Sounds face opposition in Metro Council

[Rural King]

Well I would go to a game in downtown Nashville, I never had an interest to going out to Greer when I lived in Nashville. Had there been a downtown stadium either time I've lived in the city I would have been to every game I could have managed. I figure alot of folks are like that. I mean all there really is to do at Greer is go to the game and leave, at least downtown you could eat and drink, etc, before and/or after the game.

Now I don't disagree there might be an equally suitable alternative use for the land, but what is it? I think the Stadium would be a great idea and will would help out both downtown and the local support for the Sounds. It won't be the end of the world if it doesn't get built, but I still think its a good proposal.

I still pose the question why hasn't any proposal been made to put a Sounds Stadium on the East Nashville side of downtown to utilize the parking already over there for the Coliseum?

[Guest]

RK

The big reason I keep hearing for not placing the stadium development on the East Bank of the river is that the only suitable land near d'town is the PSE Metals/Steiner-Liff recyling property. The site comprises 50 acres (Philip Metals owns about half the 50 acres, and three different trust groups own the other half and lease that land to the metal recycling operation). The site is considered expensive to develop for two reasons, 1) The cost of relocating the recycle facility, including moving all th metal/junk and finding a comparable site with river and city access and 2) The environmental clean-up and associated legal risks of developing a site with such prolonged and extensive contamination. Metro would have to self insure any developer, (ask Knoxville that can get hairy)

[Rural King]

^ That answers my question. Thanks N_B!!!

[Kheldane]

Woah, you really tried to argue hard for Sounds deal there!

Let me first say that I am in no way opposed to baseball, baseball stadiums, the Sounds, or any activity taken by the sounds. What I am opposed to is using government funds for inappropriate purposes - and I consider financing private businesses to be an inappropriate purpose.

You mentioned the Land, the 500K maintenance, I also thought Metro was guaranteeing some financing bonds (maybe I was wrong but it doesn't matter) but the land and $500k will serve to prove my argument that Metro is at least partially financing the stadium.

Where do you think that land came from before it was a thermal plant? I'll tell you: some private land owner was forced to sell-out under eminent domain laws. Now Metro is going to come back in and "revitalize a stricken part of downtown"? If the land was "stricken" it was because of the actions of the metro government. If anything it should be returned to the original owner or owners, whoever they were. I'll tell you this: It definitely shouldn't go to finance some private baseball company.

The extent to which metro has to donate land and pay maintenance fees is the extent to which the Sounds can't sell enought tickets to pay for their stadium. You forget that part of the stadium costs will be offset by selling land to private companies to develope that land. That money represents a donation by metro.

Plus I don't know where you got the idea that metro wasn't going to sell the land. They could sell it by auction any time they want, just like they do various lots around the city every week due to tax confiscations.

Oh, and you seemed confused about why I would mention police power - - - it's something people should keep in mind every time they say "the government should do XXXX". The only way the government gets anything done is by forcing people at gunpoint (ultimately that is: many people know this in the back of their mind and so comply with the govt. before police are called in - but it's the police who shoot and imprison people who enforce government directives). I'm just saying - you should think twice about saying Metro should force taxpayers to finance a baseball stadium.

As for forcing people to go to baseball - I think it's pretty obvious I didn't mean that . I simply ment that the tax money being used to finance the stadium was confiscated forcefully and it would have been spent on other goods/services had it not been.

Finally, you make a great point in noticing that my argument could be applied to many government functions. That is one of the great advantages to this argument, I have used it to argue against many unjust government practices.

I see the stadium deal as Metro using it's police muscle to make some rich investors even richer - that's what I'm against. As for baseball - I'm a fan and I've been to 5 Sounds games in the last 5 years - I go every year around 4th of July.

Moderator: I have sent you a PM explaining why that quote needed to be edited out, even if you "in practice" made it conform to the rules.

[Guest]

Kheldane

I will not directly address your 'points' except to say that the goal of every investor is to increase the value of that investment. At the same time said investor is 'risking' capital and the investment may decrease in value. I agree that the government should not pick out individual parties and make them wealthy but all investment is speculation (unless you are a TN state senator). Since you espouse strong Libertarian views, some of which I agree, I imagine that no argument will convince you of a government role in city development. Let

[NewTowner]

And besides, Kheldane, you are forgetting the obvious fact that we elect our leaders. Nashville is not early 18th Century Versailles. The cops might have power or something, but we can force changes in their leadership...reserving ultimate power in both theory and practice for the voting hands of the people, the peeps.

Your argument(s), while full of different and unrelated points of value and interest, depend on too many assumptions and are more expressive of your general worldview than they are of anything like your feelings on urban design.

In the world you are ultimately advocating, this baseball stadium issue wouldn't even exist, so maybe you should consider starting a new topic which cuts a little closer to the heart of your argument...something like "How far is too far? Can our governments fairly back development?" or even "We should allow the strong to consume the weak in all areas of public and private life," or whatever else you are ultimately suggesting. Your big-picture rants, while totally welcome and probably full of gems, are of very little use to people who are arguing the specifics of urban fabric and whatnot regarding a specific use for a specific site--especially since most of the actual specifics you have brought up are either inaccurate or too contentious to create anything but a tangent.

[TNpete]

MINOR league baseball in downtown Nashville! Watch as Nashville gloriously goes where no city has gone before. Except Louisville, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Memphis, etc.

I'm not going to argue the topic of publicly funded stadiums. It's an argument that is on-going and I can see merits to both sides of the argument.

This topic is of interest to me b/c I work within the industry (baseball) that comes into question here.

However in this case you may want to choose other cities to mock.

In the cases you have cited:

Indianapolis (Victory Field) (558,000)

Louisville (Slugger Field) (643,000)

OKC (The SBC Brickyard) (542,000)

Memphis (AutoZone Park) (696,000)

All have made substantial differences to the quality of life within their respective cities. Also in each of the cited cases attendance nearly doubled in every case (none of the above teams drew >500,000 in 2005). Contacting citizens that live in those communities, you may find that despite initial opposition (which happens in nearly every ballpark funding case) once completed the facility was embraced by the local community.

In Nashville's case, it is well documented that Greer Stadium is not suited for AAA baseball (which begins the cyclical argument of who should pay). It is my understanding (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that there is pleanty of land on the river. If that is indeed the case than it should be an excellent site for a ballpark considering all of the other development occuring in Nashville at this time.

As Knoxville just now dips it's feet into the world of "downtown revitalization" there seem to be an abundance of people who lament over the loss of the Smokies to Sevierville despite a lack of support for the ballpark initiative at the time of negotiations.

It really is a "hindsight is 20/20" issue as most people do not appreciate what they have until it's gone.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[Kheldane]

Nashville: A city without,

Titans, Predators, Sounds, Symphony

Symphony, TPAC, Opera, Ryman, Convention Center, New Symphony Hall

United Way, ARC, Nashville Cares, Homeless Shelters

Renaissance, Loews, Sheraton, Doubletree, Opryland

Centennial Park, Warner Parks, Bicentennial Park

Vanderbilt, Belmont, MBA, magnet schools

Dell, HCA, Bridgestone, Nashville International Airport

Population under 100K (the list is endless)

In other words Jackson, TN (not that there is anything wrong with that)

In my humble opinion there is a role for the government is development.

Aren't you over-reaching a bit with the above? No Vanderbilt? That's a private college...

No Opryland? Not sure where you're getting that......

No Ryman - - Dave, maybe you know this: Wasn't the Ryman built by a river-boat tycoon?

Your implied contention that all things good and important (not that all the things on your list are important) come from the goverment is clearly wrong.

Many things on your list are affected by the government, but only a few are actually run by it. Furthermore, all of the things on your list could exist and prosper absent the metro government - assuming there is a market for the goods/services they provide. Dell and Bridgestone are a good example: Would they have come without govt. incentives? Probably not. Do I give the government credit for making the cost of doing business in Davidson county so rediculously high that removing that cost looks like an "incentive"? Also no.

[Kheldane]

And besides, Kheldane, you are forgetting the obvious fact that we elect our leaders. Nashville is not early 18th Century Versailles....Your big-picture rants, while totally welcome and probably full of gems, are of very little use to people who are arguing the specifics of urban fabric and whatnot regarding a specific use for a specific site--especially since most of the actual specifics you have brought up are either inaccurate or too contentious to create anything but a tangent.

Well, I don't know what els to say but that I haven't forgoten the democracy thing. If a pool of 100 people vote 75 to 25 in favor of financing the stadium, that still leaves 25 people paying for a stadium they don't want (via mandatory taxes). If instead, those same 75 people are left to finance their own stadium privately, then they get what they want, and the remaining 25 get to buy whatever they were going to buy. It's fairly straightforward. Calling it "Democracy" doesn't change the fact that it's a forcible re-direction of capital away from the goods/services desired by the taxpayers. Besides, what fraction of the tax-paying public in Davidson co. will go or can afford to go to a baseball game? Why not let just the people who attned games pay for the stadium??

Re my post: I think it's on topic, and it's an aspect of this issue that needs to be addressed, I see other posters have the same concernes, though probably not as radical as mine, I'll admit.

[Hankster]

Aren't you over-reaching a bit with the above? No Vanderbilt? That's a private college...

No Opryland? Not sure where you're getting that......

No Ryman - - Dave, maybe you know this: Wasn't the Ryman built by a river-boat tycoon?

Your implied contention that all things good and important (not that all the things on your list are important) come from the goverment is clearly wrong.

Many things on your list are affected by the government, but only a few are actually run by it. Furthermore, all of the things on your list could exist and prosper absent the metro government - assuming there is a market for the goods/services they provide. Dell and Bridgestone are a good example: Would they have come without govt. incentives? Probably not. Do I give the government credit for making the cost of doing business in Davidson county so rediculously high that removing that cost looks like an "incentive"? Also no.

I'm a little confused. As far as I know it's the Sounds Management which would be running the baseball stadium downtown, not the Metro government. Most of the things on that list of Nashville Bound are not run by Metro Government, but without the Metro Government playing the significant role in each development, they just simply would not exist and they would not be adding to our quality of life.

You may be right that Vanderbilt should not be put on that list. But for the sake of argument, let's say that Cornelius Vanderbilt, who started the University for a donation of $1 Million in 1869, had his choice of locations anywhere in all the USA to put his University. The only catch was he said that the city that gets his university would have to donate the land to him. You know as well as anyone else in this world, that he would get lots of land offers. The only way on God's green earth to get this investment is for the city fathers to take action on the behalf of the taxpayers of their city. Without that, No Vanderbilt University. Can you imagine Nashville without Vanderbilt University? It would be like a giant hole cut out of the city's heart.

[Nashvillain]

I'm not going to argue the topic of publicly funded stadiums. It's an argument that is on-going and I can see merits to both sides of the argument.

This topic is of interest to me b/c I work within the industry (baseball) that comes into question here.

However in this case you may want to choose other cities to mock.

In the cases you have cited:

Indianapolis (Victory Field) (558,000)

Louisville (Slugger Field) (643,000)

OKC (The SBC Brickyard) (542,000)

Memphis (AutoZone Park) (696,000)

All have made substantial differences to the quality of life within their respective cities. Also in each of the cited cases attendance nearly doubled in every case (none of the above teams drew >500,000 in 2005). Contacting citizens that live in those communities, you may find that despite initial opposition (which happens in nearly every ballpark funding case) once completed the facility was embraced by the local community.

In Nashville's case, it is well documented that Greer Stadium is not suited for AAA baseball (which begins the cyclical argument of who should pay). It is my understanding (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that there is pleanty of land on the river. If that is indeed the case than it should be an excellent site for a ballpark considering all of the other development occuring in Nashville at this time.

As Knoxville just now dips it's feet into the world of "downtown revitalization" there seem to be an abundance of people who lament over the loss of the Smokies to Sevierville despite a lack of support for the ballpark initiative at the time of negotiations.

It really is a "hindsight is 20/20" issue as most people do not appreciate what they have until it's gone.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Hey all, that was a gentle mocking. I love Memphis and I have not been to the other cities so I'm only mocking their status, not their prosperity or whatever qualities they may possess for their citizens. I'm not really really against the stadium, it's downtown develepment which is great. My problem is the sort of revitalization of downtowns that emphasizes these big attractions which may or may not prove sustainable over the long run. I mean, look at the Titans. We're only two years removed from a run of tremendous success and look at all the empty seats on gamedays. The Predators have done well on weekends (not selling out) but are lucky to have 10,000 on a weekday. Last week the UT Vols were in town to play a neutral site game against Murray State and a whopping 6,000 or so filled the seats. Granted, the Commodores were playing that night (they didn't sell out either), and there may be some lingering ill will towards UT because of the disastrous football season. My point is, these are major draws in a big city that fails to consistently support them. What also makes me leary, in the face of a major energy crunch and an economy that continues to limp along and when people have increasingly less discretionary income every year, how can we expect this stadium to be a modest success let alone a home run (that was lame)? How can we expect them to sustain yet another downtown ballpark, especially when it's minor league baseball.

As far as the attendance figures in those other cities are concerned, I can't argue with them and I hope it continues. How much of their success so far is because of their newness and the novelty factor and what happens when the product in the stands and in the field slips?

Anyway, one way or the other i'm cool with it. I just wanted to add a different perspective.

[Kheldane]

The only catch was he said that the city that gets his university would have to donate the land to him.

The "commadore" would be run out of town as soon as he uttered this rediculous ultimatum if I were one of the city leaders. Thank goodness that history shows us this kind of thing is not neccesary to land big-time institutions. I maintain that the integrity of the government as protector of private property should not be sold out no matter what kind of "development" is dangled in its face by venture-capitalists.

If I were the mayor I would say to investors/venture-capitalists/bankers/baseball moguls and all others: "You want to build something here? Go for it, we're not stoping you". Having the metro government as some kind of economic development bank only leads to under-the-table bribery for lucrative construction contracts and it also leads to the little man and small-time land owner being sold out for big corporatons.

Again, I bring up the question: What ever happened to the original owners of the thermal-plant site? While I don't know for sure, I would be willing to bet the land was siezed using eminent domain. I wonder how the previous owners feel about the idea of giving it to a for-profit baseball organization?

Or let me frame my argument a different way: What if the plot was placed on the courthouse steps as a public auction - no limitation on who may bid? What is the likelyhood the Sounds could land that tract? As cash-strapped as they are - they'd be lucky to even make the starting bid. Someone with bigger plans and a business model that could generate more money would land that tract, and their winning idea would allow them to accumulate the capital to buy it fair-and-square.

[nashvol85]

Ah, sweet...the Metro Council...well I guess their lack of foresight will mean having to drive to Franklin to watch the Sounds. I'm sure their city government would be MORE than willing to shell out the money for a stadium...

In my opinion, to get this new downtown residential growth initiative to work, we need to bring people downtown and give them a reason to stay. Baseball season in the spring and summer and hockey season in the fall and winter would ensure that there would be good crowd of people downtown yearround. The businesses and clubs downtown would LOVE that.

[nashvol85]

Btw...just reading through this thread, how many people here have been to a ballgame at that sh​ithole Greer Stadium? Due to its horrible location (part of town and traffic problems) it was just a pain in the ass to go there. I have probably been to at least 50 games there, and it has been in MAJOR decline since I went there as a boy. Attendance is down. Basically, our option is to either help build a new stadium for OUR TEAM or let them be someone else's team. I don't want to lose our Sounds...

[Guest]

I believe if anything I am understating the effect as a missed opportunity to grow the city would inevitably have led to additional missed opportunities and so on and so on...

The specific Vanderbilt reference relates to your point about city condemnation of public property for private entities. Example,

"The University Center redevelopment may have been the most controversial urban renewal project in Nashville, perhaps less so because the project was ruining a neighborhood (which it was) and more so because of the obvious unblighted condition of the property condemned and acquired by the local authority (in the name of Vanderbilt). In the 1950

[doormanpoet]

Because of the location and utterly hideous conditions, I have been to two sounds games in maybe 10 years. I also stay away because of faith night. They have turned baseball into a religious revival and it turns my stomach!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Because of the location and utterly hideous conditions, I have been to two sounds games in maybe 10 years. I also stay away because of faith night. They have turned baseball into a religious revival and it turns my stomach!

Lemme guess, another card-carrying ACLU member ?

[doormanpoet]

No, I just don't think bible preaching, selling Moses bobble heads, and sermons should be part of baseball. Can't anything stay pure anymore?

[nashvol85]

Because of the location and utterly hideous conditions, I have been to two sounds games in maybe 10 years. I also stay away because of faith night. They have turned baseball into a religious revival and it turns my stomach!

Would you go to more games if they were downtown where traffic is more navagable and (somewhat) safer to walk around?

[Kheldane]

The specific Vanderbilt reference relates to your point about city condemnation of public property for private entities. Example...

Not sure what you were trying to prove with your "example", but it only serves to illustrate my point further: A large institution exerting who knows what kind of influence on a local government resulting in tax-paying citizens having their private property confiscated for the benefit of some rich private institution that can easily afford to by that land or other land in the free market.

Let's see: Vanderbilt with millions of dollars can't afford to buy land to expand - so the government has to run in with the police and throw people out of their homes or else the existing vanderbilt campus will implode and cease to exist and nasville will be doomed forever. Is that the crux of your argument?

I say, "so what" if vanderbilt can't get the exact plot they want for a new building. Boo-hoo! Welcome to the real world vanderbilt - why not leverage some of that high power gray-matter over there and come up with a plan B. They wanted to expand, and old granny nashville wouldn't sell the house for sentimental reasons. Now what? Well boys, no choice but to crank up the old political engine and get the cops to throw her out and codemn the "blighted" house. Oh sure, no one will care - it's just a few good-for-nothing home owners standing in the way of progress for the whole city. Destroying their private property rights in no way affects the rest of the city or it's future.....

I do not consider that kind of thinking "Free Market".

Talking about the cost of business: I was saying that the breakes given to Dell (for example) were mostly in the form of property tax breakes and also that $500 per employee credit which (I believe) was financed through sales taxes. I'm not saying nashville's taxes compare to those other big cities you mentioned, I'm saying that if nashville didn't have such high taxes to begin with the breaks received by Dell would not have been handed out as a political favor, but instead would be available to every business in the form of rock-bottom taxes. Under that scenario, Nashville would be the obvious choice for business without incentives, and all kinds of industries could move here and take advantage of the tax environment without negotiating that cumbersome and time consuming political process that Dell did.

[fieldmarshaldj]

No, I just don't think bible preaching, selling Moses bobble heads, and sermons should be part of baseball. Can't anything stay pure anymore?

While it's not the most conventional venue for it, if it helps attract more people, so be it. No one is putting a gun to your head to attend. Maybe you should lighten up and be a bit more tolerant.

[nashvol85]

Talking about the cost of business: I was saying that the breakes given to Dell (for example) were mostly in the form of property tax breakes and also that $500 per employee credit which (I believe) was financed through sales taxes. I'm not saying nashville's taxes compare to those other big cities you mentioned, I'm saying that if nashville didn't have such high taxes to begin with the breaks received by Dell would not have been handed out as a political favor, but instead would be available to every business in the form of rock-bottom taxes. Under that scenario, Nashville would be the obvious choice for business without incentives, and all kinds of industries could move here and take advantage of the tax environment without negotiating that cumbersome and time consuming political process that Dell did.

Now on most things, I disagree with you on, but in this case, I agree. Lower taxes tend to lead to lower unemployment and a high growth economy. It's not like we're hurting in those categories, but it couldn't hurt to NOT raise them (ATTN: MAYOR PURCELL). I have a long response for this, but my head is spinning because I am studying for finals.

[Hankster]

Nashville, here's a few pictures of what you will miss if if don't build this stadium. My thanks to Sleepy for posting these pics of Memphis's AutoZone park on another thread. I, for the life of me can't understand why the people of Nashville wouldn't want a facilty like this like in the heart of downtown, drawing as many as 1 million fans a year to the city center.

Memphis Auto Zone Park

[doormanpoet]

I am tolerant of most things, but religious revivals at baseball games is not one of them. The stories about it on ESPN and CNN embarrassed the city. Can you imagine the Titans or Predators having Faith night? How about the Sounds having Jewish, Buddahist, or Islam night? Enough of that.

Yes Nashvol85, I would go to at least 20 games a year if I could walk to a game after work and watch them play. I go to Atlanta for the Braves a few times a year, and I will certainly support the Sounds if they were in a nicer and safer location where we don't need anything but baseball to sell baseball. Any press on ESPN or CNN about the Nashville Sounds should be their success in the PCL and a beautiful downtown stadium where 10's of thousands of office workers downtown are going after work. Leave church for Wednesdays and Sundays, or Saturday if that's your day and leave the ballpark for baseball.

[showtime21]

I am tolerant of most things, but religious revivals at baseball games is not one of them. The stories about it on ESPN and CNN embarrassed the city. Can you imagine the Titans or Predators having Faith night? How about the Sounds having Jewish, Buddahist, or Islam night? Enough of that.

Yes Nashvol85, I would go to at least 20 games a year if I could walk to a game after work and watch them play. I go to Atlanta for the Braves a few times a year, and I will certainly support the Sounds if they were in a nicer and safer location where we don't need anything but baseball to sell baseball. Any press on ESPN or CNN about the Nashville Sounds should be their success in the PCL and a beautiful downtown stadium where 10's of thousands of office workers downtown are going after work. Leave church for Wednesdays and Sundays, or Saturday if that's your day and leave the ballpark for baseball.

Doorman would you post a link for that article about the faith night on espn or cnn thanks.

This is the first time i heard about that.