I'm not sure if it is Meruelo trying to control the messaging or not, but it does seem very odd to tout this study as much as Tempe Wins has but not actually publish it anywhere. It also seems a bit odd that Seidman would put their response to GCI's criticisms on Twitter but not put their original work out there. Perhaps some state law or something prohibits ASU from publishing for-profit research? Just trying to find some logical reason for not publishing it.
CXLV - Tempe Entertainment District citizen referendum vote upcoming May 16th
- Thread starter Llama19
- Start date
- Status
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
“Pie in the sky “ is a more apt description of the Seidman report. Ignoring more than 25 years of actual data by using absolute best case scenario in their report and ignoring any possible shortcomings is definitely dreaming. But as was said, Mereulo paid good money for that report
Oh so now we're an econ expert.
I'll bite..... Data from what??
GCI relied upon at least two studies of arena projects that were fully publicly funded to support their assumptions. And neither one is even in the same environment.
The ONLY common denominator between the two reports is the CSL study and are places where both agree and disagree.
The biggest difference (and the one that actually matters is) Seidman stuck with the metrics that apply within Arizona (most notably Tempe). Because that's what's important. GCI went strolling down the Chinese buffet line looking everywhere else for the pie (and Lauren Kuby brought it to them via Door Dash).
BTW Seidman has been around since 1985. They listed their pedigree in their report. GCI was formed in 2012.
Last edited:
Llama19
Registered User
However...GCI did point out the issue about Tempe's 'analysis'...
"On the same day, the Coyotes released Arizona State University’s Seidman Research Institute’s review of economic and fiscal analyses prepared by Convention, Sports and Leisure (CSL) (prepared for the Arizona Coyotes) and Hunden Strategic Partners (prepared for the City of Tempe).
While the Coyotes claimed Seidman also validated the Hunden Strategic Partners analysis, the Seidman review noted “Hunden’s modeling was not publicly available.” (Seidman, p. 1). The Seidman review was commissioned by the Coyotes."
Source: grandcanyoninstitute.org/research/tempe-entertainment-district/
Yeah that gives me a bit of pause too, its effectively that Seidman is being paid by the Coyotes to review data already paid for by the Coyotes. It doesn't necessarily invalidate anything in the report, but it does muddy the water quite a bit.
Conflicting economic analyses of Tempe entertainment district surface ahead of vote - The Arizona State Press
This was an interesting article, it interviews the director of Seidman and points out a couple of other interesting things. One is that the report was done in only 10 days, where GCI took several months. The other is that the director of Seidman seemed to not be a neutral party going in:
"Hoffman, who produced the report, said his only experience with the entertainment district before producing the report was in analyzing it as a Tempe resident and voter. He said he was struck by the part of the proposal that said the entertainment district would be privately funded. "
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
You missed the bottom of the article where GCI’s own person skewers themselves as well as everything else….
What he’s saying is…. “We were asked to prognosticate what the development might do but we cannot guarantee anything.”
And GCI took about two months…. not “several months” .
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
^^^^^ Which gets back to the question that Tempe residents really need to know the answer to.
“Does TED cost them money out of their pockets over the long term?”
Neither study actually addresses that question. They both made a boatloads of assumptions about comparative performance but they don’t address that one question.
But what Tempe did was put as many safeguards in place as they could to make sure the answer would be “no.”
I have yet to see anyone go into the documents online and answer that here….. or anywhere else for that matter.
“Does TED cost them money out of their pockets over the long term?”
Neither study actually addresses that question. They both made a boatloads of assumptions about comparative performance but they don’t address that one question.
But what Tempe did was put as many safeguards in place as they could to make sure the answer would be “no.”
I have yet to see anyone go into the documents online and answer that here….. or anywhere else for that matter.
Stumbledore
Registered User
I don't think anyone can address the "will it cost us long term" question without making a boatload of assumptions about what's going to happen long term. Nobody would have predicted covid, or Russia's invasion, or the rise of American fascism, or the nonsense of your Supreme Court, or anything else that will impact the financial markets. If you want to do ANY financial assessment over future actions, you have to make a large number of assumptions and a good percentage of those will be wrong.
I believe his quote is pretty self-evident that would be why the reporter included the whole thing. Anyone who looked any financial modeling as anything but an exercise would be lying to your face, so I am not sure what else you would want him to say. If he said you should only believe my model, that would be a huge red flag for me. The fact that in both their report and their response GCI makes sure to point out some of the places where they believe both CSL and Seidman got things correct tells me at least they are being somewhat honest. Who asked GCI to do anything? As far as we are aware they did this report of their own volition.
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
But yet you were able to declare the GCI study be better than the other because.
- One was paid for and the other one was not.
- One had more things in it.
I’m reminded of this scene in Back to School..
I warned everyone the GCI study was using the term “assume” and they used it a lot. And to no surprise it’s being treated as if it’s an absolute.
Now you have the person from GCI saying virtually the same thing.
.Who is using anything as an absolute? In fact I stated: "Yeah that gives me a bit of pause too, its effectively that Seidman is being paid by the Coyotes to review data already paid for by the Coyotes. It doesn't necessarily invalidate anything in the report, but it does muddy the water quite a bit."
That is quite the opposite of saying anything is absolute. Until Seidman or Tempe Wins actually release their report what do you think people will gravitate to, the report they can read or the one that has to be disseminated down to them from on high?
mouser
Business of Hockey
Some high level differences between the two reports:
GCI focuses on the entire metro area when analyzing economic impact of the arena/music venue, and some other elements of the project. It contains more elements of speculation such as whether the project will be developed in full and alternate developments—which consist of the same components other than the arena/theater.
The Seidman report was commissioned as a secondary review of the Hunden and CSL economic impact analysis reports which were done by Tempe and Bluebird during the RFP phase. Thus it has a narrower focus than the GCI report as it’s peer reviewing those reports without attempting to explore alternatives. The Seidman report is also more Tempe-centric when modeling economic impact than the GCI, CSL and Hunden reports.
GCI focuses on the entire metro area when analyzing economic impact of the arena/music venue, and some other elements of the project. It contains more elements of speculation such as whether the project will be developed in full and alternate developments—which consist of the same components other than the arena/theater.
The Seidman report was commissioned as a secondary review of the Hunden and CSL economic impact analysis reports which were done by Tempe and Bluebird during the RFP phase. Thus it has a narrower focus than the GCI report as it’s peer reviewing those reports without attempting to explore alternatives. The Seidman report is also more Tempe-centric when modeling economic impact than the GCI, CSL and Hunden reports.
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
The key is to gravitate to neither.
GCI was trying to propose alternatives that shouldn’t be part of the discussion. That’s not a sign of impartiality.
As Seidman pointed out in their critique…. They did more to confuse the public than clear things. Unless that was the goal here.
Seidman only gave an opinion on the CSL study (because it’s all they were given) as to whether or not its estimates were in line with reasonable expectations and they said some were overestimating and some underestimating …. period.
Sometimes the ‘KISS’ method is the best way to go.
Why GCI felt the need to drag Siedman’s study is a bit interesting. Instead of simply crtitiquing it they mocked it. Not a real good look if you want to come across as a legitimate professional consultant group.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
My feeling about these two reports is that they cancel out. All of this stuff you guys are getting into probably don’t matter to the people voting all that much because they’re not going to look all that deeply into this. The headline of each report is all that matters and since theyre fully opposite, people will just shrug their shoulders, ignore them and ultimately make their decision based on other information.
Bondurant
Registered User
Has Penich-Thacker mustered the integrity to apologize for attributing the misdeeds of a different Alex Meruelo to this Alex Meruelo or was the Gutierrez retort enough to shame her?
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
You've probably seen enough elections in Arizona now to know that will never happen.
Economists are always split on the benefit of stadiums and arenas. I imagine the reality is never as rosy as the developers make it out to be. But ultimately, do you want hockey or not? Selfishly, I’d vote for it.
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
I'd happily vote for this project, and would even strongly consider doing so even if there wasn't a full time sports tenant ready to move in day one, but I'm kinda weird when it comes to what I want to see out of municipal projects.
Personally, I'd push way harder for denser housing as a rule as a part of the proposal, but it seems like that's a sticking point for Phoenix, as is typical with municipal, property value driven governments.
What is realistic on this specific piece of land, and how can a municipality maximize bang for their buck, and i think this is a cool way to balance those two goals.
The one thing that would give me pause is broader entertainment trends post-COVID, but I think we're returning to pretty close to a pre-COVID atmosphere now, but that may be related to my own local experiences.
Personally, I'd push way harder for denser housing as a rule as a part of the proposal, but it seems like that's a sticking point for Phoenix, as is typical with municipal, property value driven governments.
What is realistic on this specific piece of land, and how can a municipality maximize bang for their buck, and i think this is a cool way to balance those two goals.
The one thing that would give me pause is broader entertainment trends post-COVID, but I think we're returning to pretty close to a pre-COVID atmosphere now, but that may be related to my own local experiences.
Llama19
Registered User
Alex Meruelo’s Folly
To quote:
"Let me share a lesson that the Tempe City Council would do well to heed. I can remember the presentation made at a Glendale city council workshop by Mr. Ellman and staff on expected revenues from its proposed arena and surrounding development. To this day, I remember the graphics showing buckets of revenue dollars flowing into the city’s General Fund to pay the cost of the bonds needed to be issued for construction of the arena. The whole deal was predicated on Ellman’s promise to deliver an estimated two million square feet of retail and commercial development. What did he actually deliver? One tenth of the promised development and then he filed for bankruptcy. Tempe City Councilmembers, heed this lesson. You are dealing with a developer that Dun & Bradstreet, a major financial rating institution, found to be a risk."
Source: joyceclarkunfiltered.com/alex-meruelos-folly/
To quote:
"Let me share a lesson that the Tempe City Council would do well to heed. I can remember the presentation made at a Glendale city council workshop by Mr. Ellman and staff on expected revenues from its proposed arena and surrounding development. To this day, I remember the graphics showing buckets of revenue dollars flowing into the city’s General Fund to pay the cost of the bonds needed to be issued for construction of the arena. The whole deal was predicated on Ellman’s promise to deliver an estimated two million square feet of retail and commercial development. What did he actually deliver? One tenth of the promised development and then he filed for bankruptcy. Tempe City Councilmembers, heed this lesson. You are dealing with a developer that Dun & Bradstreet, a major financial rating institution, found to be a risk."
Source: joyceclarkunfiltered.com/alex-meruelos-folly/
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
Clarkonomics has finally entered the chat….
Yes…. I spent a lot of time defending her here, but you have a woman who is the vice mayor of Glendale with plenty of motivation to wanting TED to self-destruct. Who recently began using her arena to host catered district meetings with her inner circle of friends (at taxpayer expense).
Joyce equating Alex Meruelo to Steve Ellman is just her desperate attempt to deflect the fact that Glendale never vetted Ellman to anywhere the degree both Tempe and ASU have done with Meruelo.
Scottsdale tried to vet Ellman when he wanted to build his version of Westgate at Los Arcos. And when he refused to open his books they told him no.
mouser
Business of Hockey
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
The concept was fine… just the wrong two people to pull it off.
One thing is for sure. Joyce has become popular with a few certain Nordiques fans again.
Up until this point she’s been subtly quiet about TED but started ramping up her rhetoric about it on her “personal” blog site and last week she got featured in a headline in an independent paper. It’s beginning too look like she and Lauren Kuby have been comparing notes.
AtlantaWhaler
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
- Jul 3, 2009
- 20,208
- 3,451
This is my take whenever the Braves situation gets brought up (I live in Cobb County). I totally get why a lot of people were/are pissed at how that all went down and aren't happy paying higher taxes, but I'm a diehard Braves fan. I see it as paying an extra $100 (or whatever) a year to have the Braves play 20 minutes from my front door. I love it.
Just for clarification, Dun and Bradstreet only rates your payment history, not your overall financial capabilities. So companies that are always late paying bills are going to have a low rating but it doesn't mean they don't have money. They are just stretching their accounts payable.
This is where people that don't go to games and/or use the project writ large (shops, etc.) have no one to blame but themselves if it goes through but they said nothing. But often times people wanting a vision like this either a--- actually count on the idea that the majority of the town *will* use it or b--- the ones that won't use it are too apathetic to actually *vote* on the matter.
I recall when my school voted to raise student fees to add football to the Athletics program. I voted for it (for a myriad of selfish reasons, some of which turned out to be misguided in hindsight) and it passed. But lo and behold, attendance---and *especially* student attendance--- has been an issue from the start and remains so. Whenever someone would say to me "but the students voted for this, why wouldn't they go?!?," I'd reply "the students that cared enough to vote at all voted for it, the vast majority didn't want it but also didn't hate the idea enough to vote against it (AKA vote at all)."
TL;DR: If you like this plan for your district as a selfish hockey fan, and it ends up leading to a building that's half-empty & the sales tax isn't covering it, that doesn't mean you voted wrong, it means a lot of other people should have raises their voice about the situation.
That's perfectly fair. When I was in Cleveland I always voted for the sports related Sin Tax (alcohol and tobacco) even though I was a smoker because I liked having the teams. It was funny to me that the opponents would rail against how horrible and unfair it was, but the same people would turn around and support a tax on tobacco to fund the arts. I was like "just admit you think your hobby is better than ours"
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Eastern Final Toronto Argonauts @ Montreal AlouettesWagers: 2Staked: $225.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Western Final Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Winnipeg Blue BombersWagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes
- Updated: