really your argument. I don't care what the tax is on, it never goes towards ownership of the building. Wouldn't ticket tax be akin to sales tax? When did any kind of sales tax go towards ownership of the building?

    Sure the Pacers leaving would hurt the city. If any big business left, then it would hurt the city. Should the City or CIB bend over for every business just because they threaten to leave if they don't get their way?
    *sigh*

    No, ticket taxes don't go toward ownership of the building. Who in any of this argument said that the Pacers should end up owning the building?

    It means that the money spent BY THE CITY has been recouped BY THE CITY through income from ticket taxes that would not have come in without the building. Ironically, that's part of the argument why the city could afford to let the door hit the Pacers on the way out of town, because the building has broken even at this point. However, it also shows that the city hasn't somehow been screwed by not charging rent. Heck, one could say the ticket tax IS the rent, it is just charged to attendees rather than the lessee directly. Whether or not the city used that money to pay off the actual bonds is no more the concern (or fault) of the Pacers than the supposed bad business decisions of PS&E are the fault (or concern) of the CIB.

    This whole thing is really boiling down to different views of where money comes from and where it goes. Take away the idea that if it is a corporation or a rich person then it is somehow automatically evil, and you find they are really just negotiating between a tenant and landlord the way any individual tenant and landlord would negotiate. Both of them are trying to get the best deal possible. In this case, though, there is a very real (though the level is certainly debatable) intangible benefit to the landlord (the city) to the continued residence of the tenant (the Pacers) over and above pure money paid and received.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  7. #107
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacer Purgatory Praying for Paul
    Posts
    3,584
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ah. So, since this would be unfair, in your business you would take the first building offered at whatever the rental cost, pay the utilities and the maintenance, and make do with whatever the layout and facilities are, without any "shopping around" to find a better deal.

    No, I think I would reconsider the financial viability of whatever business I would put in a totally free facility built to my specifications and that would be upgraded to my specifications at no cost to my company, and not really look to relocate at all, and threaten to have my company "explore all of our options" if I am not paid to operate my business for the health of the city as a major city, as well as the tenants of all of my major retail clients who might suddenly "move out" and leave my mall property as a desolate blight in the downtown area as the downtown was when I made it what it is today.

    I would also quietly put feelers out in the circle of the megarich that I have friends in and let them know that I have a "face of the franchise" in place as a small portion of any potential ownership group in Larry Bird, and that I am considering either selling the franchise or simply disbanding it with the "wink-wink" blessing of the NBA and the city to break the current lease situation impasse and have that same new ownership group come in about a year or two later to revive the Fieldhouse and start over as a low cost expansion franchise, as long as the new ownership group makes it "worth my while" to disband the team by making up some of my losses in other business relationships I have with them.

  8. #108
    Member Swingman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    726

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    *sigh*

    No, ticket taxes don't go toward ownership of the building. Who in any of this argument said that the Pacers should end up owning the building?

    It means that the money spent BY THE CITY has been recouped BY THE CITY through income from ticket taxes that would not have come in without the building. Ironically, that's part of the argument why the city could afford to let the door hit the Pacers on the way out of town, because the building has broken even at this point. However, it also shows that the city hasn't somehow been screwed by not charging rent. Heck, one could say the ticket tax IS the rent, it is just charged to attendees rather than the lessee directly. Whether or not the city used that money to pay off the actual bonds is no more the concern (or fault) of the Pacers than the supposed bad business decisions of PS&E are the fault (or concern) of the CIB.

    This whole thing is really boiling down to different views of where money comes from and where it goes. Take away the idea that if it is a corporation or a rich person then it is somehow automatically evil, and you find they are really just negotiating between a tenant and landlord the way any individual tenant and landlord would negotiate. Both of them are trying to get the best deal possible. In this case, though, there is a very real (though the level is certainly debatable) intangible benefit to the landlord (the city) to the continued residence of the tenant (the Pacers) over and above pure money paid and received.
    Able seemed to imply that the taxes paid equated to the pacers paying back the cost that the city paid for the building initially.

    As I previously stated, the continued residence of any big company is worth more to the City than any monetary amount (mainly due to job creation). But you can't expect said city to survive if they have to give out sweetheart deals to everyone.

  9. #109

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Swingman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    the continued residence of any big company is worth more to the City than any monetary amount (mainly due to job creation).

    Two questions:

    1. Do you really mean "any" big company? And "any" amount?

    2. Do you think the Pacers, or PS&E, fit under the definition of "a big company"?

    The Pacers cannot be justified on the basis of job creation. The team has value to the community, but I dispute that they earn public support "mainly due to job creation." PS&E employs about the same number of people as a grocery store, and the peripheral jobs (vending, custodial, outside food service) are not the sort that deserve public investment.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  10. #110
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,180

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Two questions:

    1. Do you really mean "any" big company? And "any" amount?

    2. Do you think the Pacers, or PS&E, fit under the definition of "a big company"?

    The Pacers cannot be justified on the basis of job creation. The team has value to the community, but I dispute that they earn public support "mainly due to job creation." PS&E employs about the same number of people as a grocery store, and the peripheral jobs (vending, custodial, outside food service) are not the sort that deserve public investment.
    Well, if you hit Scotty's or The Pub or any of a number of other late-night establishments after a game, they are pretty packed and crowded. I would seriously doubt that would be the case if the games were not taking place. And, if you are denigrating these as jobs not worth creating, the very existence of these kinds of places means other businesses might come to downtown because there are places for their employees to go.

    Therefore, while not direct, there are a lot of jobs or business opportunities that would not be in downtown Indianapolis if the Pacers weren't there.

    I'd grant it doesn't have to be the Pacers specifically, anything that brings people downtown 41 times over 6 months would do the same, but you'd have to put in a lot of effort to replace those nights with individual or even short-term events.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  11. #111

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, if you hit Scotty's or The Pub or any of a number of other late-night establishments after a game, they are pretty packed and crowded.
    But there aren't "any number" of them. There is a specific number of late night, after-the-game hot spots. You named two. There are a few dozen more. But a serious discussion of the Pacers' impact on downtown requires serious quantification, not abstraction and hyperbole.


    Quote Originally Posted by BillS
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And, if you are denigrating these as jobs not worth creating, the very existence of these kinds of places means other businesses might come to downtown because there are places for their employees to go.
    This is deficient thinking, Bill. Certainly the vitality of Indianapolis' downtown relies on, among other more important factors, the availability of lunch for office workers. But there's a sharp line between the noon-day business lunch spots and the late-night booze-halls that fill up for a couple of hours after Pacer games.

    And I do denigrate food service jobs as "not worth creating." The wage scale of that occupational group is so low (even at the top end) that earning a livelihood, supporting a family and building up savings are impossible for 99% of the people doing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by BillS
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd grant it doesn't have to be the Pacers specifically, anything that brings people downtown 41 times over 6 months would do the same, but you'd have to put in a lot of effort to replace those nights with individual or even short-term events.
    Forty-one nights a year is only 11% of the time. If you consider the impact of Pacer games to occur within two hours after each home game then that's 41 games x 2 hours = 82 hours a year of maximum impact. That is less than 1% of the 8760 hours in a year.

    Bowling alleys are open every night, and yes -- bowling contributes more to the Indianapolis economy than the Pacers do. The public benefit from sales tax on dog food is greater than the public revenue from Pacers tickets. More pizza is sold after movies than after Pacers games.

    I like the Pacers. I hope we keep them and I hope more and more people return to supporting the team. But we should keep them because we're willing to spend our money to support them rather than because of bogus notions of "economic impact" that don't bear scrutiny.
    Last edited by Putnam; 04-22-2010 at 10:47 AM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  12. #112
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacer Purgatory Praying for Paul
    Posts
    3,584
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But there aren't "any number" of them. There is a specific number of late night, after-the-game hot spots. You named two. There are a few dozen more. But a serious discussion of the Pacers' impact on downtown requires serious quantification, not abstraction and hyperbole.




    This is deficient thinking, Bill. Certainly the vitality of Indianapolis' downtown relies on, among other more important factors, the availability of lunch for office workers. But there's a sharp line between the noon-day business lunch spots and the late-night booze-halls that fill up for a couple of hours after Pacer games.

    And I do denigrate food service jobs as "not worth creating." The wage scale of that occupational group is so low (even at the top end) that earning a livelihood, supporting a family and building up savings are impossible for 99% of the people doing it.




    Forty-one nights a year is only 11% of the time. If you consider the impact of Pacer games to occur within two hours after each home game then that's 41 games x 2 hours = 82 hours a year of maximum impact. That is less than 1% of the 8760 hours in a year.

    Bowling alleys are open every night, and yes -- bowling contributes more to the Indianapolis economy than the Pacers do. The public benefit from sales tax on dog food is greater than the public revenue from Pacers tickets. More pizza is sold after movies than after Pacers games.

    I like the Pacers. I hope we keep them and I hope more and more people return to supporting the team. But we should keep them because we're willing to spend our money to support them rather than because of bogus notions of "economic impact" that don't bear scrutiny.
    Why, how dare you, you, you, you...







    free market capitalist!

  13. #113

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad8888 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why, how dare you, you, you, you...


    free market capitalist!


    It's been a while since anybody called me that, but...yeah.


    And just to belabor the point even further, the Bureau of Economic Analysis today released new figures on county income.

    http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/action.cfm

    Marion County's entire earned income for 2008 was $39 billion. All wages from food service employment was $853 million, or 2.1% of the total. That's the total for all jobs in the whole county for the whole 8760 hours of the year.

    If the Pacers' job creation impact is felt less than 1% of the time (after Pacers' home games) by only a few dozen of the hundreds of food service establishments in the County (those that are downtown and serve drinks after games), then we're talking about less than 1% of less than 1% of 2.1%.

    I don't know if anyone else is moved, but I've convinced myself that the Pacers job creation impact isn't all that great!



    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Putnam For This Useful Post:


  15. #114
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,180

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    You want me to name all the bars and restaurants in downtown Indianapolis that are open after Pacer games and have crowds? While only naming 2 is a small subset, how many would you say is significant? 10? 20?

    To try to stay out of the rathole, let's just agree that it is very easy to measure first order effects but difficult to measure as the effects move farther from direct.

    An example I would give is simply to look at downtown Indianapolis 40 years ago vs. today. At 5 pm, those businesses that were located downtown vacated. No one spent any money in the downtown area because there was no one there. You might get a small boost from IRT, for instance, but since there was no regular night business there was no place really to go after a show. Why put in a business if no one was going to show up?

    The first order effect is that there are no low-end food service jobs, but let's look at one single other business activities that really depends on having those things available.

    Can you expect to have any kind of convention business if there is no nightlife at all? I would submit the answer to that is a strong NO. I also would submit that convention business is more than low-wage jobs. Never mind construction jobs (which will slow once facilities are built), someone has to manage the facilities, load in and load out the conventions themselves, organize the services for the conventions, interface at a professional level with the organizers (or even provide convention organizers), etc. etc. etc.

    Yes, the question is always "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" or "Did an individual element have a significant effect or was it a combination of them?" There is also a legitimate debate on whether some amenities like a professional sports franchise have served their purpose by helping create the environment and are really no longer needed to support that environment. However, I think there is no debate over the idea that, while losing one of these things might not hurt in the long run, losing one makes it easier to lose another (say, the Colts once they suck and Irsay demands another deal), then another, and pretty soon it's not a place that is attractive to anyone outside the city.

    Bottom line is that I think you make a big mistake if you measure only the direct dollars spent on jobs by PS&E or spent by attendees of Pacer games. It goes deeper than that.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  16. #115

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    I've had this conversation before with others about similar topics, and it goes through three distinct phases:

    1. "The direct financial benefit of [the Pacers, hosting the Super Bowl, etc] is huge."
    2. "The direct financial benefit may be small, but the overall influence is huge."
    3. "Putnam, you're an a**hole!"


    My first post this morning in this thread was in response to Swingman's comment that job creation justifies any effort to retain any big company. I'm not sure what he meant by that, so I asked him to clarify. If he means that job creation justifies any expense to retain the Pacers, then I disagree. But if he means EnerDel, then I think he's right.

    We are now at the second phase of the conversation. In order to put a stop to it before I get called an a**hole again, Let me try and be as conciliatory as I can.

    Certainly the city has done a great job, beginning with Hudnut, of doing many things very well. Certainly the Pacers are a part of that. The team exerts a marginal positive influence to downtown after dark. So do The Red Garter, the Circle Theater, IRT and St. Elmo's Steakhouse, which were all there 40 years ago. So there was always a foundation, and the city wisely built on it to make something much better.

    As you say, Bill, "It is very easy to measure first order effects but difficult to measure as the effects move farther from direct." I agree with that.

    But I do disagree with the notion that "everything else" goes into the Pacers account. The Pacers' direct measurable impact (PS&E employment, ticket sales, etc.) is small in scale. Their secondary impact (after-the-game food and beverage sales, building maintenance contracts, etc) is small in scale. I think it's bad science to assume that what we can't measure at all (the Pacers' tertiary influence) has been the preliminary driver of downtown's success.

    But maybe I'm just an a**hole.


    .
    Last edited by Putnam; 04-22-2010 at 01:10 PM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  17. #116
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,180

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But I do disagree with the notion that "everything else" goes into the Pacers account. The Pacers' direct measurable impact (PS&E employment, ticket sales, etc.) is small in scale. Their secondary impact (after-the-game food and beverage sales, building maintenance contracts, etc) is small in scale. I think it's bad science to assume that what we can't measure at all (the Pacers' tertiary influence) has been the preliminary driver of downtown's success.
    I hope I don't get to the "a**hole" stage; so far the conversation is very reasonable.

    I think what I want to say is that, while you can't put "everything else" into the Pacers' account, you also can't put nothing into it. The debate over what is an effect, what is a positive effect vs. a negligible vs. a negative effect, and just how much each piece of a multiple-order equation contributes to the whole is exactly why economics is a Black Art as opposed to an Absolute Science.

    The economy of Indianapolis in general and Downtown in particular is the sum of all the businesses and amenities available. It takes better models than I have so far seen to show not only what contributes but what combination is required in order to sustain everything else. If no single thing is a lynchpin, then clearly some combination (or, more likely, combinationS) would have the same effect - we need to be very careful not to weaken those combinations under the false confidence that getting rid of the single thing has no effect.

    I am not so much against the concepts you are bringing up as I am against taking the simplest derivative and using it as a final argument.

    I'd give an example - very few people would argue the effect that GenCon, with some 65,000 attendees for 4 days, has on the economy of downtown in the summer. Understanding that there are significant differences in WHAT people are buying, is there still not some comparable effect of even 12,000 people downtown 41 nights? Do we lose sight of it because it is spread out rather than concentrated?
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  18. #117

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Well put.

    I am content to let that be the last word.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  19. #118
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,492

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Let me throw this angle into the mix:

    Is the current investment in PS&E getting the best ROI (return on investment) for the city/state/taxpayers?

    Could that money be put to better use with more direct benefits?
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  20. #119

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me throw this angle into the mix:

    Is the current investment in PS&E getting the best ROI (return on investment) for the city/state/taxpayers?

    Could that money be put to better use with more direct benefits?

    In theory, yes. The best use of public investment would be to help Lilly expand. (And that's the result of real econometric comparisons, not guesswork. An investment in the pharmaceuticals industry would return more jobs, more income and more public receipts than an equal investment in any other sector. )

    Sadly, Lilly isn't expanding. It is laying off people and evacuating buildings.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  21. #120

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    After building a state of the art stadium does the city really owe the Pacers anything else? Is it the cities fault that expectations for the team have gone unfulfilled creating a financial burden? Is it the taxpayers responsibilty to pay for losing ways? Is it the taxpayers fault that players make so much money that ticket prices along with TV revenue can't afford them anymore? How many of the businesses are contributing to the Pacers because they bring in revenue for them? Don't they owe it to the Pacers to buy those expensive suits?
    Last edited by aceace; 04-22-2010 at 05:37 PM.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  22. #121
    Member Swingman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    726

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Putnam,

    My point was that companies that provide good paying jobs do more for the city than just the goods they sell. Bills was saying the Pacers bring an intangible benefit to Indy and I was just countering that so do a lot of big businesses and the Pacers aren't exactly special in that regard.

    My other point was that the city CAN'T go to any expense to keep all of these businesses here and thus why should the Pacers or any sports team for that matter be the exception?

    Sure, companies get some breaks in tax abatement and the like but there's only so much you can do before the cost outweighs the benefit. Plus, if other cities couldn't put forth a package to steal said business or sports team, then what's the incentive for the city to bend over backwards?

    In short, the CIB should hold their ground.
    Last edited by Swingman; 04-22-2010 at 06:29 PM.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Swingman For This Useful Post:


  24. #122

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    I believe that the intangible benefits of the Pacers outweight other businesses for 2 reasons:

    1. It sells the brand of Indianapolis nationally as a legitimate city--by appearing on tv

    2. Along with racing, basketball is the culture of Indianapolis (and Indiana)

    My belief that basketball is part of Indy (besides growing up there) and Winning Time/Butler was this year's reminder. With the Pacers, the enjoyment/love of basketball will continue to be passed down at the highest skill level that it is played. Without the Pacers, no more of this...

    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...t-set-of-eyes/

  25. #123
    Administrator Roaming Gnome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indy's Wild Wild West Side: 8 sec-check...Club Rio-check...Cloud 9-check
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,945

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    You know.... It probably wouldn't hurt for Jim Morris of the Pacers to sit with The Star's editorial board and get their side of the story out in the court of public opinion. I know that their fate will not be decided in that arena, but I'm sure a little good will could go a long ways in comforting the taxpayers like myself that don't understand how this isn't more then just writing PS&E a check for $15M/year. That is the read I get if the Pacers are insisting on keeping all the building's revenue after getting their $15M/year. Maybe they can clear that up, if there is anything to clear up...
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

  26. #124
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Well, if you hit Scotty's or The Pub or any of a number of other late-night establishments after a game, they are pretty packed and crowded.
    If you hit Scotty's on a non-game night during the middle of the week they are pretty packed and crowded.

    The same goes for all the other downtown restaurants, and I should know since I live there and eat there.

    Scotty's is doing great business because of it's general location and type of establishment, just like Rock Bottom gets packed all the time with no NFL/NBA activity associated that night.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 234
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 09:46 PM
  2. Rosen: Pacers shut up Celtics
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-26-2005, 04:59 PM
  3. My Original Article
    By scar in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-16-2004, 09:17 AM
  4. Indy Star: Pacers After Peja
    By PacerCrazy in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 08-07-2004, 11:12 PM
  5. Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 07-08-2004, 05:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •