Tamtagon,
Are you suggesting that the view of downtown from Rowlett/Garland is better than the view of downtown from Cedars/Trinity River (in terms of TV shots in particular)?
Bottom line, the stadium will go wherever the Cowboys would make the most financial gain. Most municipalities would settle for a break even investment, over the lifetime of the venue, but the Cowboys are in business to make money. Since a manucipality should continue to benefit from the development even after the team moves on.
One good thing coming out having the Cowboys play in Rowlett/Garland, is, well, the view of town, but also it may provide incentive for a professional football team with a downtown stadium in Fort Worth. Personally, I would love two pro teams in DFW.
Tamtagon,
Are you suggesting that the view of downtown from Rowlett/Garland is better than the view of downtown from Cedars/Trinity River (in terms of TV shots in particular)?
So is this all about what other cities think of Dallas argument again?
The damn Stadium should be put where its best for the people here. Not what is best for the people in NYC. Because this is certainly who you probably think of. You want to become what you can't be.
For the people here in this metroplex area, with the current conditions of mobility, Downtown Dallas is the best place. But maybe by the time this thing is built, Irving Texas might be the best place to put it. The plans haven't been really drawn up yet for both sites for any of us to know what is the most reasonable. I'm not anti-Dallas. When it comes to the Cowboys, i am about putting it where is best for its fans. Not what is best for "Urban Dallas". Cowboys are much bigger and important than Urban Dallas. Sorry folks. This is the way it is.
Sincerely,
Die hard Cowboy/Maverick fan.
Absolutely not, jsoto3, but it's nice to have a nice body of water in the money shot.
I think it would be retarded to build the stadium in the eastern edge of DFW, but something will probablly end up there. New and Improved highways, train access to the rest of the city, expensive homes, that area is just waiting for a big attraction. Something may be there already, I'm unfamiliar with that part of town, but it is pretty.
I still think Fair Park is the best home for the Cowboys. I think 'the people' would be best served, the Elm-Main-Commerce corridor would be balanced - making the likelihood of additional trolly/rail service sweeping from Love Field, through uptown, downtown and deep ellum to Fair Park - and back toward Love Field along Haskell and Lemmon.
It simply baffles me why anyone would want to build this development (as proposed) anywhere BUT in downtown Dallas. One has but to look around at what other cities have successfully done and you'll clearly see that a central location is the only way to maximize the economic impact of one of the biggest single expenditures any city will ever make.
Wow, so now we've got Irving and Rowlett/Garland in the mix. Hey, how about DeSoto or Mansfield while we're at it. I'm sure they have lots of virgin LAND, too. And don't forget The Colony...it's on a LAKE!!!
Baffled, I tell you...
Mikedsjr, though we don't often agree, you usually at least make sound points that are simply from a 180 degree different perspective of most of us. But saying that one professional sports team is more important than Urban Dallas (which, if accomplished to it's full potential, would benefit hundreds of thousands more, most of whom would even be in the suburbs, than are benefitted by a simple football team). Maybe your comment was a joke, and if it was then I apologize, but saying that any football team, or any sports team, is more important than the goal of a truely sucessful, urban Dallas core and the consequential domino effect that it could have over the whole metroplex is really unfounded and ignorant.Originally posted by mikedsjr
I'm not anti-Dallas. When it comes to the Cowboys, i am about putting it where is best for its fans. Not what is best for "Urban Dallas". Cowboys are much bigger and important than Urban Dallas. Sorry folks. This is the way it is.
Sorry if this is way off topic, that just really rattled me. I apologize if my comments were too harsh.
Hey B&P,
I think what he was trying to say (correct me if i am wrong mikedsjr) is that the majority of the cowboy fans in the area care more about the team, it's success, ticket prices, and proximity to them (should they choose to go) rather than the benefit or "urban dallas".
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
That would matter if "Cowboy Fans" or the Dallas Cowboys organization were footing the entire bill for this proposed development. But clearly they are not - so what benefits the public at large must be considered as well....the majority of the cowboy fans in the area care more about the team, it's success, ticket prices, and proximity to them (should they choose to go) rather than the benefit or "urban dallas".
good point and I agree. I guess the point i was trying to make is that most people don't care about "urban dallas". Does that make sense? I know people care about Dallas...it's the "Urban Dallas" that they may not.
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
Ok, yes, if that is what you meant mikedsjr, then i agree! I was simply afraid that that was his own opinion, and I would have thought that he would realize the importance of urban dallas (along with the importance of urban fort worth) over that of a simple, if popular, entertainment venue.
true, they care more about not parking too close to the other hummer in the grocery parking lot in the suburbs... most fans just want the stadium closer to them, so they can get back to their suburban home faster. it's not as if they are attempting to "hurt" the central city, they just want it close to them.
as far as the whole rowlett thing... ha! i think this is incredibly funny... yes, the money is out there in those homes, and the gbt is going to spur quite a bit... but can you imagine this huge stadium in the middle of homes??? the lake would be great, but so will the trinity river - and the proposed lakes - DT...
we definitely should get other cities in dallas county to fight for this... make DTD a more reasonable and justifiable location.
I just saw the channel 8 report on the Rowlett site. The site they are looking at would be a whole different ball of wax. This would be closer to HWY 66, and would be super suburban. Almost rural. Not nearly as beautiful as the land along I-30, but not horrible. Their actual site would actually be near their light rail stop and Rowlett High School. The land is definitely there, and I imagine the lake could really be spruced up. I'm sorry though Mike, I'm gonna take the view of an outsider here. This area is zoned for office space and big box. I don't think it would be impressive to an outsider at all, or the best for anyone in the metroplex. The report also said the Cowboys will pick a site in the spring, and still want downtown or Las Colinas.
As far as what outsiders think, like it or not is a big issue. If they are talking superbowls, Final Fours, BCS, RRS, large amusement type conventions, etc then outsider perception must be part of the equation. The stadium and surrounding truly needs to be a showcase because outsiders will make a lot of the money during the big event. The AAC is a prime example of this. If the Big XII and its fans aren't impressed by the presentation, then it's not coming back. Of course, there is another side to this, which is working for your community as well. But it's not impossible to do both. Most of the recent venues built in the sports world have done a great job.
I still don't think this is as big as Boundless can be for the metroplex. Race fans spend a lot of money, and come in big numbers. Imagine a second NASCAR date, CART, F-1, ALMS, MotoGP, AMA, WSBK, touring cars, Trans Am, etc, etc. Wish it was in Dallas County, because I'd definitely vote for such a venue to use public money.
This will never happen... I think the City of Rowlett accomplished their mission of geting people to talk about the City. Because of this push to attract the Cowboys they are now on the radar screen of many developers who would have never looked that way to start! Tons of free pub for Rowlett! Pretty smart if you think about it!
So, idea is near Park & Ride in Rowlett and future rail?
Hard-core detailed map at DART.org (PDF file):
http://www.dart.org/pdfmaps/quadd09Oct03.pdf
Rockwall Co., here we come. Maybe their wet-dry election for the Northern half is a lock with this publicity in the Dallas side of Rowlett!Maybe Sherman-Denison should pitch a proposal, also!
Rowlett will never happen, simply because it will alienate the west side of the metroplex.
Oh, and near by their new high school?
The Rowlette plan splits the suburban support between Northwest and Northeast Dallas County. A few hundred-thousand people live in Rowlette/Garland/Mesquite/Sachse.
Ask people what they hate most about the current location of Texas Stadium. Most people will say the traffic getting in and out of the game. The DT plan needs to sell the rail factor. From a transportation point of view the stadium needs to be close to the hub of the rail system. Not many people will be willing to ride into downtown, change lines, then ride back out to Irving.
I agree that many people don't care about helping urban Dallas with this project. I actually still meet people who live north of city who don't know where McKinney Avenue is located.
By the way, not sure if I missed it or not, but - what (if anything) has been said or theorized about Irving's intentions w/Texas Stadium after all this is over some day?
Surely, there are still tons of interesting options.
I guess that is a better way to put. Yes, i would agree with that. And i have no problem with the people of Dallas not wanting to have a tax on "tourism" to pay for this. The Cowboys should be the ones to flip the bill. But that is not the way things are done. I'm just curious if there is a way for the 4 major counties here to do a vote for a combined tax for this to make the tax lower on tourist.Originally posted by GCarey
Hey B&P,
I think what he was trying to say (correct me if i am wrong mikedsjr) is that the majority of the cowboy fans in the area care more about the team, it's success, ticket prices, and proximity to them (should they choose to go) rather than the benefit or "urban dallas".
I have no problem with it being downtown, because i believe at this time, it benefits the fans of the Cowboys for it to be there. With the rail system, there is no question that this will attract more people to the stadium than the current situation. I'm just open to any other possibility, if it is better for the fans. I just can't imagine what that is, but the plans haven't been drawn up yet for us to know that.
I'm not going to reveal my opinion on this, but why do many feel a team should pay for their home? They could say, well, the Cowboys reap the benefits. But couldn't there be the argument that the host city/region would benefit from: the contracts doled out to build and operate it, having a tourist draw in your city, the revenue and sales tax generated in areas like Deep Ellum and the West End? Does not the community actually make more money than the actual team does? I'm not taking a side, but I began to wonder this after attending the Big XII tournet last year. Downtown was absolutely packed, and people were spending big time. Dallas had to make big off of that event. Or look at the "Stampede" that's here this weekend. Don't these events simply not come without the venue? I have the same conflict with the RRS. If the RRS is actually making Dallas at $25 million per year + The Cotton Bowl game and many other soccer matches and other football games, then wouldn't the city actually be justified in spending $100 million on renovations for a venture that would actually make a bigger return in a 3 year span? I dunno. I hate the way my school is pushing Dallas, but both sides actually have a point. I was really shocked to hear Miller actually admit that the schools should wait to see what happens with Jerry World. I'm rambling. I dunno. Doesn't the city/county have such an interest in making profitable investments? I know, I know it's just football. Even I admit that. But football makes money.
Rantanamo,
Good point about the economic aspect...
Just about every municipality in America has decided they need to subsidize a stadium or arena... they can't ALL be insane, now can they?
word
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
A lot of cities subsidize their teams out of fear of them moving (to the suburbs, like the Stars threatened to do a while back, or another city, like the Browns, Colts, Rams and Raiders did).
I would like to see a detailed financial analysis of money earned by the teams vs. money brought to the cities by the teams before I'm convinced that these teams aren't robbing us blind. Jerry Jones and his ilk didn't get rich by being nice civic-minded guys.
From what i gather, and i could be wrong, most people in here won't vote for it if it isn't downtown. If this is the case, then it appears conditional to your belief that the cities should help pay for it. As long as it benefits the Downtown area. Not whether it benefits the area. But i could be wrong in my perception. My apologies if i am.
That's exactly how I feel, mike. I know that the city or county will pay for most of it anyway, just because "that's the way it's done." And I care more about downtown benefitting than some suburb.
If Dallas county is paying for the stadium, then it should be in a place that is most accessable to the residents of Dallas County.
It is really that simple.
Will Cowboys fans get to go shopping?
By JACQUIELYNN FLOYD / The Dallas Morning News
You've got to admire plucky little Rowlett, which proudly announced last week that it has put itself up against big dogs Dallas and Irving as a site for Jerry Jones' otherworldly billion-dollar Cowboys complex. Dream big, I say. This is Texas!
And you have to admit that Mr. Jones' spectacular vision lends fresh credence to that tired-out "everything's-bigger-here" stereotype. The Cowboys' proposal calls for a deluxe new stadium with a retracting roof that looks like the landing port for the Starship Enterprise.
But there's much, much more: a lakefront hotel, athletic fields, shops and restaurants, museum and a "field house" – kind of a Bronco Bowl on steroids – with bowling, rock climbing, basketball and other participatory sports. I was wowed when Cowboys officials presented their mockups earlier this year. You could spend a week and not see and do everything.
I don't mean to be a cranky old cynic or anything, but we keep getting big sports palaces without seeing much evidence of the promised add-ons. Way back in 1990, the Texas Rangers dazzled baseball fans and host city Arlington with their vision for what we now know and cherish as The Ballpark in Arlington.
The finished product was, as promised, bigger and nicer and had more bathrooms; it also came with an office building overlooking the field, a mini-stadium for youth leagues and an outdoor amphitheater.
But Rangers officials were also quoted by The Dallas Morning News as saying the development would include "a park with shops and restaurants modeled after San Antonio's Riverwalk section." That's the part I'm still waiting for. What good is going to a baseball game if you can't shop at The Gap between innings?
It was quietly announced this week that The Ballpark's one chain restaurant, a TGI Friday's overlooking the field, won't renew its 10-year lease and will close in December. Rangers officials said they expect to land a new tenant for their space before the 2004 season opener.
The handsome American Airlines Center, in its third year of operation, turns a profit. But the 60-acre corridor between the arena and the West End, which was supposed to be a dramatic streetscape of office towers, apartments, toney bistros and upscale stores, still lies fallow.
One New York developer has already pulled the plug on its commitment to that project. The arena's original developer says the "Victory Development" is still in the works, but the slack economy has pushed its first phase back to 2005.
This all leads me to wonder whether it really makes economic sense to hook a shopping mall onto a sports arena. It just seems odd to combine shopping for a sofa with going to a basketball game.
Well, maybe I'm being too cynical, especially where the Cowboys are concerned.
After all, I stand corrected after walking around all summer and predicting that Bill Parcells may be a great coach, but he can't raise the dead. Yet before we knew it, Mr. Parcells had the corpse announcing that it was feeling much better and wanting to go for a walk.
Bernard Weinstein, who is a real economist and director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of North Texas, all of which I am not, thinks maybe the Cowboys really can pull off their billion-dollar football-entertainment theme park.
"It's going to hinge on how well the regional economy is doing," Dr. Weinstein said, "but a Cowboys complex could certainly be a destination" – even when there's not a football game on.
Cowboys honchos have confidently said they intend to start building the giant entertainment complex concurrently with the big football bowl.
"It has to be more than a stadium," said Cowboys vice president Stephen Jones. For $1 billion – including a proposed $400 million in public money – it sure does.
But that's a ways on down the road. First, they have to pick a city, and then the voters of Dallas County have to approve kicking up the sales taxes on hotel rooms and rent cars to help pay for it.
Well, we love our sports here, and we like to dream big. Nobody will be less surprised than I if voters say, you betcha, we want the biggest, most spectacular sports complex since the Colosseum. I'll go out on a limb and say I think Dallas voters will go for it even if the chosen site remains in Irving.
A fabulous new stadium won't surprise me a bit. But as for all that shopping and dining and rock climbing – well, I'll believe it when I see it.
With what appears to be the demise of the lakes in downtown, doesn't it seem like Irving could be the front runner for the lakefront stadium. The have the channels already. There is no building of dams and levees and such for the lake there. Its ready for a tenant.
Jerry wants a lakefront Stadium. And if Rowlett wants to put their name in the basket, what about Grapevine..............wait....that's in Tarrant County. What the hell. If Tarrant County voted for the tax to..........that would suck. What if Dallas county votes on the tax and approves it and builds it in Tarrant County right beside Opryland. Now that would be AWESOME! Horrible traffic wise. So that sucks. Ok. What about.....????......Joe Pool? Nah. Lake Lewisville? worse.
I guess its either Downtown with the downtown skyline and a PATH to look at(see Jim Schutze article) or Irving with channelfront property and the Las Colinas skyline to look at.
Or it could be downtown and Jerry could build his little lake like he planned on doing anyway... and bring in the $$ to make the massive lakes downtown come in. Oh, but wait, that would require foresight on the behalf of Jerry. Guess it won't happen then.
Just found this on D Magazine's Frontburner....
Perhaps the stadium issues/decisions will never actually become stadium issues/decisions!?NEW COWBOY STADIUM
I spoke this morning at the Dallas Planning Council, a group charged with looking at long-term problems such as water and transportation. The subject of the Cowboys' "entertainment zone" came up in the question period. The Cowboys may be doing great on the field, but from the reaction of the audience, Jerry Jones is getting nowhere on his proposal to spend $450 million of the taxpayers' money. - Wick Allison · 09:39 AM
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
An upturn in the local economy in 2004 will make it very easy for county voters to consider $450,000,000 of debt, especially with the a short term marketing campaign which makes it difficult to remember the lean years ushering in the millenium.
It's really not so much about the money for easily swayed Dallas County voters. Timing is crucial for stadium promoters: wait until fall 2004 to get a vote to take advantage of the better economy everyone thinks is coming; a media blitz of the remarkable play-off appearance by the 2003 Cowboys; and most important a winning record at the time of the 2004 vote. A good economy and a successful team will easily see county voters paying extra to make ready a spot downtown. The stadium will be built, the only issue is how much money will the govt contribute.
Let's say the stadium is already in the process of being built. When its done, do you demolish Texas Stadium to allow for new developement to happen there?
I say keep it.
or
Tear it down. That area could become an awesome TOD with DART heading up there soon.
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
tear it down, what an eyesore.
I've only been inside there once, and that was in marching band for football playoffs. Speaking as one who has sat in the seats and have been on the field as well as in the back areas...tear that piece of trash down. No matter what they do to it, Texas Stadium is hopeless. After all, when you get a piece of crap to work with, you can't really improve on it...
What about the history?
Tom Landry. Troy and Emmit. Roger Staubach. God looking down throught the hole in the roof. Tons of memories.
It's too important to tear down. And any extra facilities can only help - what about the Olympics?
Remember how beneficial it turned out that they didn't tear down Reunion. What was that basketball tournament that brought so much $$$ to town? Girls in Reunion and Boys in AAC.
Why not just tear out the old seats and put in more comfortable ones? I remember my dad bought some artificial turf as a souvinier when they replaced it. Surely people would buy the old seats?Originally posted by UrbanLandscape
I've only been inside there once, and that was in marching band for football playoffs. Speaking as one who has sat in the seats and have been on the field as well as in the back areas...tear that piece of trash down. No matter what they do to it, Texas Stadium is hopeless. After all, when you get a piece of crap to work with, you can't really improve on it...
Overall, that stadium could be fixed up nice. Add some trees in those barren parking lots for GCarey and that place could rock.
Wow, four stadiums/arenas, all to be on/or near the DART line. That is a pretty good selling point in my book.
Are there any other cities that have this amenity?
Last edited by boozo; 26 November 2003 at 11:49 AM.
I agree with Boozo on this. The stadium, if not reused as a sports facililty, could be creatively adapted to new uses. Houston, despite its history and an ideas competition that yielded some very interesting proposals, is about to tear down the Astrodome. Seattle already destroyed its beautiful domed stadium. Throughout history cities have found new uses for not only the land on which stadiums sit but also for the stadiums themselves. In Italy colisseums have either been converted to plazas with new structures built right up to their edges or have been converted into housing and shops, integrating themselves with the urban fabric. I think similar things have happened in Japan more recently. Sure, Texas Stadium might be in terrible shape in terms of its finishes and maintenance, but the structure is substantial and can endure much longer. Given its history, the Stadium must live on, not necessarily as a sports palace, but as an urban place with a unique social history and, perhaps, future.
So, since we are all urban enthusiasts here, let's hear some creative ideas for the reuse of not just the land, but also the space of the structure itself. By this I mean that one must not necessarily reuse the physical structure (although one may want to do so), but atleast, somehow, make a proposal that respects the volume/space of the stadium, i.e. the field, the grandstand, the perimeter walls/colums, and the roof. It must somehow convey to our freinds of the future (who will have no memory of the stadium) what once occured on this site.
They could take the top off and throw alot of Fruit in it. And people could sing the Wiggles song "Fruit Salad.....Yummy Yummy".
Serious though, that is a great idea. Maybe take the top off and convert the outer portion apartments and small shops on the first floor. The field could be turned into a park. And the stadium seating area could be restructured to support a mall like shopping center. And the parking lot could be removed and provide a few streets and townhomes.
Last edited by mikedsjr; 26 November 2003 at 01:56 PM.
LOL, that is funny boozo..Originally posted by boozo
Add some trees in those barren parking lots for GCarey and that place could rock.
jsoto, i agree completely
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
Nice idea Mike. That's almost exactly what I was thinking. I am sure there are many more, different ideas . . . .
Cowboys Stadium Search Could Face Delay
Dec 15, 2003 4:05 pm US/Central
CBS 11’s Bud Gillett reports:
A public vote on whether to approve a new stadium site for the Dallas cowboys may be delayed past next year.
That word comes as Dallas county commissioners start picking a legal team to represent them in negotiations with the cowboys.
There’s also an issue of whether the possible Dallas site, which we've learned is along Industrial Boulevard, on the old sportatorium grounds, may have environmental quality problems.
The cowboys want a retractable-domed stadium as the centerpiece of multi-facility, sports-themed development.
They also want Dallas County to help pick up part of the costs through a new tax on hotels and rental cars.
According to county judge Margaret Keliher on Monday, the county began interviewing prospective legal specialists.
“We need counsel that knows what's available, what do you do with naming rights? What do you do if issues come up? How much does the NFL pay, how much do owners pay?”
Two firms got their turns Monday and two more get opportunities Wednesday. But Keliher says even when attorneys get on board there may still be too much to do between now and next November.
“And then the other issue is, do you put this on at the same time as a presidential election?”
Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield says, “there has not been a firm commitment of an election date; first of all we don't know if we're going to get a deal with the cowboys.”
And, the cowboys have still not announced a favored location. Two believed in the running: land in Irving’s Las Colinas, and a site near downtown Dallas along industrial boulevard. It’s near the cedars, with its new development and entertainment areas along south Lamar. But the one-time site of the old sportatorium also reportedly has some environmental quality baggage.
what about:
rennovating the Cotton Bowl over the next couple years into a state of art stadium. When the Cotton Bowl is ready, it becomes the temporary home for the Cowboys during which time the current Texas Stadium begins rennovation becoming the Cowboys dream home for the next 20 years. Could DFW attract the additional activity justifying two 100,000+ seat stadiums? Outside of the Cotton Bowl Classic and the TX-OU shootout, what else happens there?
While having the stadium downtown would be great, I would rather see that undeveloped downtown area cater to high rise residential, hotels and resort facilities taking advantage of the urban forest, Trinity River park and public transportation. It just seems (to me) that a cowboys stadium in the downtown spot would inhabit more favorable neighborhoods, and net out as a negative rather than a positive in the potential of a densily populated urban city.
Interesting spin.
I have thought for some time now that the best way for the city to have a real financial return on the investment in building a park/lake in the Trinity floodplain is the opportunity to attract a great number of high and mid rise retirement facilities. Retired folk, empty nesters - whatever you call them - the people who dont want a yard anymore, rather they are looking for maximum convenience. High rise residency would offer security, and a view. Being downtown, the public transportation would allow viable escape from traffic congestion, THE GREAT TRINITY RIVER PARK is the perfect place to walk your dog and get some (almost) fresh air. You dont have to look far to read how the aging baby boomers are more and more choosing the city over the suburbs, and downtown Dallas is in a unique position to become a major destination for this demographic. Of course, the city would be the biggest winner, because this group of older people tend to care more about keeping things nice, and they have lots of money to spend.
Cowboys seek tax district for stadium
$100 million would pay team for infrastructure; officials express concern
10:22 PM CST on Friday, January 9, 2004
By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews...ium.532ef.html
The Dallas Cowboys, seeking a new stadium built with public dollars, are considering a financing formula similar to the one used to build American Airlines Center five years ago – although much more expensive.
The Cowboys plan to ask local governments for a special taxing district that would raise as much as $100 million beyond the $450 million the team has said it may need, according to Dallas officials.
In a meeting with Dallas City Manager Ted Benavides last month, Cowboys representatives proposed a taxing district that would reimburse the team for the cost of new infrastructure around the stadium, Mr. Benavides said.
"My staff thinks the water, the sewer, the streets, the traffic lights, will be a little over $100 million," Mr. Benavides said.
Some elected officials expressed concern at the suggestion of another big taxing district.
But the Cowboys suggested the district is only part of a larger body of negotiations. Irving, they noted, already has such a taxing district and is promoting its usefulness to the football club.
"It was brought up with both cities," Cowboys spokesman Brett Daniels said. "It is part of the overall due diligence for both sites as we move forward."
The Cowboys appear to be drafting a public-private partnership that would support their $1 billion vision of a year-round sports and entertainment district.
The stadium would cost as much as $650 million. The Cowboys foresee drawing perhaps $400 million of that total from a countywide hotel and car-rental tax.
Irving's offer
In comparison, public funding for American Airlines Center included $125 million in hotel and car rental taxes and $25 million raised through a taxing district.
The team has said it would fund the rest of the development – hotels, restaurants, shops and the like – by itself. But it would desire reimbursement for building the public infrastructure that, in Dallas at least, would turn a shopworn industrial district into a resplendent tourist attraction.
Such taxing districts are known as TIFs, or tax-increment financing districts. As the taxable value of land grows with new development in a TIF, local governments can use the increased tax revenue to rebate some of a developer's costs.
Irving, which is promoting a site in Las Colinas, would probably require fewer public improvements than a downtown Dallas site that abuts the Trinity River. But Irving is still ready to offer as much as $60 million in infrastructure funds.
"They're not going to be able to create a TIF in Dallas that'll be more powerful than the TIF that we've created in Las Colinas," said Irving City Council member Herb Gears.
Dallas Mayor Laura Miller said she was blindsided by the Cowboys' request to create a TIF district and does not favor it. Ms. Miller also opposed the deal that created American Airlines Center.
"In my meeting with them four months ago, they never discussed getting a TIF," Ms. Miller said. "Regardless, I'm not in support at all of TIF money for it."
Mr. Benavides said he anticipated such resistance and would request more details from the Cowboys before directing his staff to further analyze the team's request.
Although a city may contribute funds with a TIF, Dallas County would team up with the Cowboys to build the stadium. That's because county commissioners must negotiate a deal that would allow the team to use hotel and car-rental taxes to build the stadium.
Pointing toward Dallas?
County Commissioner John Wiley Price said the request for a TIF is predictable.
"A TIF would not be uncommon if we talked about Boeing moving here, so what is the difference?" Mr. Price said. "At the end of the day, we'll look at what is best for the taxpayers."
Commissioner Jim Jackson, however, said a TIF could work against the team with voters, who must approve any new taxes.
"It is hard to sell to the public if you are not going to generate any new taxes," Mr. Jackson said.
Over the last week, the Cowboys have held meetings with the mayors of some of the county's smaller cities. Some of those mayors have emerged with the impression that the club would prefer to build in Dallas.
"Everything is probably pointing toward the downtown Dallas location," Duncanville Mayor Glenn Repp said. "I think everybody in the room thought that was the most logical location. Las Colinas is kind of out in a corner."
Goals meeting planned
Mr. Jackson said the Cowboys are getting ahead of themselves by approaching local cities before they show their proposal to Dallas County. He said the county would probably offer its own proposal to the team.
Commissioners are scheduled to discuss their goals for the project at a special meeting Feb. 2.
Ms. Miller criticized the Cowboys for being too secretive with their plans. Still, she said, she believes the team wants to build in Dallas.
"I just think that that's where they want to go," Ms. Miller said. "My hope would be that at some point they will come and tell the citizens of Dallas publicly what it is they're asking for."
Staff writers Eric Aasen and Dave Levinthal and WFAA-TV reporter Chris Heinbaugh contributed to this report.
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
What about the free Super Bowl tickets to te COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? Thoughts on that???
who cares?Originally posted by trolleygirl
What about the free Super Bowl tickets to te COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? Thoughts on that???
interesting view from D's fontburner about DMN's superbowl "houston beats dallas" article... especially interesting since D magazine was overwhelmingly supportive of the AAC back in the day, but sees financing the new cowboys stadium ridiculous...
THE BAD NEWS ABOUT SPORTS FACILITIES
The reporters and front-page editors at the News might want to settle into a comfortable chair, light up a good cigar, and read this study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Study, which was excerpted last spring in The Atlantic and provided to us by a sports-loving, waste-hating Frontburnervian. Or they may want to just skip to the conclusion:
Not only has the economic literature definitively established that it is impossible to argue for a stadium purely on the basis of its direct economic benefits (the official death of the pro-facility economic argument can be dated to the Brookings Institution's publication, in 1997, of the book Sports, Jobs & Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums), but it has yet to be established that the other benefits (such as the psychological or image advantages to a community of "living in a big league town," the political and civic benefits that derive from large communal efforts, or the development effects catalyzed by new activity near the stadium) outweigh the economic costs.
If these studies--Brookings' and Lincoln's--had been completed before the arena vote in 1995, it would not have passed. I remain convinced that financing half the arena at $125 million was the right thing to do. But now that we have the evidence how can anyone argue that Houston has "beat" Dallas by building a $450 stadium to host the Super Bowl? And how can the Cowboys even dream of getting Dallas taxpayers to give them one?
Wick Allison · January 28, 2004 09:08 AM
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks