why stadium deals are so secretive

[CusefanATL]

a little bit of an exaggeration. i dont think ITP'ers hate Cobb county residents. You're stereotyping cobb county residents as what many syracuse people would consider the standard southerner. not necessarily the case for this example

it's more ITPs don't like the fact that they now have to travel to cobb county for a game, and the appearance the city politicians didn't put up a real fight for the braves to stay here while the public had no knowledge the team was moving.

I respectfully disagree with a lot of this.

keep in mind for a lot of the ITP fans, this is a much easier and shorter commute than going to Turner Field. There arent many fans that live south of i20. also keep in mind, where the fanbase is actually located:

I think that speaks volumes.

I have lived in Cobb for 2 years and I lived ITP for 6 years. I know very, very, very well the stereotypes that ITP'ers have towards Cobb and I strongly stand by what I said earlier. Like I said, some of it is crazy - some of it is legit. At any point, I highly doubt there would be the same vitriol for this stadium if it were being built in Chamblee, the perimeter area, or Doraville.

 

[SWC75]

Im not sure what that means... are you referencing Ted Turner?

I have been to no less than 100 games. I know exactly what the stadium is called and who it is named after.

That doesnt mean that the place sucks to go to. That doesnt mean that the city wont let the Braves control the development in the area. That doesnt mean that the contract states they can move out after 20 years.

Well with a name like that, it doesn't sound as if the stadium was forced on the Braves and they had no input on what it would be like.

 

[CusefanATL]

Well with a name like that, it doesn't sound as if the stadium was forced on the Braves and they had no input on what it would be like.

The key is that they thought Marta would have a stop there by now and they thought there would be development there by now.

They tried to stay there, they tried to stay in Atlanta - but the city picked the Falcons to give $200 million to and the city claims/claimed that they don't have the power to all the Braves to control the development in the area. There literally is nothing from the stadium until you get to downtown.

 

[CusefanATL]

Well with a name like that, it doesn't sound as if the stadium was forced on the Braves and they had no input on what it would be like.

And they had input... but the Olympic stadium was the most important part.

they tore 1/3 of the stadium down after the Olympics to convert it into the current Turner Field. But other 2/3's (the near side in the picture I posted) is the actual structure from the Olympics.

 

[CusefanATL]

 

[Millhouse]

Yes but a stadium has many ancillary effects, both positive and negative, that have a very direct impact on the city in which it is (or isn't) built. The taxpayers have a stake in this whether their capital is invested or not. And if an owner can choose where to build based on availability of public subsidy as is clearly the case, it's up to elected officials to think about he intangibles implicit in a stadium and decide (as it is their job to do so) if those intangibles justify the investment of the taxpayer funds that they have been elected to steward on behalf of the people.

Both you and Millhouse are looking at this through an 'all-else-equal' lens that ignores many many important factors in this kind of decision making. In the real world, nothing is held constant which is why that level of analysis always falls flat in the real world despite its simplistic appeal.

your lens

 

[cuseinchina]

your lens

Again...simplistic appeal. You got that down.

 

[cuseinchina]

I think where this breaks down is if taxes are raised or a bond is floated or something. If we're talking a budget surplus (humor me for a second) and government needs to decide where to put those funds... ok, I guess I can see a stadium being one of the choices. My understanding though is that's not how it gets funded. It either ends up costing more down the road, or may have some type of associated tax increase.

Right but lots of fiscal decisions have an associated bond float or tax increase. What makes the stadium choice different from the donation of land to build a mall, or the decision to update the sewage treatment works, or whatever else? You elect people to make policy and public spending decisions on your behalf.

 

[Scooch]

I really can't believe people are defending this situation. I'm against public funding for stadiums, aside from certain circumstances where government contributes to infrastructure work that has some benefit beyond just moving people to and from the stadium. And this is just a blatant money grab.

If the "intangible" public benefits are so compelling, then why keep this super secret? Wouldn't the masses be able to understand just what a fabulous deal they were getting here and give it full throated support?

It's because the public ain't getting any benefits. But Braves ownership and elected officials are getting a LOT of benefits.

 

[Millhouse]

Again...simplistic appeal. You got that down.

 

[Millhouse]

I really can't believe people are defending this situation. I'm against public funding for stadiums, aside from certain circumstances where government contributes to infrastructure work that has some benefit beyond just moving people to and from the stadium. And this is just a blatant money grab.

If the "intangible" public benefits are so compelling, then why keep this super secret? Wouldn't the masses be able to understand just what a fabulous deal they were getting here and give it full throated support?

It's because the public ain't getting any benefits. But Braves ownership and elected officials are getting a LOT of benefits.

The youngest Congel crook wants to buy the bills with Golisano. I'm sure the public's interest will be on his mind all the time

people defend the atlanta stadium because they're braves fans or because they see the obvious similarities between atl and syr and don't want to appear hypocritical for thinking the syracuse stadium is a great idea

 

[cuseinchina]

better still, one image is less confusing than two.

 

[Timonen]

If the "intangible" public benefits are so compelling, then why keep this super secret? Wouldn't the masses be able to understand just what a fabulous deal they were getting here and give it full throated support?

i don't see people saying what a great deal it is for the county, just that it isn't so distinct from how business or politics are typically done. avoiding fervent public debate (from emotional, but mostly not-too-interested parties) is advantageous to getting a deal done. they achieved that. i'll judge it all down the line but much prefer the efficient way they got it done to the nonsense that happens when something like this gets played in the media and every other interest group gets their hand into the pot. whatever would have happened under that scenario, i highly doubt it would have netted out as cheaper on the public.

 

[mscanlo]

I respectfully disagree with a lot of this.

keep in mind for a lot of the ITP fans, this is a much easier and shorter commute than going to Turner Field. There arent many fans that live south of i20. also keep in mind, where the fanbase is actually located:


I think that speaks volumes.

I have lived in Cobb for 2 years and I lived ITP for 6 years. I know very, very, very well the stereotypes that ITP'ers have towards Cobb and I strongly stand by what I said earlier. Like I said, some of it is crazy - some of it is legit. At any point, I highly doubt there would be the same vitriol for this stadium if it were being built in Chamblee, the perimeter area, or Doraville.

i wasn't arguing that the move to cobb isn't a move that will bring them closer to fans. you were arguing that ITP'ers hated to move because of the stereotypes of cobb county residents. that is an exaggeration and i dont believe that is the case. ITP'ers more do not like the move because it obviously increases the distance for ITP'ers to go to the game and illustrates the lack of negotiating skills from the city to not be able to keep the team in the city.

 

[Scooch]

i don't see people saying what a great deal it is for the county, just that it isn't so distinct from how business or politics are typically done. avoiding fervent public debate (from emotional, but mostly not-too-interested parties) is advantageous to getting a deal done. they achieved that. i'll judge it all down the line but much prefer the efficient way they got it done to the nonsense that happens when something like this gets played in the media and every other interest group gets their hand into the pot. whatever would have happened under that scenario, i highly doubt it would have netted out as cheaper on the public.

OK, I fundamentally disagree. Let's say this thing becomes an obvious albatross, you can vote out a few of the people who had a hand in it. Wonderful. That doesn't mean the public gets their hundreds of millions of dollars back, or isn't stuck with a lousy tax deal for years into the future. But you got it done, goshdarnit, so huzzah!

Here's the thing... the people who founded our democracy wanted things to take time! They wanted the gears of public discourse to grind slowly, so that rash decisions were less easy to be made. What is so admirable about ramming through a secret deal? Because it took a couple years less than had the process been more transparent? We're talking about a huge use of public dollars AND an ongoing deal that has decades of implications. Maybe taking a couple extra years to do it is a good thing?

Some of the same people who in this case, and in the Syracuse case, are the ones lauding speed and secrecy, are the same people who are always bitching about waste and accountability in government. You can't have it both ways, but people want to because they're hypocrites. People should at least OWN that.

 

[Millhouse]

i don't see people saying what a great deal it is for the county, just that it isn't so distinct from how business or politics are typically done. avoiding fervent public debate (from emotional, but mostly not-too-interested parties) is advantageous to getting a deal done. they achieved that. i'll judge it all down the line but much prefer the efficient way they got it done to the nonsense that happens when something like this gets played in the media and every other interest group gets their hand into the pot. whatever would have happened under that scenario, i highly doubt it would have netted out as cheaper on the public.

business or politics? why it's almost like you distinguish between them, hey!

 

[AZOrange]

Yes but a stadium has many ancillary effects, both positive and negative, that have a very direct impact on the city in which it is (or isn't) built. The taxpayers have a stake in this whether their capital is invested or not. And if an owner can choose where to build based on availability of public subsidy as is clearly the case, it's up to elected officials to think about he intangibles implicit in a stadium and decide (as it is their job to do so) if those intangibles justify the investment of the taxpayer funds that they have been elected to steward on behalf of the people. Both you and Millhouse are looking at this through an 'all-else-equal' lens that ignores many many important factors in this kind of decision making. In the real world, nothing is held constant which is why that level of analysis always falls flat in the real world despite its simplistic appeal.

Trust me, I understand the "real world" and how it works. The point is that these are bad deals for taxpayers and are funded without their consent. This is why the law in most places requires voter approval on this kind of stuff. Basic stuff here. I live in an area where stadium deals have been an issue for years. No matter how you frame it, the intangibles here don't outweigh the risk in the outlay.

 

[OttoMets]

its not in the middle of nowhere... the city was "out of money" to help the braves and claimed they didnt have the power to allow them to develop the area.

they moved to a new county (the area is maybe not "booming" but certainly "hot"), got the money and kept an Atlanta address. and moved to the heart of their fans at an intersection of 2 main highways and a huge boulevard like street. And the logistics are already in the process of a hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades.

win, win, win.

For Georgians, maybe it's not in the middle of nowhere. For out-of-towners, I'd argue that it is.

A number of my friends wandered over to a Braves game during the Final Four weekend last year. Apparently the bulk of the crowd consisted of people in the same situation (people in Michigan and Louisville apparel). Turner Field is right near downtown; this was an easy option.

No way most of those people would venture out to Cobb County. This was a totally backward decision; akin to Syracuse building its baseball stadium in a lousy location, only with the benefit of almost 20 years of additional evidence that these facilities work better in central locations with transit access.

It's a bad thing for the city of Atlanta and the region as a whole. For people who live out there and want to drive their kids to a Braves game, congrats.

 

[Timonen]

business or politics? why it's almost like you distinguish between them, hey!

how i phrase a sentence doesn't change that neither is mutually exclusive in reality.

 

[AZOrange]

I think where this breaks down is if taxes are raised or a bond is floated or something. If we're talking a budget surplus (humor me for a second) and government needs to decide where to put those funds... ok, I guess I can see a stadium being one of the choices. My understanding though is that's not how it gets funded. It either ends up costing more down the road, or may have some type of associated tax increase.

Exactly. I can't believe these guys live in places where govt can just ring up a bar tab without voter approval...

 

[Timonen]

OK, I fundamentally disagree. Let's say this thing becomes an obvious albatross, you can vote out a few of the people who had a hand in it. Wonderful. That doesn't mean the public gets their hundreds of millions of dollars back, or isn't stuck with a lousy tax deal for years into the future. But you got it done, goshdarnit, so huzzah!

Here's the thing... the people who founded our democracy wanted things to take time! They wanted the gears of public discourse to grind slowly, so that rash decisions were less easy to be made. What is so admirable about ramming through a secret deal? Because it took a couple years less than had the process been more transparent? We're talking about a huge use of public dollars AND an ongoing deal that has decades of implications. Maybe taking a couple extra years to do it is a good thing?

Some of the same people who in this case, and in the Syracuse case, are the ones lauding speed and secrecy, are the same people who are always bitching about waste and accountability in government. You can't have it both ways, but people want to because they're hypocrites. People should at least OWN that.

I guess i'm more cynical. My preference for the hush hush is only reflective of how much i detest pr-driven, special-interest filled "debate," which has the exact same end goal of people getting paid off. Atlanta-proper was first choice, had a shot and decided not to take it. Cobb met the price and got it. Maybe it'll work and maybe it'll be an albatross, but that doesn't make it any different from any other public program or investment. The amount of money that gets moved around via SPLOST funds for completely unnecessary public works here in atl is astounding. Having something tangible and attention-worthy from this braves expenditure is preferable, imo. again, if i was fair dictator of Cobb, it's not what i would buy...but we elect other people to make those choices.

 

[Timonen]

For Georgians, maybe it's not in the middle of nowhere. For out-of-towners, I'd argue that it is.

A number of my friends wandered over to a Braves game during the Final Four weekend last year. Apparently the bulk of the crowd consisted of people in the same situation (people in Michigan and Louisville apparel). Turner Field is right near downtown; this was an easy option.

No way most of those people would venture out to Cobb County. This was a totally backward decision; akin to Syracuse building its baseball stadium in a lousy location, only with the benefit of almost 20 years of additional evidence that these facilities work better in central locations with transit access.

It's a bad thing for the city of Atlanta and the region as a whole. For people who live out there and want to drive their kids to a Braves game, congrats.

that the braves rely on tourists to fill seats nicely articulates the problem! locals aren't compelled to go there. that's not a good business plan. go to where your local season ticket base lives and/or drives through. if the product is compelling, tourists will go (same as philly, washington, NYC, etc...you wouldn't "wander" to any of them as a tourist).

 

[Scooch]

I guess i'm more cynical. My preference for the hush hush is only reflective of how much i detest pr-driven, special-interest filled "debate," which has the exact same end goal of people getting paid off. Atlanta-proper was first choice, had a shot and decided not to take it. Cobb met the price and got it. Maybe it'll work and maybe it'll be an albatross, but that doesn't make it any different from any other public program or investment. The amount of money that gets moved around via SPLOST funds for completely unnecessary public works here in atl is astounding. Having something tangible and attention-worthy from this braves expenditure is preferable, imo. again, if i was fair dictator of Cobb, it's not what i would buy...but we elect other people to make those choices.

Actually, your take is much less cynical than mine! You are de-facto trusting your public officials to make a decision in your best interests. I want to keep those bums honest.

 

[CusefanATL]

For Georgians, maybe it's not in the middle of nowhere. For out-of-towners, I'd argue that it is.

A number of my friends wandered over to a Braves game during the Final Four weekend last year. Apparently the bulk of the crowd consisted of people in the same situation (people in Michigan and Louisville apparel). Turner Field is right near downtown; this was an easy option.

No way most of those people would venture out to Cobb County. This was a totally backward decision; akin to Syracuse building its baseball stadium in a lousy location, only with the benefit of almost 20 years of additional evidence that these facilities work better in central locations with transit access.

It's a bad thing for the city of Atlanta and the region as a whole. For people who live out there and want to drive their kids to a Braves game, congrats.

i understand some of your points.

That being said the final 4 is once every 8-10 years.

I also think you are overestimating the distance to cobb county. its probably 7 miles from midtown atlanta to the new stadium. certainly not a walk. but easy enough. they will be gaining a lot more than they are losing.

 

[Timonen]

Actually, your take is much less cynical than mine! You are de-facto trusting your public officials to make a decision in your best interests. I want to keep those bums honest.

Cynical of the masses. I'd rather have 20 enterprising, self interested people hash it out than 5mm self interested idiots (I'm included in that 5mm)