Jump to content

Bring Back The Whale!!!

GHartford

By GHartford
in Greater Hartford

Recommended Posts

Theophrastus Bombastus Hamlet

Theophrastus Bombastus

Posted
Posted

OK, that's finally over. Let's move on......

:angry:

PITTSBURGH - The Pittsburgh Penguins reached a financing deal for a new arena that will keep the NHL team in the city where it has played since 1967.

Gov. Ed Rendell announced the agreement Tuesday at the Pennsylvania Gaming Congress. He said money from the state's new slot machine parlors would help fund the arena.

Rendell said he would fly to Pittsburgh later in the day to meet with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, the team owners and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.

"We will announce that all three governmental entities have reached an agreement for a deal that will keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh" for 30 years, he said.

The Penguins had threatened to leave Pittsburgh if they couldn't secure a new rink. Their lease at 46-year-old Mellon Arena, the oldest facility in the league, expires June 30 and the team is free to leave after that.

Team officials visited Kansas City, Mo., and Las Vegas to discuss a possible move. The Penguins were offered free rent and half of all revenues if they agreed to play in Kansas City's soon-to-be-completed $262 million Sprint Center.

The Penguins won Stanley Cup titles in 1991 and 1992. Their home attendance and local TV ratings are among the strongest of the NHL's 24 U.S. franchises.

Kevin Evanto, a spokesman for Onorato, declined to discuss the deal. Spokesmen for the mayor and the Penguins did not immediately return calls.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported the arena would be completed by the start of the 2009-10 season. The Penguins would pay $3.8 million a year for construction and $400,000 annually for unspecified capital improvements, the newspaper reported, citing unidentified sources.

The Penguins have sought a new arena for years. Last year, the team announced a deal with Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. that called for the company to build a $290 million arena at no cost to the team or taxpayers if the gambling firm got a state license to operate a slots casino in the city.

But the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in December awarded the license to Detroit casino magnate Don Barden, and the Penguins were forced to negotiate with government officials for a new arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Whaler0718 Whistle-Stop

Whaler0718

Posted
Posted

It's a waste of money. All of the funds, state and city, that would be used to build an arena should go to create free parking downtown and to enhance Hartford's ability to retain businesses. This will actually generate the revenues and create the demand for housing that will turn the city around, at which point it would be wise to invest in a new arena. If Northland wants to pay for an arena exclusively with private money, awesome, but it doesn't--nobody would--and and we should think carefully before we sink more money into entertainment. It definitely makes Hartford an attractive place for suburbanites to come every once in a while, but to actually keep people on the street downtown requires an investment in JOBS--keep them from leaving for the burbs and then you'll have your vibrant city. Have the state use the money it would spend on another arena to pay the suburbs in lieu of property taxes for the land businesses would've used had they not stayed in Hartford. That'd be money well spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikel Hamlet

mikel

Posted
Posted

It's a waste of money. All of the funds, state and city, that would be used to build an arena should go to create free parking downtown and to enhance Hartford's ability to retain businesses. This will actually generate the revenues and create the demand for housing that will turn the city around, at which point it would be wise to invest in a new arena. If Northland wants to pay for an arena exclusively with private money, awesome, but it doesn't--nobody would--and and we should think carefully before we sink more money into entertainment. It definitely makes Hartford an attractive place for suburbanites to come every once in a while, but to actually keep people on the street downtown requires an investment in JOBS--keep them from leaving for the burbs and then you'll have your vibrant city. Have the state use the money it would spend on another arena to pay the suburbs in lieu of property taxes for the land businesses would've used had they not stayed in Hartford. That'd be money well spent.

Free parking is ridiculous and stupid. People should be charged to take a car into Hartford like they do in London, not free parking. We already have enough cars in the city everyday and way too many parking spaces. Try more funding to public transport instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whaler0718 Whistle-Stop

Whaler0718

Posted
Posted

Free parking is ridiculous and stupid. People should be charged to take a car into Hartford like they do in London, not free parking. We already have enough cars in the city everyday and way too many parking spaces. Try more funding to public transport instead.

Now, I agree with you in spirit. In fact, my dream world would be public transport for Hartford and fewer cars. But that is a pipe dream. The reality is this. Slap a congestion charge on Hartford and see what happens. In fact, assume there's public transportation, and you'll see the same thing: an exponential mass exodus. It's the same thing that idiot mayor Saxon-Perry came up with during Hartford's nadir: businesses were leaving and the tax base was dwindling so she proposed a commuter tax! Yes, genius! Charge people more for something they already want less. Nobody but us urban planning, smart growth, fair growth liberals actually wants to ride the train. Especially not in an area that isn't really that congested. It may seem like it is, but then, it once took me 3.5 hours to get from the East Village to JFK airport--no accident, no construction, no US Open, just traffic. Google "smart growth" and you'll read story after story of massive light rail projects that nobody uses b/c they still insist on driving. (Portland, Or., in particular) Lots of people like the idea of light rail b/c they think it'll get people off the road--not them--other people, so they'll have an easier drive! True, make driving expensive enough and people will use mass transit, but we, one tiny state out of 50, cannot do that alone because people will leave for auto-friendly places, of which there are many. Right now, the car is still king, it's still the way 85% of people get to work, and even with mass transit, it still will be. Slap a congestion charge on driving into Hartford, build a light rail system instead, and watch the CBD vacancy rate rise faster than Al Gore's weight. You want to keep business in the Beat--and I'll tell you I do--then make it cost less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HartfordTycoon Town

HartfordTycoon

Posted
Posted

I feel like we have to look at this realistically. An Arena is a state amenity that draws people into Hartford. The Civic Center still performs admirably, given it's age. However, the Civic Center's days are numbered the state of CT deserves a better principal Arena in the state somewhere. There are already a 3 smaller Arenas in our area in Springfield, Mohegan Sun, and Bridgeport and thus the civic center qualifies as a larger Arena around here. We need to keep that distinction in Hartford. It's a competive advantage and asset for the city. Now, is the time for an Arena right now? I don't know. I wouldn't mind seeing one. I guess I also feel this way because I know out of all the things mentioned, it actually has the best chance at getting built and contributing positively to Hartford.

Construction of a comprehensive mass transit system? We are so far away from that. We have commuter rail and a busway up first before that will even be mentioned.

State paying towns not to let businesses move in while moving out of a city center? Never gonna fly.

So, I'm where I've been for a while. A new arena is the next logical big budget development for Downtown. We are still a ways away from anything happening on this so we should plan now. We are still waiting for the apartments to fill and Front Street Construction and Science Center completion, so we are not planning anything else big for the CBD right now. The time to look at the Arena is now. Greater Hartford as a whole is not going anywhere, and neither is the rest of the State and region. The Arena is for the region and not an indicator of how healthy the actual city of Hartford is. If anything it's a tangible symbol to many who may not be paying attention to Hartford's progress to really take a look and see what good things are happing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayHass Whistle-Stop

JayHass

Posted
Posted

A lot of people seem to forget it was the original Civic Center arena project that got the ball rolling for Hartford in the 70's which boomed into the 80's...including getting the Whalers attention.

I dare to say that without the Civic Center the face of DT Hartford as we see it today would be much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
robm324 Whistle-Stop

robm324

Posted
Posted

Tycoon you took the words out of my mouth. A new arena is the next logical step in Hartford's rejuvenation. Will it pay for itself? In terms of profit-loss to the state will it be loss? Absolutely. It is a loss leader? Absolutely undeniably yes. A loss leader..something that you take a loss on for a long term gain.

No patch job, do it right the first time, get a world class arena built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikel Hamlet

mikel

Posted
Posted

Now, I agree with you in spirit. In fact, my dream world would be public transport for Hartford and fewer cars. But that is a pipe dream. The reality is this. Slap a congestion charge on Hartford and see what happens. In fact, assume there's public transportation, and you'll see the same thing: an exponential mass exodus. It's the same thing that idiot mayor Saxon-Perry came up with during Hartford's nadir: businesses were leaving and the tax base was dwindling so she proposed a commuter tax! Yes, genius! Charge people more for something they already want less. Nobody but us urban planning, smart growth, fair growth liberals actually wants to ride the train. Especially not in an area that isn't really that congested. It may seem like it is, but then, it once took me 3.5 hours to get from the East Village to JFK airport--no accident, no construction, no US Open, just traffic. Google "smart growth" and you'll read story after story of massive light rail projects that nobody uses b/c they still insist on driving. (Portland, Or., in particular) Lots of people like the idea of light rail b/c they think it'll get people off the road--not them--other people, so they'll have an easier drive! True, make driving expensive enough and people will use mass transit, but we, one tiny state out of 50, cannot do that alone because people will leave for auto-friendly places, of which there are many. Right now, the car is still king, it's still the way 85% of people get to work, and even with mass transit, it still will be. Slap a congestion charge on driving into Hartford, build a light rail system instead, and watch the CBD vacancy rate rise faster than Al Gore's weight. You want to keep business in the Beat--and I'll tell you I do--then make it cost less.

You're wrong about your stereotypes. I take public transportation every day, and it's a mix of people. These are people who spend extra time downtown, shopping and getting coffee and food etc. The car people are the ones who go in and out just for work, double park, and are always in a hurry. There is no way cars downtown should or would ever be subsidized. That's just completely backward and 1960's urban renewal thinking.

Also the buses I'm on, and I take many routes all the time, are always nearly full and even cramped. You're thinking that nobody takes public transport because you don't, but that's just foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whaler0718 Whistle-Stop

Whaler0718

Posted
Posted

Then why do people want free parking in Bloomfield if they're so willing to ride the bus? And, incidentally, many of the folks who work downtown have to travel regionally for work (in part b/c so many businesses have moved out of downtown) so they have to have a car. Yes the folks with the cars drive in and drive out, but, um, they're the ones with the money to spend. Mayor Mike said something along the lines of, how do I get somebody to come to my restaurant for a $7 hamburger if they have to pay $10 to park?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blackstone Whistle-Stop

blackstone

Posted
Posted

OK, that's finally over. Let's move on......

:angry:

PITTSBURGH - The Pittsburgh Penguins reached a financing deal for a new arena that will keep the NHL team in the city where it has played since 1967.

Gov. Ed Rendell announced the agreement Tuesday at the Pennsylvania Gaming Congress. He said money from the state's new slot machine parlors would help fund the arena.

Rendell said he would fly to Pittsburgh later in the day to meet with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, the team owners and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.

"We will announce that all three governmental entities have reached an agreement for a deal that will keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh" for 30 years, he said.

The Penguins had threatened to leave Pittsburgh if they couldn't secure a new rink. Their lease at 46-year-old Mellon Arena, the oldest facility in the league, expires June 30 and the team is free to leave after that.

Team officials visited Kansas City, Mo., and Las Vegas to discuss a possible move. The Penguins were offered free rent and half of all revenues if they agreed to play in Kansas City's soon-to-be-completed $262 million Sprint Center.

The Penguins won Stanley Cup titles in 1991 and 1992. Their home attendance and local TV ratings are among the strongest of the NHL's 24 U.S. franchises.

Kevin Evanto, a spokesman for Onorato, declined to discuss the deal. Spokesmen for the mayor and the Penguins did not immediately return calls.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported the arena would be completed by the start of the 2009-10 season. The Penguins would pay $3.8 million a year for construction and $400,000 annually for unspecified capital improvements, the newspaper reported, citing unidentified sources.

The Penguins have sought a new arena for years. Last year, the team announced a deal with Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. that called for the company to build a $290 million arena at no cost to the team or taxpayers if the gambling firm got a state license to operate a slots casino in the city.

But the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in December awarded the license to Detroit casino magnate Don Barden, and the Penguins were forced to negotiate with government officials for a new arena.

they used the boston strategy. use other towns to threaten the current hometown of the team in order to broker a better deal for the team. its become so common that, going forward, it shouldn't be worthy of discussion on this site. discussing it only helps the team succeed in realizing their goals; which are not yours and mine. we are then the collaterally damaged suckers in a game of 3 card monty - now you seem em, now you don't. wake up suckers. they will come to hartford when they want to. that will be when hartford shows the kinds of growth (or potential for growth) that result in us surpassing at least one of the current towns with a pro team. don't start comparing us to the ones that have teams. obviously that data would be irrelevant to the people that count in all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drc72 Burg

drc72

Posted
Posted

MadVlad:

Who needs the CDA (aka as my son calls it -- Connecticut Destruction Authority)? It is time for the people of Connecticut to tell the CDA that MSG is not good for Chinese Food -- and it's not good for Hartford.

JimS

MSG should of never even been picked to run the HCC in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadVlad Town

MadVlad

Posted
Posted

Then, I hope it is safe to assume that it won't be MSG.

Bill, you're reading that wrong, he's using reverse psychology. I think what he really meant was "Whatever decision we will ultimately make, it will be a bad one".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whalerscomehome Unincorporated Area

whalerscomehome

Posted
Posted

Bill, you're reading that wrong, he's using reverse psychology. I think what he really meant was "Whatever decision we will ultimately make, it will be a bad one".

The decision will be made at 1pm. I fully expect them to stick with MSG. It is interesting that per the numbers put forth in today's Courant. Larry's 1a bid (to take over the lease) and Baldwin's are the most cost effective for the state and will minimize the state's risk. However, the CDA will defend their dealings with MSG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.