Toggle sidebar

Nationwide Arena/CBJ Finances Discussion II

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Dr. Fire said:
This whole tax argument could get a lot more interesting. I heard the other day that there may be a move afoot by groups that live outside of the city of Columbus, but work in the city and are required to pay Columbus city income tax, to get that issue back before the Ohio supreme court. The argument being that it is taxation without representation, since those people cannot vote on being taxed or not.
Click to expand...

Different issue altogether and either way, it wouldn't impact the current CBJ lease.
 
DJOpus said:
I think the theory is that having a team actually generates a lot of revenue from out of towners. Owning an NHL franchise isn't a closed market setting, each game is an event that brings media and probably some tourism to the city.

Like when Columbus hosts a UFC event or conventions a lot of out of towners come and eat at the local restaurants, shop at the local stores, and generally help everywhere.

IMO that is a real benefit.
Click to expand...

It definitely benefits Columbus to do this particular deal, I wasn't disputing that. I was arguing that its bad for NHL cities as a whole to be stuck in this race to the bottom of subsidizing teams. We have to subsidize because other cities will and that threatens us with losing the team, and other cities have to subsidize because we did. If no NHL cities subsidized their teams than we'd still have all the business benefit for the city without having to pay all those extra millions which end up in the pockets of the players and owners.

DJOpus said:
Also, the general idea is that if you can afford to go to a casino, you can afford to lose money.
Click to expand...

Theoretically true, empirically false. People go to casinos all the time who can't afford to lose money. There are studies linking casinos to higher bankruptcy rates.
 
Looks like this is going to a vote.

Defaulting on a contract + Giving money to wannabe politicans who can't win elections is a far better use of the casino money than supporting a key asset to the cities growing economy. I'll be voting no. :shakehead
 
Samkow said:
Looks like this is going to a vote.

Defaulting on a contract + Giving money to wannabe politicans who can't win elections is a far better use of the casino money than supporting a key asset to the cities growing economy. I'll be voting no. :shakehead
Click to expand...


Even if voters approved this initiative, I have serious doubts as to whether what the initiative advocates is even legal. Can voters really void a contract that's been in effect for two years? I suspect that if this passes, there will be legal challenges and it will get tied up in the courts for quite some time.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...arena-initiative-to-appear-on-may-ballot.html
 
Samkow said:
Looks like this is going to a vote.

Defaulting on a contract + Giving money to wannabe politicans who can't win elections is a far better use of the casino money than supporting a key asset to the cities growing economy. I'll be voting no. :shakehead
Click to expand...

Was there this type of opposition to Huntington Park being built? That was done behind closed doors with no public referendum, and with a perfectly adequate (if antiquated) stadium already in place.

I don't think this is even legal. I can't imagine there being an actual precedent set that would allow any and all contracts already in effect to be voided by public ballot.
 
So, as someone who isn't a legal major nor has any aspire to be... Are the Jackets going to be alright?
 
The actual cancellation of a contract can be very difficult to achieve and is often time consuming.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, but do certainly think there needs to be better communication between the leaders in Columbus and the constituents as to why keeping the arena and team in the city is important.
 
Perhaps this opens the door for a public referendum on every expense of the city and county. Certainly we'll all want to make sure our individual needs are met. Fix your road? No, I want mine fixed!

Stuff like this frustrates me to no end about Columbus. I don't think there are enough intelligent people in town to vote this thing down if it comes to that. All they'll hear are buzzwords about bailouts and tax money. They'll never really understand the truth, but that won't matter...down with government!

Hopefully, I'm wrong.
 
SuperGenius said:
Perhaps this opens the door for a public referendum on every expense of the city and county. Certainly we'll all want to make sure our individual needs are met. Fix your road? No, I want mine fixed!

Stuff like this frustrates me to no end about Columbus. I don't think there are enough intelligent people in town to vote this thing down if it comes to that. All they'll hear are buzzwords about bailouts and tax money. They'll never really understand the truth, but that won't matter...down with government!

Hopefully, I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Ain't just Columbus :help:
 
SuperGenius said:
Perhaps this opens the door for a public referendum on every expense of the city and county. Certainly we'll all want to make sure our individual needs are met. Fix your road? No, I want mine fixed!

Stuff like this frustrates me to no end about Columbus. I don't think there are enough intelligent people in town to vote this thing down if it comes to that. All they'll hear are buzzwords about bailouts and tax money. They'll never really understand the truth, but that won't matter...down with government!

Hopefully, I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Central Ohio voters would vote to stop paying teachers, cops, and firemen if you let them
 
joshjoshjosh said:
Central Ohio voters would vote to stop paying teachers, cops, and firemen if you let them
Click to expand...

Since one of the arguments that will have traction is that the money siphoned from the Casio revenue could be used for those services; that kind of obliterates that argument. What you described is the common FUD tactic used every time they try and reduce tax burdens. It also works the majority of the time.

I could see this thing passing. I don't think it matters. It will probably just drown in litigation, if it passes. That could be a fun waste of tax payer dollars. There is, at least, one lawyer around here that could probably clarify a bit.

I don't mind the watch dog approach; even if I don't support them in a lot of their causes. Ultimately, at some point, someone would be stuck with an outdated arena. The county would be well served preparing for that day instead of pretending to be surprised when a topic of a new arena comes around in 10-15 years and the Jackets start looking for "help" in building one.
 
blahblah said:
I don't mind the watch dog approach; even if I don't support them in a lot of their causes. Ultimately, at some point, someone would be stuck with an outdated arena. The county would be well served preparing for that day instead of pretending to be surprised when a topic of a new arena comes around in 10-15 years and the Jackets start looking for "help" in building one.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that old aircraft hangar that Peter Karmanos wanted is still at the airport...
 
blahblah said:
I could see this thing passing. I don't think it matters. It will probably just drown in litigation, if it passes. That could be a fun waste of tax payer dollars.
Click to expand...

That's how it's ultimately going to shakeout in my opinion, if/when it passes ( I would expect it to pass unfortunately). It will get tied up in the courts and not get settled for a long, long time. But hey if they want to go down that road...
 
jackets4life said:
That's how it's ultimately going to shakeout in my opinion, if/when it passes ( I would expect it to pass unfortunately). It will get tied up in the courts and not get settled for a long, long time. But hey if they want to go down that road...
Click to expand...

This initiative faces a lot of hurdles.

First, is the ballot proposal legal in that it would extend across multiple elections - in the first election voters would end the Arena payments, but payments could be resumed if approved by the voters in a subsequent election sometime before January 2016 (that is the date the ballot initiative says payments are to stop).
http://wosu.org/2012/news/2013/12/12/elections-board-oks-signatures-for-nationwide-arena-effort/

Second, and probably the bigger issue, is whether citizens can terminate a contract that the government has entered into. This is a contractual/constitutional law issue that no doubt would take quite a bit of time and money to wind its way through the courts here in Ohio with plenty of outside parties weighing-in. If allowed, it would seem to be a terrible precedent that could severely hamper government's ability to go about its business. Seems like the thing to do when you don't like what a governmental body has done is to vote the politicians out of office.

Even if the ballot initiative is passed and ruled legal by the courts, I still can't see the powers that be letting the Jackets just walk away - they'd likely come up with some sort of deal to keep them around.

I think this Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government is using this issue as a way to promote themselves and some of their other causes.
 
Speedy Sanderson said:
Second, and probably the bigger issue, is whether citizens can terminate a contract that the government has entered into. This is a contractual/constitutional law issue that no doubt would take quite a bit of time and money to wind its way through the courts here in Ohio with plenty of outside parties weighing-in. If allowed, it would seem to be a terrible precedent that could severely hamper government's ability to go about its business. Seems like the thing to do when you don't like what a governmental body has done is to vote the politicians out of office.
Click to expand...

I'd have to imagine that this would end up in the highest courts.

I remember way back in high school, in a government class we had a mock constitutional convention. Someone proposed a clause that would allow people to directly decide how federal tax money would be spent, and I spent 1/5 of the class period explaining why it was a terrible idea. Two things have never changed: my viewpoint, or my proclivity for long-winded explanations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speedy Sanderson said:
This initiative faces a lot of hurdles.

First, is the ballot proposal legal in that it would extend across multiple elections - in the first election voters would end the Arena payments, but payments could be resumed if approved by the voters in a subsequent election sometime before January 2016 (that is the date the ballot initiative says payments are to stop).
http://wosu.org/2012/news/2013/12/12/elections-board-oks-signatures-for-nationwide-arena-effort/

Second, and probably the bigger issue, is whether citizens can terminate a contract that the government has entered into. This is a contractual/constitutional law issue that no doubt would take quite a bit of time and money to wind its way through the courts here in Ohio with plenty of outside parties weighing-in. If allowed, it would seem to be a terrible precedent that could severely hamper government's ability to go about its business. Seems like the thing to do when you don't like what a governmental body has done is to vote the politicians out of office.

Even if the ballot initiative is passed and ruled legal by the courts, I still can't see the powers that be letting the Jackets just walk away - they'd likely come up with some sort of deal to keep them around.

I think this Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government is using this issue as a way to promote themselves and some of their other causes.
Click to expand...

Meh, things like the legality where already discussed and mentioned in the exchange and by others. I mean what is going to happen? Is the sale of the arena complete? If so, they can't force Nationwide to take it back. How are they going to fund it's operation? The Jackets never owned it. That could be comical.

As far as the "deal" comment; if they somehow stopped this I don't think there would be a lot of hunger to find creative ways to help the Jackets. That would be another case of the voters talking. Not sure they would want to risk ticking off their voter base after shooting it down - again.
 
Speedy Sanderson said:
I think this Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government is using this issue as a way to promote themselves and some of their other causes.
Click to expand...

With the page containing pictures of the "Ringleaders" front and center, it wouldn't surprise me.

Despite the obvious benefits the District provides, "spin" about the preceived control of the funds (the report that Priest and a few council members were keeping control still "private") definitely didn't help. Having a losing product as the primary tenant in the Arena also doesn't help.

I don't want the money to go to the current plan as set forth by Priest and his partners, but the alternative is less attractive....

This city NEEDS areas like the Arena District, if the only options to keep them remain in the "Public Funding" camp, then thats what needs to happen.... I just wish we had more transparency with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom