Majority leans in favor of project
Downtown revival vs. cost to public
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/16985807.htm
From the article:
"Councilman Glynn Hines, D-6th, said he was a strong supporter of the project because he believes it will help renovate downtown the way Southtown has revived."
"Councilmen Tom Didier, R-3rd, and Tom Hayhurst, D-4th, said they are waiting to see the final proposal from the city before making a firm decision. Hayhurst did say his gut feeling is Harrison Square could be successful downtown and be the catalyst project to help revitalize the area. Didier said he is feeling comfortable with the project, noting that many of his family who left town for college never returned to Fort Wayne. A project like this could entice more young people to stay, he said."
"Councilman John Crawford, R-at large, said he is undecided on how he will vote, but he said both group’s presentations were helpful."
"Smith questioned why more wasn’t being done to help develop the riverfronts. He said young people consistently tell him they want development there.
“I could accept a stadium if it goes (on the riverfront),” he said."
"Shoaff said while he supports the downtown, he questions how much money is being spent on the project."
Council divided on downtown
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/16987137.htm
From the article:
"A presentation from Tim Pape, D-5th District, and Sam Talarico Jr., R-at-large, offered research in favor of the development, citing real-world examples such as Dayton and Toledo in Ohio and Greensboro, N.C., whose minor-league stadiums were a catalyst for downtown revitalizations.
“We have a ball diamond in the middle of a parking lot that has had no catalytic effect,” Talarico said."
"Shoaff gave an in-depth look at the financing of the stadium, but his numbers included interest; after all, that money will come out of taxpayers’ pockets, he justified.
“To tack on interest is like saying I bought a $150,000 home for $400,000,” Talarico said."
"“What if we had a Plan B?” Smith asked. His idea was to move the project, except for the hotel and parking garage, to the riverfront. “I could put a stadium there. There would be huge public support. People want that riverfront developed.”"
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Council Prelim Discussion Press
Posted by scott spaulding at 3/28/2007 07:29:00 AM
Labels: City Council, Don Schmidt, Glynn Hines, Graham Richard, Harrison Square, John Crawford, John Shoaff, Sam Talarico, Tim Pape, Tom Didier, Tom Hayhurst, Tom Smith
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Smith has been talking riverfront for years. Where are the private developers?? Where are the private $$$?
Riverfront development is much more likely to happen on the heels of Harrison Square
Chris W.
Councilmen Talarico and Pape’s presentation blew the other one away.
Shoaff presented both old and skewed data. Smith talked about nothing besides “his” ideas for river development that he has wanted the whole time he’s been an elected official. Schmidt….well….put me to sleep.
The generation gap is apparent on the council much like it is in the city. Pape, Talarico, Didier, and Hines vs Schmidt, Smith, and Shoaff …see my point?
If you are a councilman after hearing those presentations, I don’t know how you could vote against this project. I commend Councilman Hines for the stance that he took after the meeting.
Adam W
I thought Shoaff's presentation was excellent. I'm under 40.
I'm all for riverfront development. It would be great to have some retail and restaurants along the river greenway trails.
I don't agree with Councilman Smith's idea of placing the ballpark on the riverfront though. I don't believe that river access has offers any real advantage to a baseball stadium. The ballpark makes more sense located closer to the core of downtown. The Harrison Square placement of the stadium plays to Fort Wayne's existing assets: Grand Wayne Center, ACPL Main Branch, Embassy Theater, Botanical Gardens, West Central Neighborhood, and Lincoln Offices. All these amenities are within easy walking distance of the proposed location and could benefit from the stadiums proximity. There are also areas like the GE campus and other historic structures surrounding the site that are optimum for redevelopment.
I would love to see development along the riverfront but I think placing the baseball stadium there would be a foul ball.
-Kelly James
Great presentation last night by Councilman Talarico and Councilman Pape. These two individuals are ture "leaders" in our community. Thanks to their dedication, hard work and vision, we are on the verge of seeing the landscape of our downtown change drastically relatively soon. In the words of Councilman Talarico, "Its time".
Just a few comments from what I read in the paper and saw the councilmen say on the news.
1. What a surprise, looks like the old guys (Schmidt, Smith) are the biggest opponents to the project.
2. Mr. Smith and Mr. Schmidt, I'm all for riverfront development too! Did you ever think we could do Harrison Square AND riverfront development?
3. If I hear Don Schmidt say "but we already have baseball stadium" one more time, I'm going to puke.
4. Great presentation by Mr. Talarico, I agree with him 100% on everything.
What a great presentation by Councilman Talarico, too bad he isn’t running for re-election. There is definitely a generation gap between the members on council. Not only was the Talarico/Pape presentation exciting and convincing, but showed a number of cities across the county fighting to keep and retain young workers.
I am also looking forward to the riverfront development that WILL happen after businesses see how profitable and successful they can be downtown!
AC
Councilman Talarico's comments about the interest payments are a prime example of why most governments (local and otherwise) are constantly in debt.
Comparing the interest on a home to this project's interest is a poor analogy. In most home purchases the buyer does not expect to pay off the entire loan (before they sell the property) and therefore isn't concerned about the long term cost due to interest. And if the buyer IS planning to live there long term then most look to 15 year mortgages or at least try and send in extra money towards the principal to reduce their overall interest burden - at least this is what a fiscally-wise buyer would do.
In this case the city will not be selling the project before all the interest is paid. Therefore, it's absolutely legitimate to look at the total costs of the project including interest payments. Failure to do so, is simply ignoring the full economic impact of the project.
Of course it helps make his case so it's not a surprise that he would choose to ignore it. Does anyone else out there think we should NOT include the interest payments into the financial analysis when there is NO DOUBT that it will have to be paid?
I know Sam posts regularly so I would certainly like to hear his defense of that statement...
Jeff,
Here is my problem with Shoaff's use of interest.
1. He stated that the interest represents dollars that could be used on other projects. I agree HOWEVER, it would likely be used as INTEREST on the other project.
2. It is ridiculous that he uses Interest to determine the city's total cost, BUT DOES NOT impute any interest to Hardball's column? How can you use it on one side and not the other.
3. Is John saying that we should save up and pay cash for the stadium? Bond financing is used for community capital projects, we have a lot of examples. The interest rate is a "projected" 4.9% which is identical (I believe) to the interest rate on the Headwaters Park bonds which Shoaff obviously supported.
Those are my 3 main problems with HOW Shoaff used the interest numbers.
Sam T.
Jeff, a couple more thoughts.
I think some of what Councilman Shoaff focused on is, in my opinion, somewhat irrelevant. Including interest on one side (the public side) and not the other (Hardball's money should have an interest factor and I would guess at a higher rate).
The studies he cites are all based on major league facilities with hundreds of millions of dollars being put in and no guaranteed private development. To say HQ won't help development, when you know that the deal guarantees a minimum of development that is itself (just counting the condos) almost equal to the city's investment in the stadium (approx $20 million in private funds + CRED credits v. $25m from the City for the stadium) is just not right. Shoaf's cited studies would look the same in any way if the $250m invested in a stadium also brought $200m in non-local dollars into the economy.
Shoaf's argument that the money will be finding its way out of Fort Wayne is also off base. On the developer's side, yes Hardball is located in Atlanta but they will be bringing private money INTO Fort Wayne. If there are opportunities in the community it is hard to argue that other local developers won't invest in those--the ability to bring outside money to the table as well creates a bigger pie-- because it frees up other local developers for other investment opportunities (all these other things people have raised as potential projects). The argument that money flows out through the players takes a counter-argument applied in the major league level and applies it to a situation where it is completely irrelevant. Studies trying to show an impact of a major league team on the local economy usually have, as one component, the money paid in salaries (to everyone from front office personnel to groundskeepers to players). The economists point out that while the former two are usually spent in the community, the players, who make up the bulk of the salaries, often live in a different city and spend their money there. I have never heard Hardball argue that salaries of those employed by the team is a reason to do this project. As a matter of fact, Hardball has a payroll of over half a million now and that would almost certainly double to triple in a new stadium This is likely to be front office personnel who live in Fort Wayne. The players only make a very small amount of money in salary most of which they do spend locally during the season.
Councilman Smith's comments are somewhat ironic. A lot of ball teams try to get land by a river (viewed as the prime real estate) and the city or citizens trying to force the team to another site (one harder to develop) because the river has more potential.
I have little doubt that if the Administration had pitched this by the river we would have gotten that same reaction from many. I think the location the City has chosen is best because of the interrelationship with the Grand Wayne Center. Also, despite being closer to the GWC than our current stadium, the effect in encouraging conventioneers would not be the same across the river as as it is right across from the GWC and their hotels.
Just some more thoughts on the presentation.
I have had an incredibel amount of young people contact me about supporting this HQ development. In my 7 years on City Council I have NEVER had a young person come up to me and push for riverfront development. (I am 100% for riverfront development!, but my experience has been a little different than councilman Smith's)
Councilman Smith has some great ideas for such development but nobody has ever stepped forward with private dollar #1
Sam T.
Sam,
Thanks for the response. The mortgage analogy was a bad one but now that you've provided the proper context I understand your point. I agree with your second comment - namely that player salaries are irrelevant and that the opposition to the project has nothing to do w/ its location. I think those of us that are against the project or on the fence would still feel that way if the project were slated for the riverfront.
In response to the first comment you left I would like to say that while your 3 points are not incorrect they are irrelevant (at least to me).
1. I want to know what the project's true cost will be. Saying that the interest would still be paid on another project is just a convenient way to hide that cost regardless of what project we're talking about. We have to pay it no matter what, so the city should be upfront with people about what that cost truly is.
2. Comparing it to the interest HC is paying doesn't matter to me either. I'm not an investor in HC but I am a taxpayer in this city - therefore I want to know how much in public funds will be spent. If we're solely talking about the public/private investment ratio then your point is valid. However, I don't think that shows the entire picture as many people simply want to know what the public investment will be independent of the private investment.
3. I don't think anyone is suggesting the city finance all its projects with cash. But again I think the city should represent the TRUE cost - call it truth in lending if you will. I'm sure at some point these numbers will be finalized so I'm not suggesting any dubious behavior from city leaders. I think it's just an easier sell if interest costs get ignored but that doesn't make it right...
That's a valid point regarding potential river-front development. I believe Harrison Square going forward at the site that is currently proposed makes the river-front all the more attractive in the near future. Although both sites are located downtown, they are far enoungh apart to be considered separate "pockets" of development that stand on their own.
Jeff, you missed the point on #2. John, was using the interest on the City side to show that the ratio between City funds and Hardball funds was unacceptable to him. If you are comparing the two in an effort to say the proportion is off then you MOST DEFINITELY need to include interest on both sides of the equation.
I disagree with your House comment, I think most people eventually buy a house with an idea that they want to pay it off! (I hope!).
Obviously there is an interest component (Shoaff is hardly pointing out anything that is surprising.), there IS interest with any large capital project but to use the interest numbers inconsistently is misleading.
Sam T.
Sam,
I agree that using that chart in the context you describe would be misleading. I usually catch every council meeting but I missed this week's as I was out of town trying to get in some end-of-the-season snowboarding! I'll catch the City TV replay Sat morning.
As far as the house in concerned, I would continue to argue that most people buy their home w/ no intention of fully paying the mortgage before selling it. Most of the people I know do not live in the same home for 30 years...
In response to Jeff Pruitt's post on the "true cost" of Harrision Square and publication of the public interest expense:
1. The interest was added on the public funding side by opponents of this project solely in illustration of the comparison of the public commitment versus Hardball's commitment, but the comparison did not include Hardball's interest expense. As I think you've conceded, this is unfair and misleads the public to believe the ratio is radically skewed.
The opponents of HS also erroneously excluded the hotel developer's commitment, further skewing the ratio.
In one slide, the opponents included the public funding for the hotel commitment to skew the ratio, but then argued the hotel doesn't count.
2. I respect your desire to know the interest expense of this project in evaluating its merits. That is certainly a fair consideration. I think the Councilmen making an issue of this is less fair.
When we discuss private projects, public projects and even personal purchases like automobiles, as a society we always talk about the cost to build or purchase the project or item. We often times consider the cost of financing in terms of monthly payment obligations. We almost never discuss what you refer to as the "TRUE cost" by including the interest expense. For example, I paid $30,000 for my used Volkswagen Tourag SUV; I don't tell people I paid $34,984.33 b/c I know the interest expense. It's just not how we as a society discuss these things. The media reports in terms of cost to build or cost to purchase and does not add in the interest expense.
So while I respect the value you place on knowing those costs, as a matter of community decision making and giving a correct basis for citizens to compare, the councilmembers adding interest is in fact misleading to the public, even if done with great care.
Adding interest to the cost of a project is a common tactic of those who oppose a project. You'll often find the same public officials who do so on one project, never do it on projects they support.
3. I know you mean it genuinely and without accusation but language like "true" cost and being concerned we are "hiding" things, does not help the dialogue. Be suspicious of government. That's your duty as a citizen, but do not be unfair and unnecessarily inflammatory. One of the Councilmembers said we were being sloppy in our work. The there opponents claimed we were merely being exuberatnt and had not given this enough contemplation. That's offensive, factually inaccurate and just unhelpful.
You will have all the information you've said you need to weigh the value of this, rest assured.
-Tim Pape
Yes, I agree. Talking about interest would just mislead me, because I'm not sophisticated and smart. I'm glad our council members know which facts to routinely withhold so I won't be mislead.
I'm all confused about the interest on the proposed FWCS bond issue. It almost sounds like money that we will have to pay, or that will impact future fund availablity. I wish that Board had somebody really bright to omit for the public the confusing facts. Then I could sleep better.
BTW, Mr. Pape, I agree the Harball Capital interest cost (or opportunity cost) should be included to make an accurate comparison. Of course to do so, you would have to tell the public the split between hard and soft costs in their (now) 14.5 million contribution. But doing that would be too embarrasing, er, misleading, er confusing for the common folk.
Bud,
I love good irony.
The Irony of your post is it TRULY DOES point out that you actually have no idea what you are talking about and you understood none of the previous post on this blog.
Chris W.
Tim,
"Adding interest to the cost of a project is a common tactic of those who oppose a project. You'll often find the same public officials who do so on one project, never do it on projects they support."
I can't say that I disagree but the point I've been trying to make is that this expense should be included in ALL projects.
"I know you mean it genuinely and without accusation but language like "true" cost and being concerned we are "hiding" things, does not help the dialogue. Be suspicious of government. That's your duty as a citizen, but do not be unfair and unnecessarily inflammatory."
I think the only comment that could even be considered as "unfair and unnecessarily inflammatory" is this one. The "true" cost includes interest and should be considered - that suggestion is in no way inflammatory. Also, in no place did I suggest anyone was intentionally "hiding" anything. In fact I specifically said "I'm sure at some point these numbers will be finalized so I'm not suggesting any dubious behavior from city leaders."
Post a Comment