Jump to content

Soccer in Nashville


Nashtitans

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, downtownresident said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/01/28/why-mayor-cooper-punted-an-incentive-deal-shortly.html

Transition documents left for Cooper's team revealed Briley agreed to give Asurion $3.7 million to help pay for sidewalks, traffic lights, turn lanes and underground utilities at the company's new $252 million headquarters, which is under construction. 

God forbid we spend money on sidewalks. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1) nothing will happen until the contract (or whatever) is modified so the land doesn't revert to the city if there is no soccer. There will be no investers. None. That was intentional/political

2) the past 3 mayors have spent the city into the current fiscal situation. It didn't happen overnight. This project cannot have priority over basic city needs, but should be high on the list after that

3) racetrack? What racetrack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, downtownresident said:

He may be willing to budge if MarketStreet pledges to increase the number of units in a redeveloped Sudekem/Napier development as part of the redevelopment. Would give him a nice win on Affordable Housing, which he focuses a lot of his rhetoric on. 

I believe the 10 acre deal was 20% of the 900 approved residential units had to be affordable. I think there are around 130-150 Units at Sudekem Napier... so if market street sticks to their deal and builds 20% or 180- that’s a win for the affordable crowd. 
 

We also have to Wait and see what happens with the lawsuit. There is a hearing this Friday RE the charter and in June RE the construction contracts. 

Edited by nashvylle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, downtownresident said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/01/28/why-mayor-cooper-punted-an-incentive-deal-shortly.html

Transition documents left for Cooper's team revealed Briley agreed to give Asurion $3.7 million to help pay for sidewalks, traffic lights, turn lanes and underground utilities at the company's new $252 million headquarters, which is under construction. 

The Cooper administration has never publicly confirmed it will not finalize the deal; however, its fate has been in limbo, particularly after Finance Director Kevin Crumbo said economic development deals are "in the back seat" as the city grapples with budget challenges.

With this quote from Cooper:

"It is not just the important people getting money. If we have money, then it needs to go to the people who can build the greatest overall community," Cooper told the crowded room. "I said no, and they were super mad at me. I can’t support a false-flag appropriation from some other bucket of money that was supposed to go to roads and neighborhoods, just because you think your rent is too high."

What are the implications for the Asurion project moving forward?

Could this in any way slow the construction progress or halt the project? Or does it mean the company will just have to incur additional construction costs? (My knowledge in this area isn't the greatest)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, downtownresident said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/01/28/why-mayor-cooper-punted-an-incentive-deal-shortly.html

Transition documents left for Cooper's team revealed Briley agreed to give Asurion $3.7 million to help pay for sidewalks, traffic lights, turn lanes and underground utilities at the company's new $252 million headquarters, which is under construction. 

The Cooper administration has never publicly confirmed it will not finalize the deal; however, its fate has been in limbo, particularly after Finance Director Kevin Crumbo said economic development deals are "in the back seat" as the city grapples with budget challenges.

With this quote from Cooper:

"It is not just the important people getting money. If we have money, then it needs to go to the people who can build the greatest overall community," Cooper told the crowded room. "I said no, and they were super mad at me. I can’t support a false-flag appropriation from some other bucket of money that was supposed to go to roads and neighborhoods, just because you think your rent is too high."

"I said no, and they were super mad at me."

I mean who talks like about one of the largest private employers downtown? The problem is the way he goes about it. Its one thing to reevaluate, another to mock a large employer after you take back something they've been promised.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DDIG said:

"I said no, and they were super mad at me."

I mean who talks like about one of the largest private employers downtown? The problem is the way he goes about it. Its one thing to reevaluate, another to mock a large employer after you take back something they've been promised.

He’s really got to work on his word choice and rhetoric if he wants to continue in politics. Between this and the receivership gaffe, yeesh. 
 

Amd that’s not even the worst part of the quote, imo. The “just because you think your rent is too high." line is just terrible. 

Edited by downtownresident
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DDIG said:

"I said no, and they were super mad at me."

I mean who talks like about one of the largest private employers downtown? The problem is the way he goes about it. Its one thing to reevaluate, another to mock a large employer after you take back something they've been promised.

This is the way his brother talks too. I've had the (dis)pleasure of having group dinner with Jim Cooper on several occasions. He's a 'dry rag' and has a lot of anger, or as some perceive it, moral indignation. I really don't know how he gets reelected but that's simply a reflection of how clueless the electorate in Davidson County is. He still gets a lot of favorable coverage from the local newspapers (I'm not sure how he's portrayed in the local TV media).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, nashvylle said:

@Bos2Nash not sure when if ever infrastructure is paid for by the developer, could be wrong though. 
 

look at Nashville Yards, River North as examples. 

It really depends on projects. You look at any ordinary subdivision of land outside the core and the developer/owner/master planner is responsible for all roadway and infrastructure. Yet here in the city major developments supposedly need the city to provide infrastructure. I understand that if the city wants the development they can use infrastructure as an incentive, but paying for infrastructure - especially when the existing infrastructure is on the verge of collapse - is irresponsible. One of the biggest issues Nashville has faced in this economic boom is the fact that all these developments are merely tying into a system in dire need of upgrade.

On a side note, the city will pay for infrastructure for private developments, but on a project like Hillsboro High School, their limited budget is limited even more by the city requiring them to upgrade water main infrastructure along their entire front of Hillsboro Pike. Why would they take money away from a school development project and not from billion dollar developments of Nashville Yards, River North and Ingram's 10-acres??

3 hours ago, nashvylle said:

I believe the 10 acre deal was 20% of the 900 approved residential units had to be affordable. I think there are around 130-150 Units at Sudekem Napier... so if market street sticks to their deal and builds 20% or 180- that’s a win for the affordable crowd. 
 

We also have to Wait and see what happens with the lawsuit. There is a hearing this Friday RE the charter and in June RE the construction contracts. 

Surprised the state is allowing a deal that mandates affordable housing. The Sudekem Napier development is a whole other animal. There are currently 821 units sitting on ±53 acres of land between those two neighborhoods, in partnering with a private developer I would expect (maybe more hope) that those would be a 1 to 1.25 replacement to increase the number of affordable units, while also allowing the private entity to add market rate units. Any deal that includes less than ±1,000 affordable units on the Sudekem/Napier locations would be a huge disappointment to the affordable housing crowd and quite angering to me personally.  If we got 1,500 units on that land it would still in under 30 units per acre and our zoning codes have zoning that allows for up to 100 units per acre. Granted there are planned community centers and different styles of construction, but hell, even 2,000 units of housing is under 40 units per acre over there (1,000 affordable and 1,000 market rate).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city would seem to benefit from paying for infrastructure at the Fairgrounds and Asurion. It's not like it's going to get done otherwise. 

Cooper seems way out gunned to me, like he won and was like oops, now I just have to say no to everything, winning!

Nothing would have happened at the Fairgrounds if this deal hadn't been approved. It just sets a bad precedent all around.

 

"I said no, and they were super mad at me."

That sounds like something my 5 year old nephew would say... not the mayor of a city. :blink:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

The city would seem to benefit from paying for infrastructure at the Fairgrounds and Asurion. It's not like it's going to get done otherwise. 

Cooper seems way out gunned to me, like he won and was like oops, now I just have to say no to everything, winning!

Nothing would have happened at the Fairgrounds if this deal hadn't been approved. It just sets a bad precedent all around.

 

"I said no, and they were super mad at me."

That sounds like something my 5 year old nephew would say... not the mayor of a city. :blink:

Cooper is a joke.   Look no further than the phrase "false-flag appropriation" for all the evidence any of us should need.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what bothers me most about Cooper.  He isn't actually interested in investing more into Nashville's neighborhoods.  He just uses that as a guise for being anti-change.  I just hope his regressive attitude doesn't permanently affect Nashville's reputation.

Edited by BnaBreaker
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The development Gennie Is out of bottle and there is not a lot the Mayor by himself can do to stop what owners can do by rights with their property. If he makes it too expensive for the average Joe to sell his property to a developer and not get what he thinks is a good price then things will start to tell at some point.

Now the Council could do things to slow growth, but those council persons talk to the developers that live and propose projects in their neighborhoods and I dont think the Mayor has proven he has a good working relationship with the current council yet to stop some of those projects. 

We will have to see what happens when a really important issue comes up to see if Council overrides his wishes on something. He has always been in the minority on the council votes and I will say he may end up on the short end of the stick with his buddy Steve Glover on some of the votes .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

The development Gennie Is out of bottle and there is not a lot the Mayor by himself can do to stop what owners can do by rights with their property. If he makes it too expensive for the average Joe to sell his property to a developer and not get what he thinks is a good price then things will start to tell at some point.

Now the Council could do things to slow growth, but those council persons talk to the developers that live and propose projects in their neighborhoods and I dont think the Mayor has proven he has a good working relationship with the current council yet to stop some of those projects. 

We will have to see what happens when a really important issue comes up to see if Council overrides his wishes on something. He has always been in the minority on the council votes and I will say he may end up on the short end of the stick with his buddy Steve Glover on some of the votes .

Cooper can single handily kill economic deals. Incentives or no incentives, companies meeting with him, witnessing his demeanor and seeing him actively trash talk companies already here are asking themselves is this guy worth dealing with right now or should we move this expansion to some other low tax burden state. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Cooper can single handily kill economic deals. Incentives or no incentives, companies meeting with him, witnessing his demeanor and seeing him actively trash talk companies already here are asking themselves is this guy worth dealing with right now or should we move this expansion to some other low tax burden state. 

I hope Gov. Lee has the Economic directors of Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson and Sumner (et.al.) counties on his cell contacts. If he sees talks between Cooper and a blue chip relocation possibility beginning to falter, I hope he'll refer them to the neighboring counties. Or even to Chattanooga, Knoxville, etc. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

I hope Gov. Lee has the Economic directors of Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson and Sumner (et.al.) counties on his cell contacts. If he sees talks between Cooper and a blue chip relocation possibility beginning to falter, I hope he'll refer them to the neighboring counties. Or even to Chattanooga, Knoxville, etc. 

Given his interest in economic development, I think he would be more than happy to do so. 
 

Edit: After giving the Asurion Infrastructure reimbursement some thought, I can’t believe that the city agreed to reimburse those costs. The city had already paid to put in a greenway through the site, and for the complete street overhaul in 2015, which saw utilities buried on that section of 11th. Asurion/Highwoods are basically replacing what was already there. Still wrong of Cooper to pull the committed funds and mock the company, but what was Briley thinking? 

Edited by downtownresident
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

The city would seem to benefit from paying for infrastructure at the Fairgrounds and Asurion. It's not like it's going to get done otherwise. 

Of course there are benefits from paying for the infrastructure. It attracts immediate development because it brings the total cost of development down. Nashville Yards team at least purchased the land to develop, as did Ausrion. The stadium is kinda a sweetheart deal for Ingram. A business venture for a professional sports team is not for the cheap-of-heart.

6 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

Nothing would have happened at the Fairgrounds if this deal hadn't been approved. It just sets a bad precedent all around.

Nothing would've happened because like some other posters mentioned, it really has never been an ideal location via site and city circulation. The reason things started to roll was because our government wanted to do something with land that they didn't know how to otherwise use. I agree that Cooper is out-gunned, but he isn't totally wrong. A bad precedent was a government promising things that did not need to be promised. Ingram prolly would've ended up purchasing land somewhere else in the city for the stadium if the fairgrounds deal never materialized, but again that is hindsight and complete speculation.  At least with the failed transit referendum there was clear funding pathways for the plan, there was no security blanket on the stadium deal in terms of funding the infrastructure and potential cost overruns of the infrastructure.

While I was in support of the stadium, there were many questions that weren't answered, and I understand the logic behind the fiscal uncertainty surrounding it. One solution could be that Ingram moves ahead and pays for the infrastructure and then goes after the city for the promised funds. 

Edited by Bos2Nash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

 One solution could be that Ingram moves ahead and pays for the infrastructure and then goes after the city for the promised funds. 

Other issues that would remain would be the needed amendment to the 10 acres / land reverting back to city if teams does not play soccer for 24 months (needing council approval) and the lawsuits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nashvylle said:

Other issues that would remain would be the needed amendment to the 10 acres / land reverting back to city if teams does not play soccer for 24 months (needing council approval) and the lawsuits. 

While that may be a hurdle I think that is a small one. The 24 month clock doesn’t start until the team signs their lease. From what I have been reading they haven’t done that yet, so that only becomes a hurdle of once the lease is signed and then things are delayed.

Honestly, I think the 24-month amendment is a good thing. The city has posted $50 million in GO bonds for the infrastructure and the expo center (the expo center that alone was almost $40 million) and then is relying on specific stadium revenue to pay the $225 million (or $275 million?) in revenue bonds. Damn right they should be penalized if they take a two-year soccer hiatus from a soccer stadium built by the city for soccer.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the city is getting roughly $23 million across a 99-year lease starting at 200K a year and increasing a total of 5% over the first 30 years (a grand total of an extra 20k) and then 5% every 10 years after that. On the stadium bonds alone we have a $15.2 million debt obligation through 2051, that only gets paid if there are events at the stadium. Half of the 10-acre development’s property tax money will go to the general fund and the general fund will cover overages that is not cover by the ticket tax, sales tax and a $9 million obligation from the team. Ingram wouldn’t even be touched by issues if he were to take an 18-month hiatus, as the city promised to cover his shortfall with general fund financing of the events don’t cover the debt obligation. 

I am all for the stadium being at the fairground, for mls here in Nashville. But the financing of the deal isn’t great - quite honestly it sucks. With the cost overruns of the expo center eating most of the $50 million in GO bonds, I say either get Ingram to pay more for infrastructure or use some of the revenue bonds to cover the infrastructure and let Ingram handle the added cost as a stadium overrun on the back end.

Either way the citizens of Davidson county should not pay more than what has already been promised and that is what Cooper is arguing (I believe). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.