OT: Penguins Moving

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote amerks127]You really can't blame Rendall, nor can the currently elected Pittsburgh officials be blamed.  What we have here are the culmination of events, at least 15 years in the making. Other than the NYC area teams (New Jersey is building the New Jersey Performing Arts Center),and Detroit, Edmonton, Calgary and Anaheim (1993),every NHL city has an arena that opened no earlier than 1996.  Look at how many opened new arenas in the past 5 years.  Here is a project that Pittsburgh should have taken care of instead of stalling or ignoring.[/quote]

Good for Rendell and Ravenstahl for standing their ground.  Pittsburgh is a city which has managed to bounce back from massive economic devastation, and they shouldn't give in to corporate threats that require them to pay millions of dollars in corporate welfare.  If Burkle and Lemieux really want a new rink, they should cough up the change to build it themselves, or go elsewhere and prove they have no loyalty to Pittsburgh.

[ebilmes]

I found this book pretty provocative and interesting when I read it in the fall:

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Sports-Resistance-United-States/dp/1931859205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1809016-9643356?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173198548&sr=8-1

Among other issues, it discussed whether there was any actual benefit to states/cities funding new arenas for sports teams. The conclusion Zirin reached was similar to what Ben Rocky said in his post above.

[KeithK]

[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote amerks127]You really can't blame Rendall, nor can the currently elected Pittsburgh officials be blamed.  What we have here are the culmination of events, at least 15 years in the making. Other than the NYC area teams (New Jersey is building the New Jersey Performing Arts Center),and Detroit, Edmonton, Calgary and Anaheim (1993),every NHL city has an arena that opened no earlier than 1996.  Look at how many opened new arenas in the past 5 years.  Here is a project that Pittsburgh should have taken care of instead of stalling or ignoring.[/quote]

Good for Rendell and Ravenstahl for standing their ground.  Pittsburgh is a city which has managed to bounce back from massive economic devastation, and they shouldn't give in to corporate threats that require them to pay millions of dollars in corporate welfare.  If Burkle and Lemieux really want a new rink, they should cough up the change to build it themselves, or go elsewhere and prove they have no loyalty to Pittsburgh.[/quote]
I think we can definitely blame Rendell.  For lots of things unrelated to the Penguins :-D.  But on this one Ben is absolutely right.  It makes little sense for a municipality to build arenas/stadiums for professional sports teams.  If your business requires a new facility to be competitive do what every other type of company does.  Secure financing and build the facility yourself.  (Though admittedly it's standard procedure to seek tax benefits too...)

[Tub(a)]

[quote ebilmes]I found this book pretty provocative and interesting when I read it in the fall:

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Sports-Resistance-United-States/dp/1931859205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1809016-9643356?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173198548&sr=8-1

Among other issues, it discussed whether there was any actual benefit to states/cities funding new arenas for sports teams. The conclusion Zirin reached was similar to what Ben Rocky said in his post above.[/quote]

I remain skeptical about such a finding. I'm in Pittsburgh right now and I love the city, but if there isn't NHL hockey there, it's not a city I want to be in. That means the city loses another young about-to-be professional and their potential lifetime of taxes and general spending.  

I might be the only one that feels this way, but I suspect there are at least a few others. Professional sports go a long way to keeping young people in a city.

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote KeithK]I think we can definitely blame Rendell.  For lots of things unrelated to the Penguins :-D.  But on this one Ben is absolutely right.  It makes little sense for a municipality to build arenas/stadiums for professional sports teams.  If your business requires a new facility to be competitive do what every other type of company does.  Secure financing and build the facility yourself.  (Though admittedly it's standard procedure to seek tax benefits too...)[/quote]

Aww, Keith, are we having a moment?  :-D

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax breaks for new developments, rerouting mass transit systems to bring the public to a new facility, perhaps even city- financed parking garage next-door or municipal help in securing construction loans; but paying half the cost, or any of the cost for a new sports 20,000 seat facility is a bad idea, and its bad government. A local, county or state government should do everything it can to foster economic development within the realm of government (better schools, police, parks and infrastructure), but this stinks of corporate welfare.  A smaller rink like those in Rochester or Syracuse is much more reasonable for a city to partially own, since it can be used for local youth hockey and other events.  An NHL rink is too huge for these uses.  The Steelers would never hold the 'Burgh hostage for this kind of cash, because their ownership cares about the city & their fans. This just speaks volumes about the ownership of the NHL franchise's attitude.

Grant, you're right that professional sports keep young folks in the city, but I'd suspect the availability of good restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and the presence of CMU, Pitt, UPMC, and low cost of living go a long way too.  Pittsburgh is one of the smallest cities in the US to have three major professional sports teams, and because of that, perhaps this move was inevitable (though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).

[KeithK]

[quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?

[Rita]

[quote KeithK][quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?[/quote]

I thought "The Wizards" were the second team that he referred to.:-}

(I will now step aside so that the grammar police can re-hash the debate about ending sentences with prepositions);-).

[Giffy]

[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote KeithK]I think we can definitely blame Rendell.  For lots of things unrelated to the Penguins :-D.  But on this one Ben is absolutely right.  It makes little sense for a municipality to build arenas/stadiums for professional sports teams.  If your business requires a new facility to be competitive do what every other type of company does.  Secure financing and build the facility yourself.  (Though admittedly it's standard procedure to seek tax benefits too...)[/quote]

Aww, Keith, are we having a moment?  :-D

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax breaks for new developments, rerouting mass transit systems to bring the public to a new facility, perhaps even city- financed parking garage next-door or municipal help in securing construction loans; but paying half the cost, or any of the cost for a new sports 20,000 seat facility is a bad idea, and its bad government. A local, county or state government should do everything it can to foster economic development within the realm of government (better schools, police, parks and infrastructure), but this stinks of corporate welfare.  A smaller rink like those in Rochester or Syracuse is much more reasonable for a city to partially own, since it can be used for local youth hockey and other events.  An NHL rink is too huge for these uses.  The Steelers would never hold the 'Burgh hostage for this kind of cash, because their ownership cares about the city & their fans. This just speaks volumes about the ownership of the NHL franchise's attitude.

Grant, you're right that professional sports keep young folks in the city, but I'd suspect the availability of good restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and the presence of CMU, Pitt, UPMC, and low cost of living go a long way too.  Pittsburgh is one of the smallest cities in the US to have three major professional sports teams, and because of that, perhaps this move was inevitable (though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]

The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million.  If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.

[KeithK]

[quote Rita][quote KeithK][quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?[/quote]

I thought "The Wizards" were the second team that he referred to.:-}

(I will now step aside so that the grammar police can re-hash the debate about ending sentences with prepositions);-).[/quote]
It's definitely not fair to call a franchise that plays metric football a major team. :-P

[jkahn]

[quote KeithK][quote Rita][quote KeithK][quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?[/quote]

I thought "The Wizards" were the second team that he referred to.:-}

(I will now step aside so that the grammar police can re-hash the debate about ending sentences with prepositions);-).[/quote]
It's definitely not fair to call a franchise that plays metric football a major team. :-P[/quote]
It's not metric football.  The goal size is 24 feet by 8 feet.  The "penalty box" (this is an area on the field, not the hockey equivalent) extends 18 yards from the end line, the penalty kick is from 12 yards out, players must stay 10 yards from a free kick, etc. Note: these are the international standards, not just for non-metric countries.

[Josh '99]

[quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million.  If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).

[Giffy]

[quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million.  If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]

yeah, i guess they probably didn't.  But did anyone really think the Pirates would get better?

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million.  If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]

No matter how well the Steelers did last year, or the Penguins are going to do this year, Pittsburgh shouldn't have spent money on the stadiums.  Past spending on the other facilities doesn't mean that they should continue to give in to unreasonable demands.

[Josh '99]

[quote Giffy][quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million.  If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]

yeah, i guess they probably didn't.  But did anyone really think the Pirates would get better?[/quote]The Pirates were a competitive franchise as recently as the early 1990s (if you'll forgive the cumbersome phrasing, as recently as 10 years ago 8 years ago).  It's certainly possible they could (or at least possible that someone 8 years ago could have thought they would).

[Giffy]

[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million.  If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]

No matter how well the Steelers did last year, or the Penguins are going to do this year, Pittsburgh shouldn't have spent money on the stadiums.  Past spending on the other facilities doesn't mean that they should continue to give in to unreasonable demands.[/quote]

The Steelers would never hold the 'Burgh hostage for this kind of cash, because their ownership cares about the city & their fans.

I'm not disagreeing that Pittsburgh shouldn't spend money on stadiums, I'm just pointing out that your thought of the Steelers might be wrong.  The city immediately respected their request for a new stadium, if they had not I'm sure the Steelers would have threatened to move, at least to a suburb of Pittsburgh.