Now they're going to tear down the old (still unpaid for) arena. Primary reason for doing so? Because it's costing the city $6 million a year to keep it up. Primary reason it's costing so much to keep up? Because when the city built the new arena, they included a non-competition clause, pretty much assuring that the old arena would go unused. Now they're going to tear it down and sell the land. Hmmmm, do you suppose that the land will go to someone who'll pay a fair price for it? Oh wait! It's Ray Hunt, the guy who just happened to own the land that the new arena was built on. Imagine that!
But, Hey! You could maybe buy a piece of it before it goes. Isnt that exiting?
* Often free (or relatively free) of charge; this is justified by the "economic benefits" of having a few years worth of construction jobs and decades of janitorial and food services jobs (plus the "benefits" of having millionaire sports figures living in a nearby suburb).** Which, of course, makes perfect sense by Republican pay-as-you-go standards, since no one living there will have children anyway.
4 comments:
I remember when the arena was first going up and I was asking why the hell taxpayers were funding it when the Cowboys and everyone associated with them were millionaires. And all the football fans smiled at me indulgently and said it was good for the economy. Retards.
I hate Dallas, because Dallas is home to the blasted Cotton Bowl. And if anyone thinks that that is neutral territory for Sooners, they're nuts.
But we get the same kind of dumbth north of the Red River, too. Not to mention in the Midwest where I live now. It's contagious-- and it's the same thing that allows AIG to be bailed out. Twice.
The Word verification code is "In Ark"-- that reminds me that it could be worse.
Chance, your comment is exactly what bothers me about a lot of these new stadiums and arenas that crop up. WE FUND THEM! And you know why? Because we can't wake up and get our heads out our butts long enough to see how we are being used and manipulated. All we see, is the greatness of sports, the niceness of new buildings, and the "economic growth" they bring. Yeah right, economic growth for the fat cats who run it all!
These leagues make so much damn money, they can easily and should for that matter fund the damn things themselves if they want them so bad. In fact, that's one reason I respect the late Bill Davidson (former owner to the Pistons and Tampa Bay Lightning). When he wanted to build the Palace of Auburn Hills, he didn't make us pay for it. No, he funded it all on his own, which is how it should be. You want something, you do it yourself, and if you can't do it, you wait until you can.
But most owners, they're too greedy for that, they gotta suck every last dime from us, just like everyone else who holds a position of power. And they know we're accept it like lambs being led to the slaughter the majority of us, otherwise they wouldn't do it. And if they won't they'll go to a town that will (see Seattle vs. Oklahoma City).
It's disgusting quite frankly, we don't matter to them, it's all about their bottom line. If we really mattered to these people, the Nets wouldn't be getting that building in Brooklyn and the people that live there now wouldn't have to find another place to live to make way for the damn thing.
Here's another thing too while I'm at it, just was thinking about this (which is how I got here actually), why the hell do they almost ALWAYS tear the old buildings down when their are other people who would love to make use of them given the chance? Once again just shows, all about the money, and once the profitability gone so is the building. It's disgusting.
Post a Comment