(14) comments Back to story

Mangas Coloradas

There has been so many independent studies that show that this is a TERRIBLE waste of taxpayer money. A sports team like any other business should purchase/rent their own venue. The expectation that the taxpayers should do so is particularly egregious.

BARRY SILVER

here's an old grift attached to a local soccer squad and the pie in the sky of a future multi use, multi purpose, multi merchant, multi activity, multi craftsmen, multi multi multi....

a gift for a few and a drain on the many.

LeRoy Sanchez

All these replies have been so negative! Why can’t downtown Albuquerque have something nice and new for its residents and visitors? I’m from NM. The downtown area used to be such a good destination. It can be again. Mayor Keller is a great elected official and wants only the best forhis city.

John Onstad

Simon:

Do the team's owners have proven liquid assets to guarantee this investment? Who are the owners? They need to disclose their financials at least to the City.

$10MM in cash for construction and $900M in rent and fees every year for the term of the lease? BTW how long is their lease for?

The inflated number of jobs (280?) created is laughable!

Khal Spencer

If the people of Albuquerque are foolish enough to get duped by this, I guess that is up to them. I just see where the city will have its hands in the state pocketbook to bail it out after this all goes wrong.

John Tallent

A stadium for Alb is an absolute waste of money despite the temporary jobs that the construction would create; assuming that iy creates some jobs for anyoone who really wants to work. Have not seen that many who would want to work latley.

JT

Ernest Green

The two key takeaways from this proposal, 1. 'Debt payments on the stadium would last for 20 years. The city of Albuquerque estimated the cost of principal and interest at $3.2 million annually' 2. 'It (the team) also has proposed paying $800,000 a year in rent to the city'. Now, they'd already be benefiting from low costs of financing (municipal debt), no obligations toward owning or maintaining the stadium, and an exemption for the outlays toward property tax, yet their proposal is to come in at 25% of actual cost. This is laughable. A banker would laugh at this (ownership is comprised of at least one retired banker). At the very least, at bedrock level minimum, lawmakers ought to turn the screws on ownership for more equitable terms (i.e. 50% cost sharing) or an escalating payment structure based on the value of the franchise (all of which will otherwise accrue solely to ownership). Of these two options I'd guarantee the partners would choose the first but their PAC spending will angle toward neither. ABQ voters will surely sniff out the disrespect in this proposal and vote no.

David Ford

Ernest,

You should send your observations here to the ABQ Journal as a letter to the editor.

The TV ads are sad/funny as they advertise 500 construction jobs (they fail to mention they are TEMPORARY construction jobs) and 280 "other jobs" generally undefined and probably low paying service jobs. Also it is not outside the realm of possibility that at some point this team and/or the franchise will be sold and that could create other issues.

Khal Spencer

[thumbup]

Ernest Green

These observations are not my own, they bear repeating however since this predatory business model continues to work so well. There's much more, unseen while focus is on stadium cost are the various revenue channels (gate and concessions will go to the team I'd expect), though the revenue from parking, signage/advertising, and most significant the naming rights very likely will also go to the team even though its standing is as the tenant and not the owner. This would be in the proposed term sheet and eventual sharing agreement, the city and councilors would agree to assign this revenue away because they are dopes. The new stadium (minus any debt!) would substantially increase the underlying value of the team. Though models exist with what this increase may be, none of the gain will be factored into the cost sharing agreement, none will allocate to player payroll, all will be privatized. Perhaps the largest revenue play is in the real estate surrounding the stadium, location as yet undetermined because the goal (pun intended) is to get in at lowest cost before competing speculators can strike (pun intended!). There are closely held investment prospectus already prepared and distributed toward these commercial real estate projects. Now I'm strongly in favor of private investment and building a franchise where there was none and howling fans crowding to a game but it is underhanded to omit disclosure of the above when predicated on public funding, or to withhold volunteering any of these figures in presentations of shared costs or player payrolls. These deals are one-sided and voters ought to use their leverage to renegotiate far better terms by voting no.

Jim Klukkert

[thumbup]

Mike Johnson

Nothing but welfare for the rich, how could anyone support such a travesty? Only if they are ignorant enough to believe what the politicians say about this. Politicians lie, when will people wise up? Maybe if this is defeated as soundly as it should be, it will signal hope for this state.

John McDivitt

True

Jim Klukkert

[thumbup][thumbup]

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Santafenewmexican.com. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.