This Is Why Miner Was Wrong | Page 5 | Syracusefan.com

This Is Why Miner Was Wrong

Millhouse said:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....roposal_county_legislature_chairman_says.html

"It's a complex partnership for a regional project that requires state and county funds as well as working with Syracuse University and a private owner-operator,'' McMahon said. "It also would require some support from city hall."

No one can say what that "support" actually is which is the whole point. Stadium proponents pretend like that means that she needs to smile more and pat more backs
Expand...


FROM THE ARTCLE YOU POSTED.....In the comments section. real ethical isn't it


CuseOnly
2 Months Ago
LOL! Without a project that costs $500 million, we won't get a dime of the $200 mil that was proposed by the state. Miner has been asking for $16 million for infrastructure for about a year, still hasn't gotten it.

What she should have done is taken the deal and rolled the $16 mil into the cost of the project as over-runs like everyone else does...more
Item URL:http://syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/01/mayor_miner_is_blocking_new_su_stadium_proposal_county_legislature_chairman_says.html/post/2014-01-15/1389790320-122-257.html

· Like · Reply · Share
and from his post here...
Joanie Mahoney also stated on the record that the stadium would be fully taxable and would have been in the city limits on state land. notice the 2nd. to last line
  • a $495 million cost for a 44,000 seat arena with retractable roof. The amount does not include parking or land acquisition.
  • additional development of a 250-room hotel, over 160 apartments and 150,000 feet of retail space,
  • no plan for use of the current Carrier Dome or its site
  • the university would be a tenant, not an owner
  • four years for construction of the stadium
  • a public-private financing plan with investment from the state, Onondaga County and the private sector, including SU.
  • annual capital improvements estimated at $1.5 million. The cost of that and the annual operating expenses would be funded directly by stadium revenue
  • the favored site is the former Kennedy Square public housing property. It would not be owned by SU
  • The facility's operating budget would pay for the extra police, fire and other public services needed
  • property tax arrangements were undecided
  • no architect has been selected
how can you put a price tag on w/o an architect

495 mil. with a retractable roof...ha.

250 room hotel and 160 apartments were...on private land... eminent domain and $$$$$$$$

cuseonly is desperate for this stadium he would like to misuse of taxpayers money...most likely criminal.

what all this boils down to is Minor can't run for Mayor again, but can as county executive and why hasn't anyone blasted John Defrancisco here as he is supporting the mayor's view on this
 
Cheriehoop said:
It's this weird game they play by either moving the principal and some teachers and renaming the school or they are replacing it with putting a theme charter type school (Latin, Science, Technology , Arts etc). I always thought it was a shell game when they announced mandated school closings but just switched principals, some teachers and renamed the school and did a little bit of gerrymandering with students.
Expand...


Well they just built the tech school down the road 2-3 years ago as well
 
retro44 said:
FROM THE ARTCLE YOU POSTED...In the comments section. real ethical isn't it


CuseOnly
2 Months Ago
LOL! Without a project that costs $500 million, we won't get a dime of the $200 mil that was proposed by the state. Miner has been asking for $16 million for infrastructure for about a year, still hasn't gotten it.

What she should have done is taken the deal and rolled the $16 mil into the cost of the project as over-runs like everyone else does...more
Item URL:http://syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/01/mayor_miner_is_blocking_new_su_stadium_proposal_county_legislature_chairman_says.html/post/2014-01-15/1389790320-122-257.html

· Like · Reply · Share
and from his post here...
Joanie Mahoney also stated on the record that the stadium would be fully taxable and would have been in the city limits on state land. notice the 2nd. to last line
  • a $495 million cost for a 44,000 seat arena with retractable roof. The amount does not include parking or land acquisition.
  • additional development of a 250-room hotel, over 160 apartments and 150,000 feet of retail space,
  • no plan for use of the current Carrier Dome or its site
  • the university would be a tenant, not an owner
  • four years for construction of the stadium
  • a public-private financing plan with investment from the state, Onondaga County and the private sector, including SU.
  • annual capital improvements estimated at $1.5 million. The cost of that and the annual operating expenses would be funded directly by stadium revenue
  • the favored site is the former Kennedy Square public housing property. It would not be owned by SU
  • The facility's operating budget would pay for the extra police, fire and other public services needed
  • property tax arrangements were undecided
  • no architect has been selected
how can you put a price tag on w/o an architect

495 mil. with a retractable roof...ha.

250 room hotel and 160 apartments were...on private land... eminent domain and $$$$$$$$

cuseonly is desperate for this stadium he would like to misuse of taxpayers money...most likely criminal.

what all this boils down to is Minor can't run for Mayor again, but can as county executive and why hasn't anyone blasted John Defrancisco here as he is supporting the mayor's view on this
Expand...
Seems like a political rant to me?
 
retro44 said:
how can you put a price tag on w/o an architect

495 mil. with a retractable roof...ha.

250 room hotel and 160 apartments were...on private land... eminent domain and $$$$$$$$

cuseonly is desperate for this stadium he would like to misuse of taxpayers money...most likely criminal.

what all this boils down to is Minor can't run for Mayor again, but can as county executive and why hasn't anyone blasted John Defrancisco here as he is supporting the mayor's view on this
Expand...

Of course you can put a price tag on without an architect.

And based on similar sized projects in Europe the $495M is accurate.
 
Recently I read about a study where a multi purpose domed statium was proposed for an NFL franchise and the NBA and NHL
teams. When it went to drafting the final plans it was determined that a multi purpose design was not feasable. Lets face it
the Dome is lesser BB facility than one designed for BB only. Too many comprimises required resulting with the end result
not ideal for both purposes.

The proposed site would not have addressed the current problems we deal with at the dome i.e. parking.
 
retro44 said:
well...do you feel like you scored here?
Expand...
I'm not trying to score. I'm merely stating that I would like to see Syracuse University sports teams play in the best possible facilities. I'm sure the preponderance of supporters that come to this site have the same opinion. The move up to the ACC is the big time in college athletics , and I'm sure there was some quid pro quo as to upgrading facilities when they let us in the league. These franchises are enormous assets for the city of Syracuse , there are a lot of city's of this size that would kill to be in Syracuse's position.
 
When Rome started to fall apart the politicians made stadiums to entertain while the infrastructure fell apart. Real problems real jobs real solutions not shiny things to divert attention from what is really needed. I know this is a sports site but seriously I find it surprising that people are upset about 200 million dollars being free and it's not being spent on a stadium.
 
cuseinchina said:
One can assume without knowing too much that support includes preferential tax rates and transfer of city land.
Expand...
i don't know what Syracuse collects in hotel taxes now but if the hotel gets big tax breaks and hurts other hotels competitively, that could be a significant loss of tax collections for a city that's already broke.

so much of the city is already tax exempt as it is

people on here (not you) act like that's small potatoes compared to the giant bag of money from the state. but it's not small potatoes to Miner.
 
cuseinchina said:
One can assume without knowing too much that support includes preferential tax rates and transfer of city land.
Expand...

"Support" was money and it was a ton of money.

A couple people don't want to believe it, but that's a fact.
 
Thinking of all of this from an objective point of view - our budgetary process in NY, in fact the country is soooo screwed up.

Taxes are driving people and businesses out of state , heck even out of the country, so the tax base erodes, we've become a service based economy many of these services being tax-exempt, those left pay more, while the infrastructure crumbles, incentives are given for new buildings while yesterday's buildings sit empty, and in the rare situation there's a surplus - the state decides what projects they will support for each area in the state on a take it or lose it basis.

Whether one agrees or not if a new stadium is a worthwhile project - the process still stinks overall. Why not lower taxes , bank it to avoid future debt, invest it to finance a known future need, appropriate money to each county, city and allow them to determine their greatest need - anything but the current process. If the entire state's infrastructure is crumbling - why not earmark it for that?

The state has their own issues with bad bridges, roads etc. Why not offer incentives to utilize and repurpose current buildings etc instead of new construction. (I am not talking about the dome) This would save road, sewer, water and other capital expenses to complete new construction that all of us have to support and maintain. We keep offering tax incentives to add to our crumbling infrastructure costs or am I crazy?

I know that others on this board are much smarter in economics, urban development, government policies etc than I am but to this lowly accountant and my simplistic understanding, it seems that we're arguing about losing out on money disbursed in an outdated, inequitable , wasteful process. You can see throughout the state the empty shells of prior economic development targets many abandoned to chase new incentives. The accept what we want or lose out entirely is just dealing with a horrible reality of this flawed process. Uggh
 
Cheriehoop said:
Thinking of all of this from an objective point of view - our budgetary process in NY, in fact the country is soooo screwed up.

Taxes are driving people and businesses out of state , heck even out of the country, so the tax base erodes, we've become a service based economy many of these services being tax-exempt, those left pay more, while the infrastructure crumbles, incentives are given for new buildings while yesterday's buildings sit empty, and in the rare situation there's a surplus - the state decides what projects they will support for each area in the state on a take it or lose it basis.

Whether one agrees or not if a new stadium is a worthwhile project - the process still stinks overall. Why not lower taxes , bank it to avoid future debt, invest it to finance a known future need, appropriate money to each county, city and allow them to determine their greatest need - anything but the current process. If the entire state's infrastructure is crumbling - why not earmark it for that?

The state has their own issues with bad bridges, roads etc. Why not offer incentives to utilize and repurpose current buildings etc instead of new construction. (I am not talking about the dome) This would save road, sewer, water and other capital expenses to complete new construction that all of us have to support and maintain. We keep offering tax incentives to add to our crumbling infrastructure costs or am I crazy?

I know that others on this board are much smarter in economics, urban development, government policies etc than I am but to this lowly accountant and my simplistic understanding, it seems that we're arguing about losing out on money disbursed in an outdated, inequitable , wasteful process. You can see throughout the state the empty shells of prior economic development targets many abandoned to chase new incentives. The accept what we want or lose out entirely is just dealing with a horrible reality of this flawed process. Uggh
Expand...

There is a trend in some northern cities towards downsizing. Literally demolishing some neighborhoods and eliminating the infrastructure overhead in those areas. It is a rational response to a shrinking population.

And while the process is terrible and the system flawed and inefficient, I get nervous when we talk about opting out because then you truly have no say. It reminds me of when people bemoan the state of public schools and then spend 20k a year on private school - why not join the PTA, put $10k in the pot for a new 'extras' teacher or trips or other programming, and try to make things better. I like more engagement in the process not less. That said I agree with much of what you say.
 
retro44 said:
FROM THE ARTCLE YOU POSTED...In the comments section. real ethical isn't it


CuseOnly
2 Months Ago
LOL! Without a project that costs $500 million, we won't get a dime of the $200 mil that was proposed by the state. Miner has been asking for $16 million for infrastructure for about a year, still hasn't gotten it.

What she should have done is taken the deal and rolled the $16 mil into the cost of the project as over-runs like everyone else does...more
Item URL:http://syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/01/mayor_miner_is_blocking_new_su_stadium_proposal_county_legislature_chairman_says.html/post/2014-01-15/1389790320-122-257.html

· Like · Reply · Share
and from his post here...
Joanie Mahoney also stated on the record that the stadium would be fully taxable and would have been in the city limits on state land. notice the 2nd. to last line
  • a $495 million cost for a 44,000 seat arena with retractable roof. The amount does not include parking or land acquisition.
  • additional development of a 250-room hotel, over 160 apartments and 150,000 feet of retail space,
  • no plan for use of the current Carrier Dome or its site
  • the university would be a tenant, not an owner
  • four years for construction of the stadium
  • a public-private financing plan with investment from the state, Onondaga County and the private sector, including SU.
  • annual capital improvements estimated at $1.5 million. The cost of that and the annual operating expenses would be funded directly by stadium revenue
  • the favored site is the former Kennedy Square public housing property. It would not be owned by SU
  • The facility's operating budget would pay for the extra police, fire and other public services needed
  • property tax arrangements were undecided
  • no architect has been selected
how can you put a price tag on w/o an architect

495 mil. with a retractable roof...ha.

250 room hotel and 160 apartments were...on private land... eminent domain and $$$$$$$$

cuseonly is desperate for this stadium he would like to misuse of taxpayers money...most likely criminal.

what all this boils down to is Minor can't run for Mayor again, but can as county executive and why hasn't anyone blasted John Defrancisco here as he is supporting the mayor's view on this
Expand...

Did you not read anything from the articles or the things you reposted from my previous comments above ? Everything was as reported and spot on. You are making my point for me.

Retro, maybe you didn't read the part about the land being owned by the state...you must have missed that part.

I live in Syracuse, that land is being used by nothing and nobody.

The reports were $495 million with a retractable roof, when adding a retractable roof to an existing structure the cost runs in the hundreds of millions. When building a new structure the additional cost to go from a dome to a retractable dome has only been reported at around 2.5%.

You can put a tag on anything when you are limited by available funds and a budget.

I never mentioned ethics, that is how deals get done and progress is made. Now what we have is your preference...Nothing, Just as our esteemed Mayor wanted it.

Now Buffalo can improve infrastructure and get a new stadium instead. Maybe their Mayor will push back with Garbage excuses but my guess is they won't because they're smart and want progress.

You want to know where your Tax Dollars are going, look West and buy a Buffalo Bills T-Shirt or look downstate and buy a Yankee T-Shirt. You are supporting both of those teams now with new facilities whether you like it or not. I prefer that my tax dollars go to a stadium for my team this time right here.

BTW - You want ethical, try constructing something with concrete IN NYC like the new Yankee stadium without getting your hands dirty. Good Luck.
 
Last edited:
CuseOnly said:
Did you not read anything from the articles or the things you reposted from my previous comments above ? Everything was as reported and spot on. You are making my point for me.

Retro, maybe you didn't read the part about the land being owned by the state...you must have missed that part.
Expand...

Your a funny guy,I worked on that Biotech Accelerator project on the stadium site. Upstate SUNY/ESF project.
 
retro44 said:
Your a funny guy,I worked on that Biotech Accelerator project on the stadium site. Upstate SUNY/ESF project.
Expand...

Is SUNY/ESF run by the State of NY? Yep, state land, thought so and it even clearly states it in the articles. Not sure what you are missing.
 
CuseOnly said:
Is SUNY/ESF run by the State of NY? Yep, state land, thought so and it even clearly states it in the articles. Not sure what you are missing.
Expand...
I am not missing a thing....you can explain to the board how COR can fit everything they want on a small footprint.
.
They will need to buy or confiscate private land to fit everything including taking property from they Veteran's assoc. which is dead in the middle of that site and across the street from new S.U.housing. Good luck on telling what the feds can do.
WHICH PART ARE YOU NOT GETTING????? THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE POSTED...The amount does not include parking or land acquisition. DENSE

YOU ARE JUST LIKE A FLOWER CHILD FROM THE 60'S....A BLOOMING IDIOT.

I HAVE JUST OFFICIALLY WARNED MY SELF AND I AM DONE WITH YOU
 
No definitive site was decided upon. The project was in a concept phase.
 
images


http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2014/04/donald-trump-looking-buy-nfls-buffalo-bills-team
 
retro44 said:
I am not missing a thing...you can explain to the board how COR can fit everything they want on a small footprint.
.
They will need to buy or confiscate private land to fit everything including taking property from they Veteran's assoc. which is dead in the middle of that site and across the street from new S.U.housing. Good luck on telling what the feds can do.
WHICH PART ARE YOU NOT GETTING????? THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE POSTED...The amount does not include parking or land acquisition. DENSE

YOU ARE JUST LIKE A FLOWER CHILD FROM THE 60'S...A BLOOMING IDIOT.

I HAVE JUST OFFICIALLY WARNED MY SELF AND I AM DONE WITH YOU
Expand...

I didn't mention or care about parking, that was in the article. I didn't mention or care about the other buildings in the article either, that was the proposed site in the SU PPW that was sent to Miner. Eminent domain is used all the time, not my issue. These were issues you brought up, not me along with ethics. None of these were my issues, they were your sidetrack.

My issue was with a Mayor shooting down a project with no good reason and then trying to save face which is exactly what happened. You believed that she did it because she wanted locals to do the work...Who's the idiot for believing her? Not me.

It is much more true that she is incompetent and dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Basketball
Replies
6
Views
431
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
415
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Basketball
Replies
5
Views
632
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Friday for Football
Replies
8
Views
521
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
657
Ozone!
Ozone!

Forum statistics

Threads
167,694
Messages
4,721,250
Members
5,915
Latest member
vegasnick

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
1,843
Total visitors
1,896
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom