|
January 31, 2005
How long will the 'Boys be in Arlington?
The new "master agreement," just now being released to the Arlington City Council (but not yet to the public), is supposedly the same as was proffered back in November except for one big difference: the initial lease is for 30 years, next is a 10 year option, after that comes six five year options. Headline on local 10:00PM news? "Cowboys could be in Arlington for the next 70 years!" 70 years!? How the news anchor read the script with a straight face is beyond me. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram called this evening for a comment on the 70 year plan. I predicted the new stadium would likely not last thirty years, much less 70 years, and therefore such projections about how long the Cowboys will stay in Arlington are silly. I then suggested that the city of Arlington and the Cowboys could have included 400 years of options for all they are truly worth - we'll see if that makes it into the paper. Here was my off-the-cuff list of 70+ year old stadiums: The Rose Bowl, Soldier Field, Fenway Park, and Wrigley Field (more stadium information is here). A few other stadiums made it to the 70 year mark before being torn down, but such stadiums are today's exception not the rule. In Dallas, Reunion Arena was built in 1983 and was obsolete by 1998 when the city voted to fund American Airlines Arena. In Arlington, the old Turnpike Stadium, renamed Arlington Stadium, was built in 1965 and hosted the Rangers for 21 years before Arlington had to build a new stadium (Ameriquest Field, nee The Ballpark in Arlington) in 1994. The 70 year prediction is the latest in a long list of "benefits" our fair city can expect from hosting the Cowboys. I think this is one of the "intangible benefits" that Jerry Jones predicted for the city of Arlington immediately after the November vote. Note: Cross posted at Heavy Lifting for the Arlington locals. Oh yeah, on Saturday (Feb. 5) Arlingtonians get to vote on Wine/Beer sales (yes!) and whether to freeze property taxes for Arlington residents 60 years and older (no!). The former is incorrectly justified on tax revenues, is panned because it will allow Satan into the local Kroger, but should be supported on a natural-rights basis. As for the tax freeze, the elderly suggest that they can't afford increasing property taxes (but I can?) and therefore they shouldn't be forced to pay more. Where to start with this? First, all those who voted NO for the stadium should have their taxes frozen. Second, the elderly are smart if not overly quick. Most of the elderly were against the stadium, so as soon as they lost that political fight, they gathered enough signatures to propose their tax freeze. Didn't one of our Founding Fathers warn against one group voting themselves (or should he have said 'their') money from the treasury? I don't mind giving the seniors a tax freeze if we go ahead and cut back on the services we offer the elderly, but that won't happen. I would expect the proposition to pass, after all a special election on SATURDAY February 5? Once the tax freeze passes, I would then expect the elderly to immediately start demanding more services for themselves. The city of Arlington...insanity rules. Our multi-year city deficit of $16m per annum means we can afford $20m of sales tax dollars for a new stadium. $20m of sales tax dollars for a new stadium will mean big increases in local property taxes (Texas has no income tax and a state limit on the sales tax), which motivates the seniors to remove any potential increase in their property taxes from local revenues. If the tax freeze passes, here are those who will benefit from the stadium: a) Jerry Jones; b) our Mayor and his allies; and c) the old folks. Those who take it in the pants for the new stadium: a) anyone who shops in Arlington; b) anyone stupid enough to stay in an Arlington hotel rather than staying in Ft. Worth (8 miles away) or Grand Prarie (1/2 mile away); c) anyone who rents a car in Arlington rather than in Ft. Worth (8 miles away), or Grand Prarie (1/2 mile away), or DF/W Airport (10 miles away), or Euless, or Bedford, or Hurst, or Mansfield (okay, sorry); and d) anyone who decides to own property or try to live in Arlington. Posted by Craig Depken at 11:59 PM
·
TrackBack (5)
|
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
Blogroll
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
By Month:
August 2008July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |