Page 18 of 39 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 900 of 1921

Thread: Arlington: Dallas Cowboys Stadium

  1. #851
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,290
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLandscape
    Total B.S! If that were true, then why do I invest in something like, say, hydrogen power technology! Ha ha! I gotcha there!
    It's not BS. There is a such thing as the lobby that is allowed in our form of government. Do you think suburbs are an accident? Do you think automobiles running on gasoline power is an accident? Do you think jobs leaving the inner city is an accident? Do you think Boeing moving towards smaller, direct route planes in the near future is an accident? Do you think the Lockheed design of the JSF winning the gov contract is an accident? Do you think freeways over mass transit was an accident or purely the result of people just happening to move further out and needing them? None of these are accidents. If if makes a lot of money, and is allowed to flood a market place the government at some level had a hand or allowed something to happen in the name of the dollar. Life in the early 2000s is purely a result of this.

    recent frivalous example: HDTV.

    I love HDTV. It looks great, sounds great, etc. But its nothing new. Its nothing that couldn't have been done ten years ago. It had competitors that may have killed it off. BUT, it would do something the government likes which is free up certain bands of the broadcast spectrum as well as make a few companies a lot of money. So now you have the government propping it up from the beginning. Creating hollow deadlines that simply have not been enforced yet. Finally, the marketplace seems to have caught on to it after years of governmental backing.

    As for hydrogen, as many scientists have said, we could have been doing that 10 years ago. Think about it, who is going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars for something they don't have to do immediately? I don't know how old you were in the late 80s or very early 90s, but there were some super fuel efficient cars. Especially Geos, Hondas and the smaller Fords. Certain maintenance requirements allowed the cars to maintain this. More strict emissions testing. Different world. Mid-to-late 90s these started to dissappear. If I'm Exxon-Mobil or Petronas I'm all over the governments of the world to make sure my product remains at the forefront. To keep regulation just lax enough that sufficient amounts of oil are being burned off by each vehicle. I'm pandering Honda or GM to follow my pace of alternative fuel development. Do you think this didn't happen? Do you think it was a marketplace accident that SUVs and trucks(bigger trucks) became so popular? We were pretty much told we needed these things thru ads.

    One of my Federal Policy professors once said, "If the government wanted us to all smoke marijuana next year, you'd start seeing studies of the health benefits and commercials about the greatness of marijuana. It would be on the next ballot." or something to that effect. Point is, there are no big accidents, especially when it comes to technology.

  2. #852
    High-Rise Member Foucault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Dallas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by drumguy8800
    car companies should accept the responsibility of creating better cars without the government's influence.
    They should, but corporations never have the public good at heart. We have to elect officials to tell them to do it. The market is starting to demand hybrid cars to some extent, but there's no reason to wait until oil supplies run out. And just for fun, an article on oil dependence:

    American oil dependency risks world war- it happened in Japan

    Gal Luft, Global Security Institute Analyst, LA Times, February 2, 2004

    Sixty-seven years ago, oil-starved Japan embarked on an aggressive expansionary policy designed to secure its growing energy needs, which eventually led the nation into a world war. Today, another Asian power thirsts for oil: China. While the U.S. is absorbed in fighting the war on terror, the seeds of what could be the next world war are quietly germinating. With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal 8% to 10% a year, China, already a net oil importer, is growing increasingly dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto sales grew 70% and its oil imports were up 30% from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By 2030, China is expected to have more cars than the U.S. and import as much oil as the U.S. does today. Dependence on oil means dependence on the Middle East, home to 70% of the world's proven reserves. With 60% of its oil imports coming from the Middle East, China can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines of the tumultuous region. Its way of forming a footprint in the Middle East has been through providing technology and components for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to unsavory regimes in places such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. A report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress to monitor U.S.-China relations, warned in 2002 that "this arms trafficking to these regimes presents an increasing threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East." The report concludes: "A key driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade." Optimists claim that the world oil market will be able to accommodate China and that, instead of conflict, China's thirst could create mutual desire for stability in the Middle East and thus actually bring Beijing closer to the U.S. History shows the opposite: Superpowers find it difficult to coexist while competing over scarce resources. The main bone of contention probably will revolve around China's relations with Saudi Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil. The Chinese have already supplied the Saudis with intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and they played a major role 20 years ago in a Saudi-financed Pakistani nuclear effort that may one day leave a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Taliban-type regime in Riyadh or Islamabad.

  3. #853
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575

    Long Interesting Read

    Going Deep
    The Cowboys want to move back to Fair Park--so, there goes the neighborhood?
    BY ROBERT WILONSKY - robert.wilonsky@dallasobserver.com

    LINK: http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...l/1/index.html


    Sorry, it was way to long to post.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  4. #854
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    GAH! That thing is huge. I'm proud though, I read it all....
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  5. #855
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    yeah, twas a long long long read. Thoughts ?
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  6. #856
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    Not really, she pretty much covered everything. There were so many angles presented.. or.. mini-stories, that it's hard to comment. All I can say is that I hope this Fair Park thing goes through.. economic development is an exciting thing, especially in an area that drastically needs it. One thing I've always wondered is.. must there be a poor class? For a country to remain stable, must there always be someone living in the grit? Can it all be polished, clean, and fancy? I wish Dallas was.. but I've always wondered if it was even possible.. I suppose that if there are no more 10k income people, then 20k will be considered the poverty line.. (isn't it 14k right now..?), then 30k, then 40k.. because of both inflation and social perspective. Social perspective being, there have to be the poor, poorer, and poorest people.. and the rich, richer, and perots. But do the poor have to be poor..? Can't Dallas just have.. no low-income.. and all middle-class and high-class residents? ><.

    That's cool that they have the highest-volume Subway. I love Subway.
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  7. #857
    Skyscraper Member barrycb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    "Will there be change if the Dallas Cowboys come?" Hicks asks. "Yes, there will be significant change. Will all of the changes that occur please everyone in this community? Absolutely not. More likely than not, some people will be displaced. More likely than not, some business will be displaced--not so much because the Dallas Cowboys need the land, but because it will spur economic development, and other economic interests will come in to replace the existing economic interests and character of the residential neighborhood. Change and growth are painful...Will some fall by the wayside? Probably. Will it have a greater benefit, though, to the community? Absolutely."

    Someone who actually gets it!

  8. #858
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    212
    drum: good question. I'm no expert on this issue, but I am inclined to think that a city like Dallas will always, out of necessity, have low-income residents. I think the goal should be to make sure that our low-income residents have adequate housing, decent healthcare, etc.

  9. #859
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    Quote Originally Posted by barrycb
    Someone who actually gets it!
    Amen. Just because something is historical or has some kind of emotional attachment to somebody doesn't mean it needs to be preserved.. I would certainly be opposed to destroying historical or architectural gems, but.. I really could care less if old, crappy buildings that are ugly get imploded.. and moved for better development..
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  10. #860
    The smartest gal in town! trolleygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Parkdale
    Posts
    3,274
    I an on my way todo what I love most to do on Thursdays- find a dark corner somewhere and read the Observer- a time honored tradistion. I'll post my comments, if any, later. Wilosnsky's father owns a car repair store on Second Ave, so he would know about the neighborhood.

  11. #861
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,290
    This is my sociological opinion, but there only HAVE to be poor because certain segments of society have an economic interest in it. There ARE poor, but there don't HAVE to be poor in a modern society. Of course we can't control motivations, hard work or just sheer bad luck or circumstance, so there would PROBABLY always be some poorer than others. Its simply a choice our society makes as a whole through money(types and uses of taxation)

    My other comment about the article would be:

    As much as I love the poor, old neighborhood I grew up in and its beautiful creeks, super diverse population, and classic old farmhouses and churches, I would love for something to come in and reinvent it. Displace people? Pay the real FAIR MARKET VALUE and they can move where they'd like. I'd tell my mom to go get a nice condo, then I wouldn't have to mow her yard anymore

    but what will be considered FMV? I'm hoping the right thing is done and the land prices speculatively rise as they would anywhere else. Maybe its why the city has been vocal. The Cowboys could have quietly snuck in and got the land for nothing.
    Last edited by rantanamo; 27 May 2004 at 07:32 PM.

  12. #862
    Lakewooder Lakewooder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lakewood - Junius Heights
    Posts
    5,440
    Maybe the Cowboys have already been snapping up property or it is being optioned from Fair Park (some of y'all keep saying FP has been buying up the burned out bungalows, collapsing shotgun shacks and vacant lots around there)

  13. #863
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,290
    Very possible. I imagine once this is learned though, occupied land would really see a rise in market value.

  14. #864
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,703
    In America, there will always be poor. It's possible to have relatively no poor population, though -- Japan is almost all middle-class, and there really are no poverty stricken neighborhoods. There are a few homeless people, but they don't make up enough of a percentage in Japan to even be of note. It's amazing.

    Anyway, this is kind of harsh, but my thought on the matter is: they're poor. They don't get to choose where they get to live. It's sad, but it's the truth. Expensive land, if they sell, can help them and their families. But America is a capitalist country where money is king (whether that is right, morally, can be debated elsewhere)... the poor don't get to pick and choose where they get to live. Privellages like that are grantd to those with economic assets. Again, no comment on whether any of this is right, just analyzing the way America works.

    I'm fine with people getting displaced out of Fair Park. It's an area that should cater to everyone. Nice areas cater to everyone who is considerate of those around them, crime-ridden areas do not. To make the Fair Park area nice, it must go through a total economic change. That means displacing many, maybe even most, of its current residents. It's as simple as that, and far better than the alternative. I don't see gangs going into Fair park and appreciating the historical significance of the architecture. I could, however, see a private school field trip walking a few blocks (one day, when a privte school is built in the area) walking in and examining it for their art history class. College students for History, art, or what not discovering new bits of the area that have been there since before their grandparents were born. If displacing some people, who will not even notice a change in their quality of life, is necessary, then I'm 100% for that dispacement, politcal correctness be damned.

  15. #865
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,290
    That's Japan's societal, I imagine lawful, and governmental choice for today. A result of unique social conditions and development. I wonder if things would be the same if they had a similar history to the US as far as immigration and slavery and their aftermaths have developed.
    Last edited by rantanamo; 28 May 2004 at 03:16 AM.

  16. #866
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    I've heard it twice in the last two days and once from the Mayor's mouth in an interview on the Ticket. One reason the county will probably not have the vote in November is because they don't want the liberals coming out of the woodwork who would not normally show up during election time and vote for the new stadium, then turn the page and vote a straight democratic ticket.

  17. #867
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    And it sound like the Mayor still hates the AAC deal. For one, it doesn't generate ANY money for the city because the idiots that were on the council back then allowed all the earnings from the AAC to go to the owners and the city doesn't make a penny off of it.

    And Laura Miller sounds adamant to make sure that doesn't happen again. She said again that without the right deal, they can stay in Irving. And Jones wants all the earnings to go into his pocket.

    Why can't these stupid idiotic greedy self-absorbed owners just build the stadiums themselves. Jones is worth a billion. And if these stadiums are cashcows then he will get his money back and more.

    Heck, Right now I don't care if they moved to Frisco. I don't go to their games anyway. My couch is just fine and its free. I understand everyone's reason for DTD and I am certainly for that.

    Do you realize the AAC is sending lawyers(I think or someone) to argue against the Cowboy stadium because the AAC has the right in their agreement to bar any developements for 30 YEARS around DTD that might steal away major events like the new Stadium might do? At least that is what I understood this morning for Laura Miller

  18. #868
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedsjr
    I've heard it twice in the last two days and once from the Mayor's mouth in an interview on the Ticket. One reason the county will probably not have the vote in November is because they don't want the liberals coming out of the woodwork who would not normally show up during election time and vote for the new stadium, then turn the page and vote a straight democratic ticket.
    Isn't it sad that politics work that way?
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  19. #869
    High-Rise Member Foucault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Dallas
    Posts
    835
    It is sad, but in Dallas, that is exactly the way politics work. Some positions aren't even contested by Democratic candidates for that reason. That and FOX News and Belo.

  20. #870
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    I thought Belo owned the rights to Dallas?

  21. #871
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Wait.....

    Did you hear that?


    I think i hear apathy all across Dallas.

  22. #872
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,290
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedsjr
    And it sound like the Mayor still hates the AAC deal. For one, it doesn't generate ANY money for the city because the idiots that were on the council back then allowed all the earnings from the AAC to go to the owners and the city doesn't make a penny off of it.

    And Laura Miller sounds adamant to make sure that doesn't happen again. She said again that without the right deal, they can stay in Irving. And Jones wants all the earnings to go into his pocket.

    Why can't these stupid idiotic greedy self-absorbed owners just build the stadiums themselves. Jones is worth a billion. And if these stadiums are cashcows then he will get his money back and more.

    Heck, Right now I don't care if they moved to Frisco. I don't go to their games anyway. My couch is just fine and its free. I understand everyone's reason for DTD and I am certainly for that.

    Do you realize the AAC is sending lawyers(I think or someone) to argue against the Cowboy stadium because the AAC has the right in their agreement to bar any developements for 30 YEARS around DTD that might steal away major events like the new Stadium might do? At least that is what I understood this morning for Laura Miller
    Miller hates the AAC deal because her side lost. Maybe HER city does not make a huge profit from the AAC directly(I believe the city is being paid something each year if I recall the whole debate correctly), but is she to argue that the AAC has not brought national exposure, tax revenue from gameday sales(restaurants, parking, DART riding, patronizing downtown) and event that simply would not have seen the light of day in Dallas? They could have built this thing in Frisco, and people could fly into DFW and do their patronizing there.

    I think she simply doesn't understand the importance of such things. I know we like to get into the exact economics of why it shouldn't happen, or who should make money or what, but at the basic social and psychological level we are talking about the greatest stadium for the greatest team in the greatest sport in the greatest football state in the United States of America. You cannot equate this to the AAC or ballpark. We love those guys, but this is different.

    The AAC lawyers can do what they like, but what can they prove that a Cowboys stadium will steal? They are limited to only 20,000 seats. Final Four = never at the AAC. Large concert events = never at the AAC. Super Bowl = never at the AAC. The two would really have nothing in common and I'd like to see them prove that a DT stadium would be harmful. Look at the last Superbowl at Reliant and realize that the Toyota Center actually got events from this. Good luck council.

  23. #873
    The smartest gal in town! trolleygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Parkdale
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    Isn't it sad that politics work that way?
    I think its sad that the Republicans are so stupid and paranoid. In case they haven't noticed, the black folks in Dallas vote all the time, not just when there'es a stadium deal on the ballot.

  24. #874
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    I believe that the city makes $1 million off of AAC every year, if I'm not mistaken.

    Last night I had a dream that the Stars moved to Los Angeles and I was at a stars game and they just up and left..

    so, that was odd...
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  25. #875
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    First off, I don't understand all the economics either myself.

    Secondly, I think Mayor Millers position is that the deal that the city made with the Victory doesn't make money for the city.

    And Thirdly, I don't believe Mayor Miller is out to try to screw Dallas and I frankly trust her and what she is saying about the AAC and the Cowboy stadium. Unlike maybe most of you, my knowledge of Dallas is suburbanite deep. And since she has become Mayor, as a suburbanite, I believe Dallas has finally landed on the right tracks. And suburbinites rules this area, whether you like it or not. And if one suburbanite, like myself, see a better change happening in Dallas, then there must be alot more behind me agreeing with me because I like to consider myself a judge of good and bad characters. And I frankly think Miller is bringing a positive attitude about Dallas to the suburbanites. And that should count for something.

  26. #876
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    Quote Originally Posted by trolleygirl
    I think its sad that the Republicans are so stupid and paranoid. In case they haven't noticed, the black folks in Dallas vote all the time, not just when there'es a stadium deal on the ballot.
    You absolutely right TG. The Democrats would do the same thing though if the shoe were on the other foot...if you catch my drift. Sometimes politics are just plain bad.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  27. #877
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    GC,

    Sure they would, but you would be hearing about it everyday on talk radio if that happened 24/7 asking for a public outcry against this.

    I find it pathetic that the conservative talk shows are not up in arms about this. This would be their moment to show they can be bi-partisan.....yeah right.

    That's my beef with this. butt-kissing republican talk show host quiet on the subject.

  28. #878
    The smartest gal in town! trolleygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Parkdale
    Posts
    3,274
    Mike-
    Why does it matter what the suburbanites think about anything that goes on inside the City limits of Dallas? Unless they are actually affecting some sort of change or doing something positive for Dallas, I could care less. All the suburbanites can think and think and think really hard and really good, happy thouhgts about how good our Mayor is for Dallas, but at the end of the day, Dallas has to balance Dallas' budget and Dallas can't do that with Garland's property taxes.

    Now, if you live in Mesquite and own rental property or a business in Dallas, then you are certainly doing something positive for Dallas (well, most cases-then there are the slumlords that leave Dallas neighborhoods in shambles), and if I were Mayor I would care about your opinion, however, you should at least meet me halfway and vote in Dallas or contribute to my campaign. Short of that, you can all into the Ticket all day long and scream and yell and rant about your problems, I'll continue to smile and say,"Thank you, Mike, for your call. Next caller."

  29. #879
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    mike.. did you just call Fort Worth a suburb? *tears well up*.

    I think you more or less said that you have a suburbanite view, as in, you aren't in with all the local politics and crap.. but still. that meant a lot. *cracks up.* nevermind.. im kidding..
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  30. #880
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    Quote Originally Posted by trolleygirl
    Mike-
    Why does it matter what the suburbanites think about anything that goes on inside the City limits of Dallas? Unless they are actually affecting some sort of change or doing something positive for Dallas, I could care less. All the suburbanites can think and think and think really hard and really good, happy thouhgts about how good our Mayor is for Dallas, but at the end of the day, Dallas has to balance Dallas' budget and Dallas can't do that with Garland's property taxes.

    Now, if you live in Mesquite and own rental property or a business in Dallas, then you are certainly doing something positive for Dallas (well, most cases-then there are the slumlords that leave Dallas neighborhoods in shambles), and if I were Mayor I would care about your opinion, however, you should at least meet me halfway and vote in Dallas or contribute to my campaign. Short of that, you can all into the Ticket all day long and scream and yell and rant about your problems, I'll continue to smile and say,"Thank you, Mike, for your call. Next caller."
    TG, I agree with you on most of that but not all of that. If suburbanites feel that Dallas is getting better in terms of crime, museums/cultural affairs, shopping, etc and decide to spend their time and money here -> then their opinions definitely matter to some degree. Kind of like the "image" problem of DISD causing the middle class to flee. I know it sounds silly but it is true. Unfortunately, image and perception mean a lot more than it should and a lot more than people like to admit.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  31. #881
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,703
    Suburbans will never fix Dallas, though I agree that a more positive light must be cast on Dallas as far as they see. Still, mike, just because you feel that way doesn't mean most suburbans do. Most that I know either a) didn't know Miller was mayor or b) knew only that she was a royal bitch. I, too, think that she is pretty good... but just because we feel that way doesn't mean most people do. You're far more involved with Dallas affairs than the vast majority of suburbans. And, what can I say, more intellegent (after all, you agree with me ). Just kidding, of course, but in shor I don't think most suburbans feel one way or the other, which is just as good as disagreeing with you.

  32. #882
    LH Copycat Columbus Civil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    LH
    Posts
    5,588
    I guess when I move to Frisco I won't be welcome on here anymore.
    Dallas uber alles

  33. #883
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Columbus Civil
    I guess when I move to Frisco I won't be welcome on here anymore.
    Nope!

    You aren't really going to move there are you?
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  34. #884
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by drumguy8800
    mike.. did you just call Fort Worth a suburb? *tears well up*.

    I think you more or less said that you have a suburbanite view, as in, you aren't in with all the local politics and crap.. but still. that meant a lot. *cracks up.* nevermind.. im kidding..
    No. before i moved to Fort Worth, I have lived in the suburbs only.


    TG, Without the suburbanites Dallas is no where as big as it is today. It would be just another Tyler, Texas.

  35. #885
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    Quote Originally Posted by columbus civil
    I guess when I move to Frisco I won't be welcome on here anymore.
    He's been talking about moving for a while.. you aren't seriously, are you!? If you do.. arg..
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  36. #886
    Lakewooder Lakewooder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lakewood - Junius Heights
    Posts
    5,440
    IF Dallas is Tyler, does that make Fort Worth Longview?...or is Dallas Midland and Fort Worth Odessa?

  37. #887
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedsjr
    TG, Without the suburbanites Dallas is no where as big as it is today. It would be just another Tyler, Texas.
    or worse.........Houston


    j/k

  38. #888
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    212
    civ--why in the world would you want to move to Frisco, if you don't mind me asking?

  39. #889
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    i think he's kidding. if he's not, we should ask troy to suspend his account. .. just kidding..
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  40. #890
    High-Rise Member Foucault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Dallas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedsjr
    [Dallas] would be just another Tyler, Texas [without surburbanites].
    Why? Because without suburbs, Dallas would be five times as dense and much weathier?
    Dallas official 2000 population: 1,188,580
    Tyer official 2000 popuation: 83,650

  41. #891
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    229
    Jerry really could care less about the City of Dallas, he is like most other wealthy persons in the area, simply using the area to make himself more money. people move to the area, often work in the City of Dallas, but move to HP/UP, Frisco, Plano, etc., they pay there taxes to those school districts, complain about congestion, and thumb their nose at the City of Dallas. Dallas is still the 900 pound gorilla in the area however. I think it is time that the City start strong arming some of these suburbs that lure away perspective companies. That having been said, this is what I think about all this stadium business. I love the Cowboys, I also like the idea of the stadium actually being in the city of Dallas, however, I can see 450 million of the counties money being spent in better ways than a stadium which will have mixed results at best. what are the reasons for people choosing the subarbs rather than the city of Dallas, crime rate, schools, etc.. lets put our money there. what makes a great city is not where its sports venues are, sure it helps a small bit, but not much. what makes people want to live here, is the life they feel the city can provide for their family.lets put more money into magnet schools for the few kids in DISD that actually give a s**t, lets clean up neighborhoods, and the police force. lets put more money into attracting businesses, funding the DCCCD, etc. i can think of quite a few ways half a billion dollars could be better spent. if we are going to tax out of towners lets at least tax them to a better end than a stadium for a very wealthy man. now that my rant is done, yes i am for the stadium being built, my 1st choice was for DT, then Fair park, guys if we are wanting to clean up and fix Fair Park and the area, why do we need some gimmick stadium as an incentive. do we really care about the area or do we just need another reason to go there. ok i am done.

  42. #892
    dallacentric drumguy8800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    75154
    Posts
    3,744
    great post, pariah.. Dallas County should bar off all other relocations except for a renovation of Texas Stadium and Fair Park, and cut the possible funding down to 1/3.. Then we'd only be spending 200 mil. And how come Dallas County would have to pay for the FP site, but not the Irving site?
    [ xvisionx.com 13 - my photo gallery + journal ] - be sure to check out my new interactive downtown dallas picture map.

  43. #893
    High-Rise Member noelamador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas TX
    Posts
    906
    more roadblocks for new stadium

    AAC operators threatened by Cowboys' proposal
    Arena concerned new stadium would host more than Cowboys
    11:40 PM CDT on Sunday, June 6, 2004
    By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News


    There's room in Dallas for three major professional sports teams but only one arena.

    That's the message that American Airlines Center, the home of the Dallas Mavericks and Dallas Stars, is sending to the Dallas Cowboys and the city of Dallas. AAC's operators are concerned that a new Dallas Cowboys stadium, proposed for Fair Park, would aim to host concerts, family events and games that typically take place in the Uptown arena.

    In an interview last week, AAC's operators said that arrangement would violate a 1998 contract the city signed with the basketball and hockey teams. That agreement forbids the city from constructing or participating in the development of another arena for 30 years. "Our agreement does not allow municipal dollars to be spent to build a facility that competes with American Airlines Center," said Brad Mayne, the president and CEO of Center Operating Co., which manages AAC. Asked if Center Operating Co. would sue the city over the issue, Mr. Mayne said: "We would take whatever action would be necessary. But we are nowhere near that point."

    The Dallas Cowboys have stated their desire to build a 75,000-seat stadium at Fair Park. Mr. Mayne said AAC supports a new Cowboys stadium but opposes its use as an arena. Under the Cowboys' proposal, Dallas County would own the stadium, and the land would be donated by the city of Dallas. Dallas Mayor Laura Miller has said the city might invest between $20 million and $25 million in infrastructure to improve the park and nearby transportation network. Ms. Miller said city attorneys are researching AAC's warning, which she said was delivered two weeks ago to City Hall by Cowboys lobbyists and lawyers. The mayor, who opposed the city deal that built American Airlines Center, did not seem overly concerned.

    The 1998 noncompetition agreement also applies to Reunion Arena, which is owned by the city. That arena can host only events that AAC has turned down. "I have felt that it was very unfair for them to dictate what we can and cannot have over at the old arena," Ms. Miller said. "Now they are saying that even talking about building a stadium could be a problem because of their contract." Rich Dalrymple, a Cowboys spokesman, declined to comment in detail about AAC's concerns. The football stadium "would be a venue that would be complementary to the AAC," he said.

    "What we have proposed is a domed and air-conditioned stadium that would not only host the Dallas Cowboys but also be an attractive home to Super Bowls, Bowl Championship Series games, Final Fours and other mega events," Mr. Dalrymple said. Dallas County officials have been studying the potential problem but said the city of Dallas must resolve the question with the Cowboys and AAC. The county was not involved in the agreement that built American Airlines Center. "You would certainly think the uses of the two would possibly be competition for the same events," said Allen Clemson, the administrator for county commissioners. "These issues will be absolutely resolved before you take a multimillion dollar project to the voters."

    A similar drama is playing out in New York, where Madison Square Garden is fighting a proposal to build a stadium for the New York Jets. The Garden's owners, who benefited mightily from tax exemptions, are concerned about the competition the stadium would bring. Dallas' basketball and hockey clubs suspect the Cowboys will build a venue in which seats could be mechanically reconfigured to accommodate events that draw smaller audiences.

    Houston's been there

    That's the case in Houston, where Reliant Stadium regularly hosts events that would otherwise go to the basketball arena, the Toyota Center. In those cases, the stadium is configured to seat between 35,000 and 40,000 fans. "I would clearly think they [the Cowboys] are looking at a multipurpose building that could host events that typically are in AAC," said Oliver Luck, CEO of the Harris County Houston Sports Authority, which built Houston's sports venues.

    Mr. Mayne and Jim Lites, the president of the Stars, mentioned two such events: the Dallas Desperados and the National Finals Rodeo. The Desperados, the Arena Football League team owned by Jerry Jones, now play at AAC, where they draw between 9,000 and 10,000 fans. The Cowboys have told Mr. Mayne they would like the Desperados to play in the new stadium at Fair Park, Mr. Mayne said. Las Vegas is home to the National Finals Rodeo, but the Jones family has approached the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association about holding the event at the Cowboys stadium. AAC would also like to host the event, which draws about 16,800 fans.

    Mr. Mayne and Mr. Lites said they are particularly concerned about concerts and family events, which help keep AAC busy. "If they go after Prince ... then we are into a situation where they are directly competing against us for events we do have," Mr. Mayne said. Competition, Mr. Mayne said, would help only promoters, who could bargain down the price of renting a venue. Fans would suffer, he said. "If we lose revenue because events go someplace else, we have no choice but to raise our prices," Mr. Mayne said. In Houston, two events – Disney on Ice and the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey circus – that were held in the old basketball arena went to Reliant Stadium. In Dallas, those events are held at AAC.

    Beyond games

    Mr. Luck said football teams – which play only about 10 games a year at home – have to pursue more events to justify the "enormous public investment" in the stadium. "The economics for a football stadium are the worst in terms of filling up the venue," Mr. Luck said. "All these new football stadiums have been designed to be multipurpose arenas." AAC also has asked the Cowboys for more detail about their stadium, Mr. Mayne said. But the Cowboys, he said, have been guarded with information. "We don't hear: 'No, we are not doing that,' " Mr. Mayne said. Mr. Dalrymple, the Cowboys spokesman, responded sarcastically when told about Mr. Mayne's comment: "Are we obligated to share information with them?"

  44. #894
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,137
    I'm having a hard time with this. So, now, the AAC is saying municipal support can only be given to another stadium after the AAC is obsolete? How does a city get suckered into an exclusivity agreement like that. When they were working out finances for AAC, did anyone think that someone might want the city to spend money to fix up the Cotton Bowl - also possibly challengeable by AAC? It's poison.

  45. #895
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,290
    Reasons to hate Dallas. This whole Cowboys situation.

  46. #896
    is gone.
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    77023
    Posts
    5,254
    ^ Werd.

  47. #897
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    I heard about this two weeks ago on the Laura Miller show on 570 at 7:30 on thursday. That's day was when i realized it probably wil stay in Irving. At least, Dallas can say they didn't lose it since they haven't had it for a long time.

    The one thing that bums me out is no immediate Rail Access site.

  48. #898
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    ^ This is crap.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  49. #899
    The Urban Pragmatist Mballar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,953
    Let them try to sue. I am relatively confident that no judge in Dallas County would side with AAC on this one. Besides, the size of the AAC (Seats about 20,000) would foreclose many opportunities to compete with the new Cowboys stadium which will seat at least 70,000. So, from a fundamental capacity standpoint, the two are not competitors.

    One more thing. . .I don't think that AAC should be abble to tell event promotors/sponsors where they MUST hold their events in Dallas. If it is the Professional Cowboys Rodeo Association wants to have their event in the new cowboys stadium as opposed to AAC they should be able to make that decision for themselves.

  50. #900
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,137
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Mbala
    Let them try to sue. I am relatively confident that no judge in Dallas County would side with AAC on this one. Besides, the size of the AAC (Seats about 20,000) would foreclose many opportunities to compete with the new Cowboys stadium which will seat at least 70,000. So, from a fundamental capacity standpoint, the two are not competitors.

    One more thing. . .I don't think that AAC should be abble to tell event promotors/sponsors where they MUST hold their events in Dallas. If it is the Professional Cowboys Rodeo Association wants to have their event in the new cowboys stadium as opposed to AAC they should be able to make that decision for themselves.
    THanks for that, R.Mbala. It's a pretty poor tactic for AAC folks to force something like this. AAC operators might go to court with this gripe, and leave court with a re-negotiated contract which levels the playing field:
    The 1998 noncompetition agreement also applies to Reunion Arena, which is owned by the city. That arena can host only events that AAC has turned down.
    Still, I dont know how the city could do this to itself, but that agreement seems almost illegal. ---that's my uninformed gut reaction.

    How much public money was donated to the construction of AAC? And this was brought about because the basketball/hockey team owners threatened to move to suburban venues. Despite the public disdain of J.Jones, going against the public's love of the Cowboys is the wrong battle.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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