HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 8:39 PM
SmilingBob's Avatar
SmilingBob SmilingBob is offline
100 days to economic ruin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South of Manilla
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
Unfortunately that's just not true. The money was earmarked in 2005 to renovate the Salt Palace and build a parking garage at the S. Towne Expo Center. It was never considered for financing a stadium until the legislature banned Salt Lake from using RDA funds to build a stadium downtown, and Tom Dolan and other Sandy backers went hunting for public money to pay for a stadium at the Sandy site.

From the Deseret News (Feb. 3, 2007) :

In 2005, the Legislature passed a bill that gave Salt Lake County the authority to use hotel-tax revenue to both renovate the Salt Palace and build a parking garage at the South Towne Exposition Center. The county bonded for $20 million about 18 months ago to pay for the garage, but construction stalled as the county negotiated a possible funding deal with Real for a stadium.
Even after killing a deal to fund the stadium, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon insisted the county would still build the garage. If the Senate passes the bill, he will have no choice — the state would take that $20 million and build it for the county.
However, the county would still have to pay the debt payments on the $20 million, the county's chief financial officer Doug Willmore said.
Salt Lake County Council Chairman Mark Crockett said if state officials wanted the stadium so badly, they should have just funded it in the first place "without putting us in the middle." "If it's truly a state priority, then I'm not sure why it's this county alone that pays for it," Crockett said.

So $20 million of the $35 million was earmarked already for the parking which is part of the deal with the legislature. and the remaining $15 million is going for land and roads, sewer, etc. While the $35 million is part of the stadium deal it isn't going towards the stadium itself. If RSL fails, the city gets the land with the infrastructure in place. It's not that much of a risk if the state writes the contracts with RSL correctly.

Someone else could have come into Sandy and wanted to build a hotel and convention center on this land and the city, county and state could have provided similar incentives.

We all know that cities, counties and states provide incentive for businesses to locate in Utah. We just don't hear that much about it.

In my mind this is RSL fans vs. ZAP tax people who wanted the money spent elsewhere. What kind of financial returns do the zoo's, arts programs or parks bring into the community-- little to none. They are expenses the community is willing to pay to have them. We pay for them for quality of life reasons. For RSL fans the stadium deal is their quality of life issue. Because we want a portion of the tax to pay for our quality of life project doesn't make us wrong.

We each want our pet project funded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 9:32 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingBob View Post

Someone else could have come into Sandy and wanted to build a hotel and convention center on this land and the city, county and state could have provided similar incentives.

We all know that cities, counties and states provide incentive for businesses to locate in Utah. We just don't hear that much about it.
These types of incentives are what RDA (Re-Development Agency) funds are for. Salt Lake City tried to use them to fund a stadium downtown, but the legislature wanted the stadium in Sandy and re-wrote the law so that RDA funds couldn't be used to built sports stadiums. (I'm sure the RDA change was simply a coincidence and had nothing to do with our vengeful legislators trying to stick it to SLC)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingBob View Post
In my mind this is RSL fans vs. ZAP tax people who wanted the money spent elsewhere. What kind of financial returns do the zoo's, arts programs or parks bring into the community-- little to none. They are expenses the community is willing to pay to have them. We pay for them for quality of life reasons. For RSL fans the stadium deal is their quality of life issue. Because we want a portion of the tax to pay for our quality of life project doesn't make us wrong.

We each want our pet project funded.
No matter what way you look at it or try to spin it, this is a crooked deal. Its not a question of ZAP (Zoos, Arts, and Parks) tax vs. RSL fans. I honestly don't even care that RSL is getting the money, it is the way they are getting it that bothers me so much.

When was the last time that the state hijcaked $15 million in county tax revenue to buy land for a wealthy zoo owner or millionare community center director? ZAP tax money can only be given to non-profit organizations. I'm pretty certain that Checketts isn't running RSL as a charity.

In the end ZAP tax revenue comes from a county sales tax and the money diverted to RSL came from hotel tax revenue so they are quite separate issues. (Though the legislature did take back $1.8 million in ZAP tax revenue this session as well)

If the stadium is such a great community investment, why wasn't anyone willing to put up their own money to pay for it? Answer- it isn't a good investment of taxpayer money, and that's why the County Mayor and County Debt Review Committee rejected it to begin with. For the governor and legislature to come in at the 11th hour and force the county to fund it anyways is a joke. All involved had better be ready to explain themselves if RSL and Major League Soccer go belly up.

Last edited by arkhitektor; Mar 7, 2007 at 9:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2007, 10:06 PM
SmilingBob's Avatar
SmilingBob SmilingBob is offline
100 days to economic ruin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South of Manilla
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
These types of incentives are what RDA (Re-Development Agency) funds are for. Salt Lake City tried to use them to fund a stadium downtown, but the legislature wanted the stadium in Sandy and re-wrote the law so that RDA funds couldn't be used to built sports stadiums. (I'm sure the RDA change was simply a coincidence and had nothing to do with our vengeful legislators trying to stick it to SLC)



No matter what way you look at it or try to spin it, this is a crooked deal. Its not a question of ZAP (Zoos, Arts, and Parks) tax vs. RSL fans. I honestly don't even care that RSL is getting the money, it is the way they are getting it that bothers me so much.

When was the last time that the state hijcaked $15 million in county tax revenue to buy land for a wealthy zoo owner or millionare community center director? ZAP tax money can only be given to non-profit organizations. I'm pretty certain that Checketts isn't running RSL as a charity.

In the end ZAP tax revenue comes from a county sales tax and the money diverted to RSL came from hotel tax revenue so they are quite separate issues. (Though the legislature did take back $1.8 million in ZAP tax revenue this session as well)

If the stadium is such a great community investment, why wasn't anyone willing to put up their own money to pay for it? Answer- it isn't a good investment of taxpayer money, and that's why the County Mayor and County Debt Review Committee rejected it to begin with. For the governor and legislature to come in at the 11th hour and force the county to fund it anyways is a joke. All involved had better be ready to explain themselves if RSL and Major League Soccer go belly up.

Why? What's the risk to Sandy, SL County or Utah? RSL goes belly up and Utah gets a stadium and land to develop.

What do you mean put their own money into this? RSL and partners are putting up over $110 million to build the stadium and hotel which could expand into many hundred of millions with the additional developments that Checketts wants to build. The help they asked for is INFRASTRUCTURE, not buildings and most of the money was allocated anyway.

SL County voted this down because the polls told them to and the legislature came in and reversed it. The whole thing was politics and could have been avoided if Carroon had wanted to play ball. He didn't and this is payback. Politics can be rough.

The opponents of the stadium deal were opposed to the taking of funds from one project and giving to another. They are coming from people who care very little about soccer and want to money spent elsewhere. Not everyone is a soccer fan.

When was the last time that the state hijacked $15 million in county tax revenue to buy land for a wealthy zoo owner or millionare community center director? ZAP tax money can only be given to non-profit organizations. I'm pretty certain that Checketts isn't running RSL as a charity.

Hijacked or re-allocated? This is done all the time when it comes to funding things. A few years ago we voted to raise taxes to fund ZAP projects. Now they found a way to fund a public/private deal. The dealmaking does smell, but I'll take it.

You've proven my point. When it comes to spending taxes on things like the zoo/parks/arts programs it's okay to spend millions of our tax dollars, but to team up with a private company who is willing to spend their millions is wrong. Governments provide incentives to businesses regardless of what you want to call it (RDA, loans, grants, block grants, etc.) and the overall project is to benefit the community.

Plan and simple if you wanted RSL to stay your were okay with the deal. If you don't want RSL then it was a bad deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 2:10 AM
BuiLDing GuRL's Avatar
BuiLDing GuRL BuiLDing GuRL is offline
Real women know buildings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Jordan
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrendog View Post
Down With Swedlund!

ok fine.. i am just a big RSL supporter and want to see the stadium already. I respect Swedlunds right to do this petition.. I just hope it fails and fails miserably.

Don't worry Swedlunds will fail miserably. He has to get 92,000 signatures by mid april. To make that kind of dead line he would need 3,000+ signatures per day. LOL. yea good luck with that. (by the way this is slc projects writing this post not Building gurl )
__________________
Save the bridge..........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 2:47 AM
Viperlord's Avatar
Viperlord Viperlord is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,900
actually... its very possible. There isnt just Swedlund thats in this group. My friend has worked for a lot of political groups in the past years, and was let go when campaigns ended. So, his new job is associated with these guys. I was talking to him last night. He says that is VERY POSSIBLE, and beleives that these guys will accomplish that goal of signatures. I'm chipping in a few donations to help these guys in anyway possible. anything to help scuff sandy, and real salt lake.

Last edited by Viperlord; Mar 8, 2007 at 2:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 5:13 AM
wrendog's Avatar
wrendog wrendog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 4,280
well, you and swedlund can kiss my white butt, viper..



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 6:27 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,633
A good old-fashioned Sicilian curse on swedlund and all of his cronies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2007, 12:47 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrendog View Post
well, you and swedlund can kiss my white butt, viper..







__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 6:52 PM
DevdogAZ's Avatar
DevdogAZ DevdogAZ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
actually... its very possible. There isnt just Swedlund thats in this group. My friend has worked for a lot of political groups in the past years, and was let go when campaigns ended. So, his new job is associated with these guys. I was talking to him last night. He says that is VERY POSSIBLE, and beleives that these guys will accomplish that goal of signatures. I'm chipping in a few donations to help these guys in anyway possible. anything to help scuff sandy, and real salt lake.
As I said before, in Arizona our referendum laws are much more accessible and therefore we see these kinds of petition drives all the time. There are companies that can be hired who will send out their employees to gather the signatures, but it's not cheap. If this group had significant funding, I would say that it's possible, but without any funding at all, it's virtually impossible. In AZ, when they have to collect that many signatures, they usually have 3-6 months to do it. I'd give these guys about a 1 in 574,000 chance of collecting the necessary signatures in one month with no funding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 7:22 PM
wrendog's Avatar
wrendog wrendog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 4,280
So, I read in the paper today that Delta is planning a SLC-Europe flight starting next year. Would you anti-RSL stadium crowd be against government help on landing this flight? Cause that is what will have to happen to get this flight. just curious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 8:01 PM
Viperlord's Avatar
Viperlord Viperlord is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,900
I would not be against the goverment helping fund/assist in a flight to paris. But to me its a completely different scenario. We are talking a completely different ball park in millions of dollars spent. plus, delta most likely isnt going to whine and moan like dave checketts and company did to get their deal through. Also, this news won't clog up our dang news agencies and headlines for the next year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 9:06 PM
wrendog's Avatar
wrendog wrendog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 4,280
I think THAT is the main point.. the media attention it got.. the delta deal will be a significant chunk of change, i'm sure (as will numerous business deals that won't be reported as much), but because it isn't a big news story, people won't care.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 10:20 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrendog View Post
So, I read in the paper today that Delta is planning a SLC-Europe flight starting next year. Would you anti-RSL stadium crowd be against government help on landing this flight? Cause that is what will have to happen to get this flight. just curious.

I am not opposed to government subsidies, grants, help, whatever you want to call it. I have no problem with the fact that RSL is getting help building its stadium. I have a problem with the source of the money and the way in which it was directed to be spent on the stadium.

The fact is that the Sandy proposal was not and still is not the best option for a stadium. There was a much more viable and logical proposal to build a stadium downtown. The city of Salt Lake would have bought the land, and used Re-Development Agency funds to help finance its construction. In fact, if our vindictive, conservative state legislature didn't hate Rocky Anderson so much, we could have been watching a stadium go up on 600 S. right now.

Unfortunately, our state legislators, (most of whom were elected simply because the uninformed people of our state will vote for anybody with an 'R' next to their name) do have a grudge against Salt Lake and did want to see the city's proposal crash and burn. Curt Bramble (R-Provo) sponsored legislation banning cities from using RDA funds to pay for sports stadiums, effectively killing Salt Lake's plan.

Meanwhile, Tom Dolan Sandy's "any development is good development" Mayor and his influence peddling cronies began pushing for a stadium in Sandy. After all, an additional 20,000 people using the city's already over-burdened transit infrastructure is probably a good idea, right? Since the legislature is easily swayed, and the city of Sandy spends more on lobbying than any other in the state, they soon had the legislature on board.

The Sandy crew's next question: How do we pay for this thing? Solution: get somebody else to pay for it instead. Also, since the legislation that had banned Salt Lake from using RDA funds from paying for a stadium was convienently reversed as soon as the downtown stadium plan went south, (coincidence?) Sandy could now use their RDA funds to pay for a part of the stadium, and would only need an additional $35 million or so to make the deal happen.

When the county considered, then rejected, then re-considered and re-rejected, the proposal, the legislature caved to the threats of a childish millionaire and took away the county's money and gave it to Checketts.

To say that this caused such controversy because "Americans hate soccer" or "the media gave the story too much attention" is a lie.

This story got so much attention while other government funded projects didn't because so many people woke up to what a shady deal this was and responded to it. 70% of county residents weren't opposed to the deal because the media told them to be, the media reported it so much because there was so much opposition to it.

There are plenty of occasions where taxpayer money is used to fuel economic development, and these deals largely occur without much attention. The use of hotel-tax revenue to build a stadium in Sandy simply isn't one of them.

While a having a pro-soccer stadium will contribute to the state's economy; it isn't worth it if paying for that stadium comes as a result of the twisted, corrupt process that brought about the funding of RSL's Sandy Stadium, and that is where my opposition lies: Not in public funds being used for a stadium, a European air connection, or any other catalyst for economic development.

I am opposed to our state's influence-happy legislators funding it against the will and best interest of the people they were elected to represent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 10:39 PM
wrendog's Avatar
wrendog wrendog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 4,280
well said architektor.. I can see where you are coming from.

my beef is against those that are against a government subsidy for RSL, but could care less about the millions being spent subsidizing other business ventures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 10:42 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
All I have to say is....


Let's just build the freaking stadium already!!! Right to the point.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 2:06 AM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
getrealutah.org


http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660201241,00.html



Petition drive kicks off over stadium funds

5 Utahns want the voters to weigh in on Real deal

By Amelia Nielson-Stowell
Deseret Morning News
Under the moniker "Get Real Utah," five Utah residents are leading a petition drive to let voters decide whether public dollars should fund a soccer stadium in Sandy.
The petition organizers, four from Salt Lake City and one from Park City, filed a referendum request with the Lieutenant Governor's Office Monday, the last day a referendum application could be filed against actions made by the state during the 2007 legislative session.
Brad Swedlund, 50, who is leading the charge, believes the government abused its powers when state leaders pushed through a plan to give Real Salt Lake $35 million in hotel-tax dollars for land and parking at the stadium site.
That money comes from Salt Lake County's cut of taxes — funding that Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon had denied days earlier, calling it a risky investment.
"The county government did a good job throughout considering the issue," Swedlund said. "Obviously, the Legislature isn't paying attention to their own mantra of local government, local control."
Swedlund describes himself as an "average Joe" who was frustrated that a deal was quickly pushed through the legislative bodies last month at the request of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
The other four referendum applicants are Robyn Riley, Douglas Kitt, Jerry Septon and Cara Solimeno. The five are co-workers, and their decision to file stemmed from water-cooler talk about the stadium politics, Swedlund said.
However, the group has a big task ahead. Per state law, they must collect 91,996 signatures of voters who participated in the last gubernatorial election. Those signatures must be collected statewide from at least 15 counties by April 9.
"We have a huge hurdle to overcome in getting the signatures. In essence, that means close to 100,000 signatures," Swedlund said, since some who sign may not be valid. "We don't have big money backing us, we're just ordinary people."
The measure directing the $35 million to the stadium project will not take effect until April 30, which is days after the April 24 deadline when the state reports whether enough signatures have been gathered for a referendum.
Statewide referendums have never passed in Utah. However, this year there are two pending applications, including Swedlund's. The other is being pushed by public-school advocates who want to shoot down the state's new voucher program for private schools.
According to two Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV polls, the majority of the Utah voters supported Corroon's decision and believed the Legislature should not give the soccer team public money. But the deal had bipartisan support from both the House and Senate in February.
House Minority Leader Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake City, was part of the "yes" votes last month but clarified in debates that "it comes with a lot of trepidation because our public has not been with us."
He complimented the referendum process Tuesday and said he wasn't surprised a petition had been filed.
"It's understandable that members of the public are going to be concerned and upset," Becker said. "I really feel that if we as state legislators and state decisionmakers had a more open and transparent decision-making process, then a lot of the concerns that are very legitimate and appropriate concerns of the public, we may not have seen such a strong reaction to the decision that was made."
Greg Zenger, a real-estate agent from Holladay who stood outside Sandy's planning commission last week and handed out political cartoons that satirized the deal and "fat cats" involved, applauded Swedlund and friends.
"I'm just hoping they can jump through all the difficult hoops to get it done," he said. "This isn't a Sandy issue, this is a state issue."
Sandy officials, however, said they are not worried.
"Power to them," said city spokeswoman Trina Klinger, "but I don't think there's a whole lot of concern right now."
Swedlund is hoping a grass-roots movement will help garner the signatures needed. The petition organizers have set up a Web site, getrealutah.org, that should be up and running in a matter of days, and until then, Swedlund is asking people to contact him through his e-mail, [email protected].
Hey Viperlord, will you please post Swedlund's website when it is up and running? I would love to cast my vote!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 2:13 AM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanboy View Post
Hey Viperlord, will you please post Swedlund's website when it is up and running? I would love to cast my vote!

Yes by all means Viperlord post up the website. I would also love to log in and cast my vote. And also tell Swedlund that he is a piece of shit and that he needs to stop worring about somthing that has nothing to do with him.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 6:23 AM
Viperlord's Avatar
Viperlord Viperlord is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,900
to be honest his site isnt that impressive...I think he could do better.

http://www.getrealutah.org/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 1:57 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Exit 298
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Inland Empire (CA)
Posts: 3,488
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660202503,00.html

Copyright 2007 Deseret Morning News

By Amelia Nielson-Stowell
Deseret Morning News
Most Salt Lake County residents not only oppose the use of hotel tax dollars for a soccer stadium site but they also would sign a petition to try to repeal the use of the $35 million asked for the project by the Utah Legislature.
Image (Deseret Morning News graphic)
Deseret Morning News graphic
A Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll shows that 65 percent of residents would sign the petition. In addition, 63 percent of residents believe Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and legislative leaders should not have passed the legislation. The Dan Jones & Associates poll of 161 county residents has a margin of error of 7.7 percent.
The poll comes just days after five Utahns filed a referendum request with the state to let voters decide whether or not tax money should be used for Real Salt Lake. A majority of the residents of Salt Lake County, where those tax dollars would be generated, say they don't approve of the state-backed plan.
A spokesman for Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. defended the legislative action. "The governor feels that future and current generations will long benefit from the amenity of a soccer stadium that's entirely paid for by private dollars," said Mike Mower, Huntsman's spokesman. "In addition, the state will retain the ownership of the land under the stadium."
Huntsman pushed a plan that gives Real Salt Lake $35 million in hotel-tax dollars for land and parking at the stadium site. That plan, which came in the form of a revised House bill, had the backing of state leadership. Days earlier, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon had denied a similar deal, calling it a risky investment.
In response, a group of co-workers is leading a petition drive — Get Real Utah — to let voters decided where that money should go. They have until April 19 to collect nearly 92,000 signatures of voters from 15 counties who participated in the last gubernatorial election.
The Jones poll was conducted March 7 and 8. Of note: Dan Jones has also conducted research for Real Salt Lake.
Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan said he doesn't think people fully understand what the legislation does.
Image (Deseret Morning News graphic)

Deseret Morning News graphic
"I don't think people know the full facts about it. You can poll people forever, and I don't think people will understand it," he said. Sandy City is planning to send out literature to constituents explaining the terms of the funding deal and host a series of public hearings. Both should start in the next couple of weeks, Dolan said.
Also in the next couple of weeks, an interlocal agreement among the state, Sandy City and the team should be signed. That agreement will spell out everything the team is getting to stay in Utah and everything the team has to do in return.
Sandy leaders are not worried that the referendum efforts will throw a wrench into stadium plans. While standing behind the Legislature's action, Mower said, the governor "recognizes and respects" citizens' right to participate in the referendum process.
Sponsors of the petition drive have set up a Web site, www.getrealutah.org, where instructions are provided for those who want to sign a petition. If the group garners enough certified signatures, the governor decides when the vote takes place. That election could either be at the next regular election (Nov. 4, 2008) or at a special election on June 26, 2007, Nov. 6, 2007 or June 24, 2008.
If enough people sign the petition, the money will not be given to Real until the vote.
The measure directing the $35 million to the stadium project will not take effect until April 30, which is days after the April 24 deadline when the state reports whether enough signatures have been gathered for a referendum.
__________________
I've stopped caring. Good luck, America
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 3:01 PM
wrendog's Avatar
wrendog wrendog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 4,280
people don't get it... it's not 35 million for the stadium! my goodness.. this petition needs to die, and fast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:43 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.