New Arena for Sioux Falls

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

Prepare to be surprised.

I wasn't surprised, and that's why I challenged Zooropa on the figures in his post. It was pretty simplistic to compare the total revenue on six games to the % of the annual budget for the FD. And your post clearly stated about $25,000 of NET profit per game -- which means the FD gets about $150,000 of income from the six NDSU home games.

I am also pleased that somebody came to the defense of Dana Dykhouse, who is a community leader that Sioux Falls can be proud of, despite the critics that want to paint him as a "big shot trying to run the show." Thank goodness for Dana's leadership in Sioux Falls and at SDSU! If Sioux Falls would belly up to the table as SDSU did in moving to Division I, I think they would be as pleasantly surprised as are the skeptics of the Division I move.

[zooropa]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

SDSU went D-1 with private money. Events Center boosters want their (presently unrealistic) expectations paid for by a general sales tax.

[zooropa]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

your post clearly stated about $25,000 of NET profit per game

But those figures were conflated with REVENUE (not PROFIT) from the NDSU contract ($120k) for a total guesstimate of $250k in profit or revenue or whatever.

[UWMandSDSU]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

I understand that but I keep hearing from people of sioux falls is something in the lines of this...

We are going to pay for Kelby's playground with a sales tax that is regressive, when we could have parks, or improve roads or so on....

Can you give the names of the people that you keep hearing this line from?

[Nidaros]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

But those figures were conflated with REVENUE (not PROFIT) from the NDSU contract ($120k) for a total guesstimate of $250k in profit or revenue or whatever.

Boy!! I learn something everyday. Conflate? Never have I heard this word used and I did a google to get a definition. It means to bring together and meld, which has to be a construction word. I guess my vocab is limited as I never heard of Meld until someone tried to teach me the hand and foot card game.

I believe NDSU and the FD have a workable agreement. If they did not it would have ended a long time ago, and the NDSU would be back outside again. I do know the FD parking people do not take any crap from anyone. They have their rules and they stick too them. So this relationship is a good thing for Fargo and if the dollar situation was not working we would be hearing volumnes.

[JACKGUYII]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

Can you give the names of the people that you keep hearing this line from?

My guess is it's his buddies over on ArgusLeader.com that are negative about everything and yet don't offer other solutions. I guess people who go out and make things happen are always going to ruffle a few feathers. I'm sure they don't lost sleep over the negative comments they receive and neither will I.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

1) You have to understand how SF boosters see SF: They see SF as deserving big city amenities--including an events facility that deserves comparisons with the Qwest Center, not the Tyson Events Center or the Rushmore Plaza. Right now their reach, by far, exceeds their grasp.

Unsubstantiated Generalization: SF Boosters just lumped together and that they aren't going to take into consideration public opinion.

2) That's an unsubstantiated generalization if ever I saw one. My take, as a 12 year resident of the city, is that the public wants, and will readily vote for infrastructure expenditures and family-friendly amenities.

As a 23 year resident, I think the same thing. How many people in Sioux Falls think of the event center as either infrastructure or a family-friendly amenity or both? You post implies that Sioux Falls residents do not consider the event center as either of those. However I have spoken with quite a few people that consider it both, but that could be a reflection of the people that I associate with and not a reflection of Sioux Falls as a whole; which is why your post is an unsubstantiated generalization in my opinion.

A third penny sales tax, if directed toward, say the Lewis & Clark pipeline, flood control, etc. would likely pass.

I don't see a generalization in this paragraph.

A third penny sales tax intended to satiate the vanity of Kelby Krabbenhoft, T. Denny, and Dana Dykhouse will be roundly defeated under the populist/horse sense rationale of 'if they want it, let them pay for it themselves.'

I am guessing that this post and your reply to my other post regarding the outcome of the rec center vote and the Drake Springs pool vote and your generalization of why voters in Sioux Falls voted them down. In regards to the Drake Springs vote, I know more people that voted against the city's plan because it wasn't expansive enough without a competition sized pool and would have voted for a more expensive plan that included one. Building something in the middle seemed would not fit either goal (bringin in competive meets and have an indoor pool vs. a neighborhood pool) so they went for the cheaper one. In addition, who proposed the plan didn't really matter. Again, who I hang with is reflected in this so it may not be applicable to SF as a whole.

Understand that there is a 'silent majority' of SF citizens that, while grateful for the jobs, does not care for the airs that Kelby & the Premier folks have assumed, nor do they care for the freeness with which they're willing to spend public funds.

A silent majority that does not care for the airs - unsubstantiated generalization.

[Hammersmith]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

Boy!! I learn something everyday. Conflate? Never have I heard this word used and I did a google to get a definition. It means to bring together and meld, which has to be a construction word. I guess my vocab is limited as I never heard of Meld until someone tried to teach me the hand and foot card game.

I believe NDSU and the FD have a workable agreement. If they did not it would have ended a long time ago, and the NDSU would be back outside again. I do know the FD parking people do not take any crap from anyone. They have their rules and they stick too them. So this relationship is a good thing for Fargo and if the dollar situation was not working we would be hearing volumnes.

There's always some tension between NDSU and elements of city government. Back around 2000-2002, very heavy spring or summer rains flooded 19th Ave N(the road on the north side of the FD). The storm sewers couldn't handle it and it backed up and flooded the field level of the FD. That was bad enough, but the FD is connected to the rest of NDSU through small tunnels for steam lines. The rain water flowed through those tunnels and caused a couple million in damages to NDSU buildings. NDSU wanted the city to cover the cost and the city refused. The $120,000/year was a result of that situation; the previous contract was for about $190,000/year.

Another situation happened when NDSU wanted to lease and renovate part of the basement level of the FD and turn it into a football office complex. NDSU wanted to borrow the money($3 million) from the city through the FD escrow fund. NDSU would then pay it back with interest over the next ten years or so. It was a win-win for everybody, but the city shot it down. NDSU eventually raised the money through a couple big donations, but the project ended up delayed for a couple years for no good reason.

For whatever reason, many citizens of Fargo don't like NDSU and the city politicians sometimes cater to that. I don't know if it's the irrational distrust of higher education that many North Dakotans(or Upper Plains people in general) seem to have or something else, but there's always a small amount of bitter opposition to anything NDSU wants or suggests, no matter how beneficial.

[zooropa]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

Unsubstantiated Generalization: SF Boosters just lumped together and that they aren't going to take into consideration public opinion.

What public figure involved in this debate has gone on record as supporting LESS than 15,000 seats?

I know more people that voted against the city's plan because it wasn't expansive enough

So it's your take that a measure which failed by what was it? close to a 30% margin? failed because it wasn't expensive enough?

BTW, regardless of what you think of my 'substantiation', that's what it is. That is the basis for my assertion that a majority of SF residents simply do not see the Events Center as a priority. You want to substantiate your claim that the proposal wasn't expensive enough by referring to its failure, that's fine. The result can be interpreted many ways.

I, however, don't see things that way. Again, it may be who we talk to that shades our opinions. However, it seems hard for me to believe that the measure failed because it wasn't expansive enough.

Also, I think a good many people remember the cost overruns at the Pavilion (and the sudden appearance of a parking ramp), as well as the more recent irregularities at Falls Park, and are quite suspicious of the -true- as opposed to the -proposed- cost of the Events Center. But that's just my opinion. YMMV.

[zooropa]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

For whatever reason, many citizens of Fargo don't like NDSU and the city politicians sometimes cater to that.

Town and gown relationships -have- been worse other places and other times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Scholastica_riot (college students start riot over booze--how, uh, unusual)

[Nidaros]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

There's always some tension between NDSU and elements of city government. Back around 2000-2002, very heavy spring or summer rains flooded 19th Ave N(the road on the north side of the FD). The storm sewers couldn't handle it and it backed up and flooded the field level of the FD. That was bad enough, but the FD is connected to the rest of NDSU through small tunnels for steam lines. The rain water flowed through those tunnels and caused a couple million in damages to NDSU buildings. NDSU wanted the city to cover the cost and the city refused. The $120,000/year was a result of that situation; the previous contract was for about $190,000/year.

Another situation happened when NDSU wanted to lease and renovate part of the basement level of the FD and turn it into a football office complex. NDSU wanted to borrow the money($3 million) from the city through the FD escrow fund. NDSU would then pay it back with interest over the next ten years or so. It was a win-win for everybody, but the city shot it down. NDSU eventually raised the money through a couple big donations, but the project ended up delayed for a couple years for no good reason.

For whatever reason, many citizens of Fargo don't like NDSU and the city politicians sometimes cater to that. I don't know if it's the irrational distrust of higher education that many North Dakotans(or Upper Plains people in general) seem to have or something else, but there's always a small amount of bitter opposition to anything NDSU wants or suggests, no matter how beneficial.

The time I have spent in Fargo which is off and on for the past five years, I think I have heard more wrath about giving the school board having the authority to build a third high school without a vote, then I have heard any disagreement about the function of the FB and NDSU. A number of people I have talked to are very proud of the FB and NDSU, and others kind of ignore NDSU, like it does not exist and I suppose these are the people who vote on every issue of local matter. I do remember those flood situations and I can see how the town and gown relationship can become strained a bit. Its nothing like we have in SF though. I think the reason is that SD taxation consist mostly of sales tax and real property taxes which makes every capital expenditure to be questioned some people, and sometimes its very anti-intellectual especially if it involves higher education.

Some day the SF All events issue will be resolved. I did watch part of the video that JackGuyII linked in a prior post, but its still very complicated and I don't know how Terry Ballon and Jim Woster can keep everything straight in their minds. Eventually it will come to some decision.

Its ironic that both SDSU and NDSU campuses have relied on steam tunnels for campus heating. SDSU is fortunate to have a smaller river, THE BIG SIOUX, nearby and its a few miles from campus and seldom floods, probably because some of it drains into lakes, but not sure of that comment.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

What public figure involved in this debate has gone on record as supporting LESS than 15,000 seats?


So it's your take that a measure which failed by what was it? close to a 30% margin? failed because it wasn't expensive enough?

... YMMV.

I believe Woster and Baloun have indicated that they think it would be about 12,000 seat venue with the capability of being expanded.

The city's version of Drake Springs went down, I believe because of two groups that voted against it. One didn't want to spend the cost of the proposal and went with the cheaper outdoor pool.

The other group, that I referred to, felt the city's proposal would not meet the city's goals for the project. By not including a full sized competition pool, the cost was reduced, but it would not then draw the events. This group of voters felt that it would be better to spend the extra money to get the facility that could draw these events than spend almost that much and get one that could not draw those events. This group was also concerned that if this proposal was built, it would be very difficult to get another project with a competition sized pool.

Now you may think that since the city's proposal went down by a wide margin and that the people you relate with had cost as a primary reason, that cost was the primary reason for the city as a whole to defeat the proposal. I think it was more complex and a variety of reasons came together in that situation that may not in regard to the event center.

I look at that group that indicated they could not support the limited version by the city and see them as a group that could vote for a larger version of an event center. It depends on what information they are given about how the event center will be used and what events can be drawn to the proposed project (I think we would both agree that the opponents will indicate what the project cannot do no matter what the proposal is.)

And this is where I think that we agree. If the proponents leave the impression that we are going to spend a bunch of money but it won't change a lot of things, they probably won't win. The Pavillion is a problem for the proponents, as is the Phillips to the Falls overruns, but I don't think that is a surprise to anyone involved in the project.

[zooropa]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

I think it was more complex and a variety of reasons came together in that situation that may not in regard to the event center.

Of course none of the opinion polls examined -why- residents objected to the pool project.

IMO, though, that margin (which I can't find anywhere, but recall as in the neighborhood of 65-70% against), wouldn't have been overcome by a bigger pool. If the vote was 65% against, 15% or roughly 25% of the nay votes would have to be 'not big enough' votes.

My gut instinct is that's a bit much, in part because you've got the core "won't vote for any expenditure" crowd (c.f. any school bond issue), and the more reasoned "-this- is too expensive" crowd, and finally the "I'm willing to spend the money, but I don't like the project" crowd.

My spitball guess (again, based on bond issues) is that c. 40% of the voting public belongs to the "won't vote for any expenditure" crowd. That means (again, IIRC) 50% of the remaining voters (give or take) on that issue were of the viewpoint you describe and that's, IMO, a bit high.

If the proponents leave the impression that we are going to spend a bunch of money but it won't change a lot of things, they probably won't win. The Pavillion is a problem for the proponents, as is the Phillips to the Falls overruns, but I don't think that is a surprise to anyone involved in the project.

I think it's complicated by the seeming dichotomy in attitudes about the Pavilion & Falls Park. People like the Pavilion & Falls Park, but, IMO, also think that both projects involved some questionable maneuvers.

That, (again, my opinion) is why Krabbenhoft, et al., aren't helping things by being vocal and keeping their wallets shut.

People see the offer to 'donate' Sanford land for Howard Wood and, regardless of the true intentions, I think, can be forgiven for suspecting self-dealing and ulterior motives.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

Stu Whitney has a new blog entry on this topic since the revelation of the "new" Howard Wood proposal. I think he is right, (I must need more coffee) and this proposal will be a problem for the event center for the reasons given.

As an aside, I have always wondered why soccer lines of a football field are so reviled, but volleyball lines on basketball courts are generally accepted.

[joeboo22]

Re: New Arena for Sioux Falls

Stu Whitney has a new blog entry on this topic since the revelation of the "new" Howard Wood proposal. I think he is right, (I must need more coffee) and this proposal will be a problem for the event center for the reasons given.

As an aside, I have always wondered why soccer lines of a football field are so reviled, but volleyball lines on basketball courts are generally accepted.

yeah, in general, actually always I look at what Stu says and my opinion is the exact oposite. The thing about this is it is so stupid, so far out there that anybody who would agree with this would be an idiot.... 5 years ago, before USF and Augie built there stadiums, before SDSU had 3 consecutive good years in far as of attendence, I could see the push to build a new Howard Wood to house USF, Augie and 1 SDSU game a year, and 1 USD game a year.... but to spend 28 million on a complex that would basically be used for Sanford Heath, and high school football is mind boggling....