Kyyle23 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: Aka Truist Park Worthy correction thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Dick Allen said: Id rather they spend all these suddenly available PUBLIC funds on fixing up areas where people already live. Maybe even building some grocery stores in areas where they have none, rather than building another area where people who already live in nice areas may move. Maybe if there is some left over, they can use it to try an lower the crime rates including murders, carjackings and armed robberies throughout the city. You hit the nail on the head and this is exactly why these things get funded with taxpayer dollars. They point to the revenue and tax dollars a large enterprise generates. If the Sox leave the city we won't have those dollars to fund the stuff that directly benefits the average resident. Or with this stadium the city will have all these extra dollars to spend on projects everyone wants. The projections always seem grossly optimistic but it's painted as an investment. Would you spend $10,000 in 2024 to make and extra $30,000 over the next five years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 46 minutes ago, Texsox said: You hit the nail on the head and this is exactly why these things get funded with taxpayer dollars. They point to the revenue and tax dollars a large enterprise generates. If the Sox leave the city we won't have those dollars to fund the stuff that directly benefits the average resident. Or with this stadium the city will have all these extra dollars to spend on projects everyone wants. The projections always seem grossly optimistic but it's painted as an investment. Would you spend $10,000 in 2024 to make and extra $30,000 over the next five years? Buiding stadiums for billionaires and saying how it will benefit us all is the same exercise as trickle down economics. It never adds up in reality. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, Dick Allen said: Buiding stadiums for billionaires and saying how it will benefit us all is the same exercise as trickle down economics. It never adds up in reality. That's why I'm hoping that the stadium itself is funded privately, but the infrastructure is built up by the city / state. In reality there'll probably be some massive tax break for the stadium... and you're right - typically, these investments don't pan out if the municipality is doing anything more than infrastructure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohnut Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Buiding stadiums for billionaires and saying how it will benefit us all is the same exercise as trickle down economics. It never adds up in reality The billionaires are still going to be billionaires. And, we’re going to pay the same taxes either way. We can either have an awesome ballpark and not have the potholes fixed, or not have a ballpark and not have the potholes fixed ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 14 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Buiding stadiums for billionaires and saying how it will benefit us all is the same exercise as trickle down economics. It never adds up in reality. Welcome to capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 10 hours ago, greg775 said: There's no way in hell our Sox are moving downtown. Book it. It's a stupid move bucking all trends regarding inner cities. You move to the suburbs or another city in another state. With gregs record of being wrong rivaling TLRs, this is very exciting to see. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 All this stadium talk is nothing but a distraction to how bad this team is, and the fact that we don't know when it will get better. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Soxfan Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 24 minutes ago, Highland said: All this stadium talk is nothing but a distraction to how bad this team is, and the fact that we don't know when it will get better. Agreed and I will NEVER be convinced that the timing was not coordinated. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said: Worthy correction thanks I think it's more that the lease of the current ballpark is up in 5 years and they need to start applying leverage to the state to work on the deal. But it probably does ay a factor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksnort Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Springfield Soxfan said: Agreed and I will NEVER be convinced that the timing was not coordinated. Well, it worked ? Edited January 24 by ScootsMcGoots 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 11 hours ago, greg775 said: There's no way in hell our Sox are moving downtown. Book it. It's a stupid move bucking all trends regarding inner cities. You move to the suburbs or another city in another state. You mean the “trend” of building downtown ballparks that’s been happening since oh 1989? The one with only a few odd outliers over the past 30 years? Let’s see, off the top of my head: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Philadelphia, & San Diego all abandoned the suburbs and moved into new parks in the city. SF, Seattle, StL, NYY, NYM, CWS, Minnesota, Tex, Hou all built new parks in their city. Washington moved and built a new park in the very limited space in the District of Columbia and not an outlying suburb. Oakland wanted to and tried to move downtown before new ownership held the franchise hostage. Atlanta is the only team I can think of that abandoned a downtown location and moved to suburbia in the past 30 years. This trend you speak of simply doesn’t exist in Major League Baseball. Edited January 24 by Tnetennba 2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 52 minutes ago, Highland said: All this stadium talk is nothing but a distraction to how bad this team is, and the fact that we don't know when it will get better. Is someone out there buying tickets because we might be building a stadium in years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: You mean the “trend” of building downtown ballparks that’s been happening since oh 1989? The one with only a few odd outliers over the past 30 years? Let’s see, off the top of my head: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Philadelphia, & San Diego all abandoned the suburbs and moved into new parks in the city. SF, Seattle, NYY, NYM, CWS, Minnesota, Tex, Hou all built new parks in their city. Washington moved and built a new park in the very limited space in the District of Columbia and not an outlying suburb. Oakland wanted to and tried to move downtown before new ownership held the franchise hostage. Atlanta is the only team I can think of that abandoned a downtown location and moved to suburbia in the past 30 years. This trend you speak of simply doesn’t exist in Major League Baseball. Ouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 The A’s Las Vegas ballpark site is within the city limits too, yes? Not in Henderson or Boulder City or across the AZ border? But close to the tourist strip in very tiny Las Vegas, Nevada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOFHurt35 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 58 minutes ago, Highland said: All this stadium talk is nothing but a distraction to how bad this team is, and the fact that we don't know when it will get better. Reinsdorf has owned this team for almost 45 years. He'd be building a new stadium for 40 of those 45 years if it meant distracting us from a bad product on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 29 minutes ago, ptatc said: I think it's more that the lease of the current ballpark is up in 5 years and they need to start applying leverage to the state to work on the deal. But it probably does ay a factor. Is this in response to something I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 18 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Is this in response to something I said? Nope. Sorry, clicked on the wrong one to reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 If an agreement to extend the current Lease is made, a plan for a major remodeling of the existing park might be pursued. Not sure which plan would be architecturally/structurally/economically feasible, but I am sure there are plenty of ideas out there. I always thought removal of the entire 500 level would not hurt revenue much and then replacing seating capacity with upper tanks in the outfield w/Palladian arched openings on the back walls like Comiskey had. Maybe make the center field monitor a regular rectangle with metal arch or analog clock above. Anyway, I am sure there are a lot of ideas out there that would cost a lot less and be done several years before entering into a complicated deal to develop the black hole known as Area 78. I'd bet the bank that thing is never going to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 23 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: The A’s Las Vegas ballpark site is within the city limits too, yes? Not in Henderson or Boulder City or across the AZ border? But close to the tourist strip in very tiny Las Vegas, Nevada? HE'S DEAD ALREADY STOP BEATING HIM! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_Kuntz Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 32 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: You mean the “trend” of building downtown ballparks that’s been happening since oh 1989? The one with only a few odd outliers over the past 30 years? Let’s see, off the top of my head: Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Philadelphia, & San Diego all abandoned the suburbs and moved into new parks in the city. SF, Seattle, StL, NYY, NYM, CWS, Minnesota, Tex, Hou all built new parks in their city. Washington moved and built a new park in the very limited space in the District of Columbia and not an outlying suburb. Oakland wanted to and tried to move downtown before new ownership held the franchise hostage. Atlanta is the only team I can think of that abandoned a downtown location and moved to suburbia in the past 30 years. This trend you speak of simply doesn’t exist in Major League Baseball. I agree with your overall point but Baltimore (Memorial Stadium), Pittsburgh (Three Rivers) Cincinnati (Riverfront), Philly (Veterans), Detroit (Tigers Stadium), and Cleveland (Municipal) were all in the city and in three the new park was built in almost the same location as the old park. Unless you meant they abandoned plans for suburban parks? Either way, I think that reiterates your point even more: baseball has largely always been played in denser urban locations and it remains easily the dominant landscape for it today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 17 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: HE'S DEAD ALREADY STOP BEATING HIM! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Tnetennba said: The A’s Las Vegas ballpark site is within the city limits too, yes? Not in Henderson or Boulder City or across the AZ border? But close to the tourist strip in very tiny Las Vegas, Nevada? Technically the Strip isn't in the City of Las Vegas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Yep, and the Rangers were strategically placed halfway between Dallas & Ft. Worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.