Circuit of the Americas Development Updates

[hookem]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

This is very good news but still doesn't assure an OK...Spelman and Cole appears to be ready to go but Morrison would never vote for it, no matter what..She is a crazy woman..If the council decides to delay the vote until tovo gets into office then things could get tight...

Spelman was threatening that, which is what brought about the immediate agreement by the promoters to fund all 10 years. At least that's what it seems:

Spelman said that today's latest decision to pay the full 10-year contribution appears to have been triggered by his declaration that he intended to move to postpone council's decision (tentatively scheduled for June 23). "I wanted to allow a full nine days for the public to review the economic study," Spelman told NewsDesk, "as we do in all chapter 380 [incentive] agreements. This is not a chapter 380 agreement – it's with the state's Major Events Trust Fund – but it's close enough that I think we needed to treat it the same way."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs...-deal-reached/

So, I think a request for delay might fail now (unless the promoters want it because of the impact study, etc). However, I'm still skeptical until the vote actually happens. You never know what the council could do.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...e-1551584.html

Study projects large economic windfall from F1 race

By Eric Dexheimer
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 10:49 p.m. Monday, June 20, 2011

A Formula One race in Austin next year would generate just under $288 million in direct economic impact for the area, according to an estimate released Monday by promoters of the race. That spending would produce $26.6 million in new tax revenue for the state, according to the study.

The numbers are crucial to F1 race promoters' efforts to secure $25 million in public incentive payments from a state program designed to lure large, primarily sporting events to Texas for their economic development potential. The Major Events Trust Fund, which is administered by the comptroller's office, in the past has been used to draw the Super Bowl and NBA All-Star games to the state.

The study released Monday was written by Don Hoyte, a former economist for the comptroller's office who now runs a company that produces economic impact studies and advises trust fund applicants on how to secure money through the state program.

[Spaceman]

All of the economic impact statements mean nothing...This race probably won't get the OK from the city...The vote will be delayed so tovo can take office and she will definately vote against it , along with morrison , cole, and the Judas who turns on the project....
Austin is ,and will always be, a city of small visions...An event such as a Formula One race would change that and the little people of this town aren't going to let that happen...Never, never underestimate the fervor of the eco-class warfare raging in this city..Wealth is demonized here like no where else in the country.
I hope I'm wrong on this but..................................probably not...Too bad, this could have been so great!!

[Spaceman]

If a current supporter of the race requests a delay in the vote...that will be the council person who rolls over.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

25 million is really NOT that much money. To put this in perspective: The direct connectors at the 183 and 290 interchange are costing around 107 million.

You must be kidding!

Those direct interchange flyovers will be usable by the public over 50 years. That's just a little over $2 Million per year. The F1 $25 Million is per year for 10 years, a total of $250 Million over 10 years.

Additionally, F1 will ask and expect similar funds to keep the race event in Austin after the initial 10 years. If the bribe remains the same to keep the race in Austin, which it won't - they'll want more, over 50 years that's a grand total of at least $2.5 Billion.

I don't think $2.5 Billion for a race once a year is anywhere near as economical as the $107 Million for flyovers used every day.

Too many local governments are biting on the hook of subsidizing private businesses, either with outright grants like this, or with tax reductions, hoping to grow the local economy if only temporary. What happens after the first 10 years have past for the track, what happens to businesses after their grants or tax reductions have past? They move someplace else that's willing to grant even higher subsidies. And to prove my point, just look at the recent past history of America's F1 race.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

You must be kidding!

Those direct interchange flyovers will be usable by the public over 50 years. That's just a little over $2 Million per year. The F1 $25 Million is per year for 10 years, a total of $250 Million over 10 years.

Additionally, F1 will ask and expect similar funds to keep the race event in Austin after the initial 10 years. If the bribe remains the same to keep the race in Austin, which it won't - they'll want more, over 50 years that's a grand total of at least $2.5 Billion.

I don't think $2.5 Billion for a race once a year is anywhere near as economical as the $107 Million for flyovers used every day.

Too many local governments are biting on the hook of subsidizing private businesses, either with outright grants like this, or with tax reductions, hoping to grow the local economy if only temporary. What happens after the first 10 years have past for the track, what happens to businesses after their grants or tax reductions have past? They move someplace else that's willing to grant even higher subsidies. And to prove my point, just look at the recent past history of America's F1 race.

No, I'm not kidding. Sometimes the cost of getting good business is tax goodies.

[Armybrat]

Latest story from ESPN on the Austin F1 teack:

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/52061.html

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No, I'm not kidding. Sometimes the cost of getting good business is tax goodies.

Since when did $2,500 Million or even $250 Million come anywhere close to $100 Million?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by electricron

You must be kidding!

Those direct interchange flyovers will be usable by the public over 50 years. That's just a little over $2 Million per year. The F1 $25 Million is per year for 10 years, a total of $250 Million over 10 years.

Additionally, F1 will ask and expect similar funds to keep the race event in Austin after the initial 10 years. If the bribe remains the same to keep the race in Austin, which it won't - they'll want more, over 50 years that's a grand total of at least $2.5 Billion.

I don't think $2.5 Billion for a race once a year is anywhere near as economical as the $107 Million for flyovers used every day.

Too many local governments are biting on the hook of subsidizing private businesses, either with outright grants like this, or with tax reductions, hoping to grow the local economy if only temporary. What happens after the first 10 years have past for the track, what happens to businesses after their grants or tax reductions have past? They move someplace else that's willing to grant even higher subsidies. And to prove my point, just look at the recent past history of America's F1 race.

See, this is why I'm in favor of keeping sports out of Austin. They expect too many handouts. BUT, if we are to have a sports related project come here, it might as well be something that pulls it's own weight a bit and actually contributes in some way, IE, the research and study that will accompany it. At least it isn't football or some other mainstream sports franchise which is a complete waste of money, natural resources, land, and just about anything else.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...-economic.html

City reviews Formula One economic impact report, will vote on endorsement deal Thursday

Austin Business Journal
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:53pm CDT

City officials on Tuesday discussed the results of a study that projects the Formula One facility would pump about $288 million to the Central Texas economy.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

See, this is why I'm in favor of keeping sports out of Austin. They expect too many handouts. BUT, if we are to have a sports related project come here, it might as well be something that pulls it's own weight a bit and actually contributes in some way, IE, the research and study that will accompany it. At least it isn't football or some other mainstream sports franchise which is a complete waste of money, natural resources, land, and just about anything else.

I totally agree. The thing is that Formula 1 actually matters and is not just a money sink like stadiums for franchised sports.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

See, this is why I'm in favor of keeping sports out of Austin. They expect too many handouts. BUT, if we are to have a sports related project come here, it might as well be something that pulls it's own weight a bit and actually contributes in some way, IE, the research and study that will accompany it. At least it isn't football or some other mainstream sports franchise which is a complete waste of money, natural resources, land, and just about anything else.

Could the research facilities survive without a F1 race? Can the F1 race occur without the State's $25 Million ($250 Million over 10 years)? I believe the research facilities are being built to appease taxpayers more than for any real research; that we're being taken hook, line, and sinker by a huge hoax and sham.
Mainstream sport stadiums and arenas see multiple home games a year, and can be used for other purposes too. This racetrack will have one or two massive events a year.

Lets put some real perspective comparisons into this debate.
F1 Racetrack = $250 Million for 10 F1 events and 10 motorcycle events lets say averaging 100,000 customers per event (we really don't have any real Austin data to back any assumption) = therefore 2,000,000 grand total fans =
$125 tax subsidy per customer.
Cedar Park's Arena = $55 Million for 440 hockey games and 250 basketball games over 10 years, averaging 5,000 fans per hockey game and 2,500 fans per basketball game (real Austin data from last year), 2,200,000 + 625,000 = 2,825,000 grand total fans =
$19.47 tax subsidy per customer.

Which really gets more bang for your tax bucks, the F1 racetrack or Cedar Park's arena?

Note, I'm not including extra one-time yearly events like rodeos, circuses, and concerts for the arena - which of course the racetrack might attract too. Never-the-less, for the racetrack to reach $20 tax subsidy for $250 Million over 20 events, it'll need to average 12,500,000 customers per event. Not even the Indy 500, the largest drawing event in the world, attracts half that many fans over 10 years much less per event. Of course F1 tickets will be sold at much higher prices than hockey and basketball ticket prices, but I doubt they'll average more than 1,250 times higher ever.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

Could the research facilities survive without a F1 race? Can the F1 race occur without the State's $25 Million ($250 Million over 10 years)? I believe the research facilities are being built to appease taxpayers more than for any real research; that we're being taken hook, line, and sinker by a huge hoax and sham.
Mainstream sport stadiums and arenas see multiple home games a year, and can be used for other purposes too. This racetrack will have one or two massive events a year.

Lets put some real perspective comparisons into this debate.
F1 Racetrack = $250 Million for 10 F1 events and 10 motorcycle events lets say averaging 100,000 customers per event (we really don't have any real Austin data to back any assumption) = therefore 2,000,000 grand total fans =
$125 tax subsidy per customer.
Cedar Park's Arena = $55 Million for 440 hockey games and 250 basketball games over 10 years, averaging 5,000 fans per hockey game and 2,500 fans per basketball game (real Austin data from last year), 2,200,000 + 625,000 = 2,825,000 grand total fans =
$19.47 tax subsidy per customer.

Which really gets more bang for your tax bucks, the F1 racetrack or Cedar Park's arena?

Note, I'm not including extra one-time yearly events like rodeos, circuses, and concerts for the arena - which of course the racetrack might attract too. Never-the-less, for the racetrack to reach $20 tax subsidy for $250 Million over 20 events, it'll need to average 12,500,000 customers per event. Not even the Indy 500, the largest drawing event in the world, attracts half that many fans over 10 years much less per event. Of course F1 tickets will be sold at much higher prices than hockey and basketball ticket prices, but I doubt they'll average more than 1,250 times higher ever.

The difference here is who it attracts. Those hockey games attract locals whose money would be spent here anyway. The F1 race attracts foreigners whose money would not. I.E. a new influx of cash just like all of Austin's other signature music events and festivals and parades and blah blah blah. It also gives us international press, which is valuable and is probably not caught by your silly metric.

[ATXboom]

Thank you WW... I was going to mention this. I'm happy to pay for the national exposure and best global marketing campaign Austin may ever recieve. I believe this will result in foreign investment into local companies and developments... increased international tourism, relocations to use track in off time, etc. All of which help local austin business and are cash spends above and beyond what is spent already by locals (eg Cedar Park arena).

But this debate can go on forever as this is a dialogue about beliefs... one person thinks they are making an investment they believe has a reasonable chance for payoff that wouldn't otherwise exist. The other believes they are being cheated and the wool pulled over their eyes, and as a result, aren't willing to gamble on a 1 time opportunity. Personally I like to bet a little on my future, so I'm happy to risk $125... or whatever the number is.

Here's another view point http://www.statesman.com/opinion/rob...t-1553540.html

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by electricron

Could the research facilities survive without a F1 race? Can the F1 race occur without the State's $25 Million ($250 Million over 10 years)? I believe the research facilities are being built to appease taxpayers more than for any real research; that we're being taken hook, line, and sinker by a huge hoax and sham.
Mainstream sport stadiums and arenas see multiple home games a year, and can be used for other purposes too. This racetrack will have one or two massive events a year.

Lets put some real perspective comparisons into this debate.
F1 Racetrack = $250 Million for 10 F1 events and 10 motorcycle events lets say averaging 100,000 customers per event (we really don't have any real Austin data to back any assumption) = therefore 2,000,000 grand total fans =
$125 tax subsidy per customer.
Cedar Park's Arena = $55 Million for 440 hockey games and 250 basketball games over 10 years, averaging 5,000 fans per hockey game and 2,500 fans per basketball game (real Austin data from last year), 2,200,000 + 625,000 = 2,825,000 grand total fans =
$19.47 tax subsidy per customer.

Which really gets more bang for your tax bucks, the F1 racetrack or Cedar Park's arena?

Note, I'm not including extra one-time yearly events like rodeos, circuses, and concerts for the arena - which of course the racetrack might attract too. Never-the-less, for the racetrack to reach $20 tax subsidy for $250 Million over 20 events, it'll need to average 12,500,000 customers per event. Not even the Indy 500, the largest drawing event in the world, attracts half that many fans over 10 years much less per event. Of course F1 tickets will be sold at much higher prices than hockey and basketball ticket prices, but I doubt they'll average more than 1,250 times higher ever.

electricron, I get your point and think you have a good point, but you are clearly ignoring a lot in how you are putting those numbers together to come up with numbers that aren't close.

Not only is it more than 100k per event, but it is not just one day a year for each event. It is a full week of stuff with three main days that will have close to 120k each day. The motorcycle race is like 80k a day, and ~100k a day on the Le Mans, and then there are any other races they will likely add. Those three events alone would put it at a $27 subsidy not $125 (I used only the three main days not the full weeks worth of stuff per event).

And then there is that we already have facilities that can handle the events such as you mentioned for the Ceder Park Arena, and many other great facilities for many other types of events that we have. This is something that we don't have. Something new that would put Austin on a stage for the whole world to see and bring in people from all over the world. It has a huge potential to be something great for the city. By far the most ambitious such undertaking like this Austin has ever attempted. And the risk to Austin is virtually nothing. Do you really think that with them now agreeing to pay that $4 mil that the City of Austin is not going to make a huge tax income profit off this facility?

[nixcity]

Standing applause, well said you three, you all should come out in support at tomorrow's council meeting!

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Standing applause, well said you three, you all should come out in support at tomorrow's council meeting!

I live in San Antonio

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=true

Lawsuit filed against state Formula One subsidy

By Eric Dexheimer
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Updated: 9:33 p.m. Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Published: 9:29 p.m. Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Two Austin-area educators and an accountant went to court Wednesday seeking to prevent Texas Comptroller Susan Combs from paying a $25 million public subsidy to local organizers of the Formula One race planned for next June.

Their lawsuit, filed in state District Court in Travis County, claims Combs promised the money illegally and asks that any payment from the state to the promoters be halted.

The plaintiffs, Austin teacher Ewa Siwak , Del Valle school board Trustee Richard Franklin and accountant Richard Viktorin are represented by Bill Aleshire, a former Travis County tax collector and Commissioners Court judge who has been a vocal opponent of using taxpayer money to support the project. Viktorin represents a group called Audits in the Public Interest and also has been critical of using the trust fund money for the race.

[KevinFromTexas]

Wow, what a surprise.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...1-1556208.html

Tovo, fresh off victory, calls for delaying F1 vote until she's seated

By Marty Toohey
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 8:53 p.m. Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Kathie Tovo , who comfortably prevailed in Saturday's Austin City Council runoff election, is calling for the council to wait until she takes office to vote on the planned Formula One racetrack.

The council, under pressure from F1 supporters, is scheduled to vote today on whether to endorse the track, being built southeast of Austin. The endorsement would make the project eligible for up to $25 million a year in state subsidies.

Tovo and her supporters say she earned a voice in the final decision by virtue of her win against incumbent Randi Shade after a campaign in which her skepticism of F1 was a central issue. They say the vote should not happen between her Saturday victory and Tuesday swearing-in.

[Armybrat]

Incredible how shortsighted some people are, but lets spend millions on those crappy Smartcars and thousand dollar bikes to make a handful of "huggers" feel good.