Deseret News | Reader comments: Stadium is fielding money

Reader comments
Doug Robinson: Stadium is fielding money — from us

Page:
1
2
Next >

optimistic | 12:57 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Don't you have anything better to do yet Mr. Doug then to continue crying about the Stadium?! Everyone who is crying with you is going to, one time or another, go to the stadium whether for a game or concert and realize how nice, convenient, and state of the art it is. Afterwards you will see too that this stadium will bring in more money than you may ever admit to. So go complain about the Utah Flash and something less entertaining. By the way, you never mention how much personal money Mr. Dave Checketts has put into the stadium before it even broke ground.

Bobby | 4:53 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

AMEN! I couldn't have said it any better... No really, I couldn't have said it any better!

DLG | 6:23 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

I happen to agree with Doug on this one. The whole stadium thing is a rip off from the get go. Why should the public have to support Dave and his hobby. If he wants to bring a sports team here then he should buy the land and build the stadium with his own money. It is a business. If he brings a product that the consumers want, then he makes money. If not then he loses money. We the public shouldn't have to pay for him to risk running his pet projects to see if they work or not. If this is such a sure thing then Dave should put all of his money into it. If he doesn't have enough money to do it all himself then find some private investers to help come up with the money, not the pubic taxpayer! If the project is a sucess then Dave wins with big money for himself, not the taxpayer. If it fails, then he walks away with a small loss to himself (at least to someone with big bucks) but the taxpayer winds up paying for it for years.

Comments continue below

Jordan | 7:20 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Maybe the "economic" benefits to the Salt Palace, Winter Olympics, and Franklin Covey field haven't been as high as some expected, but is anyone saying it wasn't worth the investment?!? Those projects were some of the best things that happened to Utah in the last century! Once this stadium is built, it will be the same--A Utah landmark that brings joy and happiness to many Utahans. No one will question its worth and the little cost we had to front. (Not to mention our part of the cost comes from the tax on visitors.)

realistic | 7:36 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Mr. Optimistic needs to open his eyes. Mr. Robinson is exactly right. Dave Checketts and Mary Kay Huntsman were worried about Dave Checketts and Mary Kay Huntsman - and nobody else. The stadium is a boondoggle by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. But then, as we all know, he who has the gold makes the rules.

BJS | 7:36 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Ask 45,000 soccer-playing kids around the state if they would like to have a professional soccer team with their own stadium here in Utah so they can go to games with their parents, teams, and friends. They will invariably say yes! Do they care about the cost? NO. Neither do I as a tax paying adult.

Let go of the finances and embrace family friendly activities that will surround this stadium and the soccer team. This whining about finances is a tired old dog that has been beat one too many times and just wants to lie down and rest and then play with the children in the yard.
Let the highest soccer-playing populous per capita in the nation enjoy the stadium, the game, the team, instead of walk through the mire and goo spread by fiscal tightwads and 'watchdogs' with nothing to do but hate, spurn, and beat down this poor dog named soccer and all associated with it.

Sodiedog | 8:29 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Well, Jordan, the Salt Palace & Winter Olympics Games have proved to be everything we expected. Franklin Covey: Nope. One of those three you described is a stadium, one is a convention center and the third was a global event. As a multiple choice question, I say Sandy's soccer stadium looks like Franklin Covey...not a convention center or global event. Hmmm.

Poor Doug | 8:29 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

If there were no stadiums for sports i guess there'd be no reason for a sports section in the paper and no sports writers. So when you say no economical impact how about your job! How many jobs are there for sports writers where there are no sports. Just say thank you and write about sports not your narrow minded wallet. O and you must be using a lot of hotels these days if your so worried about the cost.

get real | 8:35 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

of the 45,000 soccer playing kids only about 2000 are really athletically inclined and the others are there for the "participation" aspect of soccer. Sure my daughters play soccer (of course the boys play football) but we'll never go to a soccer game at that stadium.....why would we when we could find about 1000 better things to do in our beautiful state besides watch a team lose (again) 2-0. The stadium is a deal that benefits only a very few given the cost we all incur. I will vote against everyone who pushed this through today, we should all do the same.

Neutral Man | 8:39 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

When I bought my house, the price was $310,000. The realtor didn't tell me the cost was $850,000+ or whatever after the interest is paid. When you get a loan, there is interest to be paid, everyone knows that. Don't act like its some big conspiracy. Stadiums go up with public money all the time. The community will benefit.

bad stadium | 8:42 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Maybe if it were in SLC, but in Sandy! What a joke.

Reflecting on Isaiah | 8:50 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness."

You folks can criticize Doug Robinson all you want, but at least he has intelligence to see what is happening here -- that the wealthy are lining their own pockets at the public's expense -- and has the guts to call evil evil.

Thank you, Doug. I commend you for your integrity.

You go Doug! | 8:50 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Well-stated, Mr. Doug. Anyone who starts an article with a quote from George Costanza deserves to be heard. You have been a voice of reason throughout this entire episode of incredibly stupid decisions on the part of public officials that climaxed in the profoundly dumb stunt of everyone gathered at the State Capitol with Real Salt Lake soccer scarves around their necks. They were there to announce that the taxpayers of Utah would be stuck with this bill for years to come. Nice work.

SomeGuy | 8:52 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Give me a break, soccer haters. This isn't abnormal to help pay for stadiums and other private interests. Why aren't people up in arms for the millions given as incentives to other private ventures in the state? Let it go.

JML | 8:59 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Here is my bottom line...SOCCER IS THE MOST BORING THING THAT I COULD EVER IMAGINE WATCHING! Why waste money on something that is so painful to watch? Leave soccer to the little kids and high schools. If we are going to waste taxpayer money on stadiums let's waste it on genuine sports!

Thanks for writing | 9:04 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

this article. I brought up many of these points in a comment on the artical you reference. The PC police at the Deseret News would not print it.

Glad you were able to get this past them. Keep up the good work, Doug.

US soccer fan | 9:12 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Can't wait 'til the stadium is complete. Go RSL!

beet digger | 9:15 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Hay when the team folds they can alwase convert it to a football field so that Jordan can play a home game!!!

Real Estate Junkie | 9:15 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Doug, you've got to be kidding me! Your understanding of finance and particularly public finance is dazzling. Next time somebody asks me how much I paid for my car, should I tell them it cost me $29,500 or should I add in the all the projected interest and tell them that it cost me $34,219? Or better yet, should I tell people that my $239,000 house cost me $515,853.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest, and only stupid people will fall for it.

Brian | 9:17 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Doug, as a culture, we in Utah don't care much for confrontation, so when you refer to the governor and his wife in a less than positive way, people immediately come to the conclusion that you are not a very nice guy. What business did the governor have in pushing this through after independent auditors discovered the stadium didnï¿½t make sense financially? I would not vote for him again. The comment was made that we should consider how much money Dave Checkkets has contributed to the deal. So whatï¿½s the point, that heï¿½s a nice guy? If heï¿½s such a generous man, why doesnï¿½t he throw some of his money at education or the arts? Checketts is a businessman who put up the money because he hopes to make more money. Kudos to Sandy city officials for their integrity in standing up for what was right even though it went against the governorï¿½s personal preferences. Some officials even liked the idea of the stadium, but it did not make financial sense. Sure, some tax payers will enjoy the stadium, but whatever happened to representing the majority?

Sandy City | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

This is the same Sandy City who wants to create its own school district because the district wouldn't help pay for the stadium. It's all politics!

MC | 9:43 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

I could not care any less about 45,000 kids, not one of them is mine and that is where my concern is. As a family we cannot stand soccer so you can rest assured that this is one soccer hater that will never, and I say again never, set foot in that soccer stadium for any reason Soccer, concerts or whatever the case. If you who own the 45,000 kids want a soccer stadium than take up a collection and pay for it yourselves. Soccer, Dave, Greg, and the rest of the soccer thieves ought to get out of my pocket and out of my face. Doug you are right again keep up the good work.

Ryan | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

A couple of things...

First of all, the economic boon to the surrounding area will not be solely attributed to the stadium. If you remember, a massive development project is planned to go up around the stadium, as well.

Secondly, this is a sub-100 million dollar stadium. That is CHICKEN FEED. Want to ask the New York tax payers how much the new Yankee stadium is going to cost? That's the problem with Salt Lake residents - they want to be big-time, but they continually think small-time.

Thirdly, THIS IS BEING FUNDED WITH TRANSIENT ROOM TAXES. Unless you are a tourist staying in a Utah hotel, this is not your money. Look it up.

Finally, I find it highly amusing that people are basing so much of their opinion on the perceived quality of the team, and of the sport in general. We get it, you don't like soccer. Does that mean the rest of us who do should suffer? I hate hockey, but do I picket the E Center (a much more expensive structure)? No. The Jazz have never won a championship. Do they deserve their building? Yes.

Where's Mine | 9:51 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Neutral Man. You say when you bought your house for $310,000 the realtor didn't quote you a price of $850,000 which included the interest. When you bought your house the Governor and State Legislature didn't force your friends and neighbors to cough up $100,000 to help you pay for it either like they have forced the taxpayers to do for Mr. Checketts. The Governor and legislature aren't giving me any handouts either to pay for my property. If they would, I have a bunch of good business propostions for them to look at. Let Mr. Checketts pay for his own properties just like the rest of us do or give us all the same benefit of tapping into the taxpayer spigot.

Soccer Mom | 10:05 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

I love it, family of 8, we eat, drink, sleep soccer. And I have 6 siblings...with 6 kids each, and they love soccer. We will all be at that great stadium for many years to come. Thanks to Checketts and Huntsman for your great vision. Go RSL!

Gary | 10:12 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Anyone with any intelligence would have realized that the stadium was gonig to cost more, once interest was included. I think this is now become a story because of poor reporting to begin with. Had any of the reporters actually done research instead of relying on word of mouth, they would have found the interest and could have reported it much sooner. Now with the stadium well underway, what do they think is going to happen? There is no point to this ranting by yet another anti-soccer person. I hate the Jazz, but you don't hear me whinning about them every week.

Homer | 10:17 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Thanks, Doug

I'm sure there is pressure from your editorial staff for you to keep your opposition to government financing of private enterprise to yourself. After all, Dave Checketts is a good church and family man. We should support those good values.

This isn't about hating on soccer or any other sport or real estate development. It is simply about what is an appropriate use of public money. Maybe they can give vouchers to those who also want a piece of the public pie but don't necesarily like soccer. Then they can buy us all off.

How many votes will it take to put a check on this kind of arrogant ambition? 20 votes anyone?

CP1 | 10:27 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

The Desnews has been totally misleading on this topic since last week. The numbers haven't changed from the beginning. The reporter from the Desnews showed up to the City Council meeting and finally understood the numbers. Tada! News story. Stadium costs are going up dramatically because the reporters didn't report the interest on bond payments in the first place.

Kenny | 10:33 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

So did Doug just dust off an old article from last year and submit it for this week's column? Most of the time when a columnist is on vacation the newspaper just prints a statement reading that there is no column this week.

NMoulton | 10:38 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Robinson conveniently leaves out Energy Solutions Arena in his short list of local projects that have received public funds, as have the vast majority of articles and columns written about this issue. Would he call that project a waste of tax dollars? I doubt it. Without it, there would probably be no Gateway, there would have been no Olympics, and the Jazz probably wouldn't be as successful as they are. Furthermore, I highly doubt that if you researched how much public money went into that building you would see the interest added into the figures. So let's all turn a blind eye to the economic successes (since the economic impact seems to be the only thing that matters to everyone at the Des News) and focus on the "failures," at least until it comes time to build a stadium for a Major League Baseball team. Then we'll see what all the former-sports-writers-turned-columnists have to say.

DLG | 10:39 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

To Ryan
For your information, the Utah Jazz building was bought and paid for by Larry Miller. He put up his business' and home as collatoral to borrow the money from a bank. Then paid it off with his profits from the Jazz games and other events at the Jazz building. Which is one of the reasons he was real happy when the Jazz when into the play-offs. Cause the furthar they went into the play-offs the more money it brought in for him to pay his loan off. He did it with his own money and not the public taxes. Larry Miller took the risk with his own money and it paid off for him. He didn't ask the public to pay for it with him. Where Dave is asking the public to take the risk with him. If it pays off he gets the profits and if it doesn't the public wind up paying for it while he walks away with a loss yes, But it is just small change for him. So leave the Jazz building out of it.

Talk about Politics | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Its funny that these two articles all the sudden appear around elections, and if you are going to cast your vote for people who supported the stadium that is pretty lame and a waste of a vote. There are more important issues facing the state of Utah than a soccer stadium. I find it funny that Utahns are up in arms over this stadium and they want to oust everyone involved but in the same breath a lot of the same people are in support for President Bush and the trillions of tax money wasted on the War in Irag, the War on Drugs, the War on terrorism etc etc. There are bigger fish to fry than a group of politicians who believe there is an economic benefit to Utahns for building a soccer specific stadium.

We aren't paying for it. | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Again as Ryan mentioned, WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR THIS. It is coming out of Hotel Taxes. So its the visiting NBA teams, college teams, triple A baseball teams, AFL teams, MLS teams; Corporations flying people in. Everyone who stays in a hotle in Salt Lake County. Unless your name is Rick Majerus and you live in a hotel, then this is not your dollars coming out of your pocket. If this was a property tax or sales tax issue then that would be different, but its not.

To DLG | 11:14 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

You're 100% wrong about Larry Miller and the Delta Center. Larry paid for the BUILDING with his own money, but the land and infrastructure are 100% PUBLICLY FINANCED! This is almost the EXACT DEAL Dave Checketts got for the soccer stadium. The stadium is privately financed.

The only difference? Both groups are supposed to pay the public back for that land. Checketts is paying it back at almost $200k per year. Larry Miller is paying it back at $3 per year.

No, that's not a typo - 3 dollars every year.

The soccer stadium is actually a BETTER DEAL for the public than the Delta Center was. Please everyone (especially DLG), get the facts before you share your opinion.

SomeGuy | 11:30 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

DLC, the prime real estate that LHM got for basically free doesn't hurt him. LHM got money and incentives too, don't be naive.

Jim Janney | 11:48 a.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Money is fungible. No matter where it comes from, every dollar the county spends on the stadium is one that it can't spend on anything else, or that it must make up by raising taxes. We are paying for this.

JAY | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

GREAT ARTICLE DOUG!!! Let me see- the teachers will get a 9-10% raise this year, turns out to be less than 4%. the teachers will get a $1,000 bonus this year if they have worked less than 5 years- turns out to be $600. The stadium is going to cost $45 Million. Whoops it's $78 Million or $90 Million- who knows. My questiion- can anyone in Utah add? You have to love these guys. Jay Nielsen

Truchaman | 12:34 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Soccer has done more to help us raise a nation of wimps than anything else. Lets give everyone a trophy even if they can't kick a ball. Have to make sure they feel good about themselves even if they know they can't play the game worth a lick. What a joke. the only bigger joke I know is the stadium deal. We, the public, should never have to pay for a private, money-making deal for few rich individuals. Where are these peoples morals and ethics?

Ed | 1:00 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

First the stadium deal by the idiots up on Capitol Hill..the SAME guys in favor of Referendum 1....Please, everyone....look at these guys and ask yourself "Do they really represent the majority of Utahns, or are they just looking out for their own greedy self interests"?

therapy | 1:18 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Get over it. Your short sighting whining about the costs fail to even acknowledge the monies that will be coming to this state for years to come. The government rutinely spends money on projects where there is no return. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars are year fixing and making roads where there will be no money coming back (except pollution) and you whine about a project where you will actually see a return on investment. Name me another government funded project that has a return on investment. Get over it already.

Jim is wrong | 1:25 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Incorrect Jim Janney, that is not how public money works. Public money is set aside for specific purposes. TRT money - the fund that the stadium infrastructure is being paid for with - can only be used for tourism specific projects. Since big international soccer games draw people from all over the world, it was a logical choice to spend that money in that way.

Had the stadium not happened, that money simply would not have been collected. The TRT would've simply gone away.

Quick summary of where we stand:
- NO, the stadium money could not have been spent on schools or roads.
- NO, the money could not have been allocated to another project.
- NO, there is no tax increase for anyone, including hotel patrons! It was simply a time extension of the already-existing transient room tax.

As somebody above already wrote, PLEASE check your facts before posting.

Soccer | 1:41 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Such a beautiful game, played by the worlds greatest athletes. Most soccer guys I know walked onto their varsity football teams after being begged to come help them out. Soccer...breeding success.

Efren Palacios | 2:16 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Mr.Robinson: With all due respect, your article is highly subjective and totally biased.

You forget about the national impact the RSL stadium is going to have on soccer fans all over the U.S.

We, for once, are already planning our fifth trip to your beautiful state, if nothing else, to admire your land, rejoice in your hospitality and to celebrate the completion of such impressive facility.

Whenever in Texas, let us know. The trip to Old Mexico and the "tasty Margaritas" are on the house for you or any other Utahan brother.

Efren Palacios
efrenp@efren.net

V. Campanile | 2:17 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

@Neutral Man

yes as a matter of fact it WAS disclosed to you that your 310k loan would in fact end up costing you 850k if paid back at the rate indicated in your loan papers. If you chose not to read that particular piece of information thats your choice. It WAS however disclosed to you, prior to the time you made the committment to pay it all.

The total price of the stadium however was NOT disclosed to anyone ( that I know of ) prior to a decision being made on funding.

oooops | 2:55 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

This whole soccer stadium mess is really a boondoggle for the Checketts family. Thanks Dave for showing us what you really are like. And John and Mary Kay have lost my support for this horrible decision. Thanks Doug for writing something of worth.

28 million | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

Yeah, 28 million does seem like a lot of money. Oh wait, how much money are we voting to put on our property taxes today for 5 new government buildings.........$192 million. Why does it cost $192 million to build 5 buildings? Oh, and whats the interest payments on that? Definatley a lot more than they are going to tell us. How about doug write an article on that. Really, this soccer stadium is pennies compared to how badly our taxes are being misused. I think they stadium is going to do just fine.

David H Adams | 4:56 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

AMEN!!!

Huntsman | 6:24 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007

From the same Legislature and Governor that brought you vouchers.

When does Huntsman come up for re-election.

John | 4:26 a.m. Nov. 7, 2007

Given the current state of our economy, rise in fuel costs, decline in taxes from TRT, decline in pro soccer attendance nation wide....E.T. Barnum had it right " A fool and his money are soon parted"
Like so many things goverment in Utah has done, from syn- crete, to the Great Salt Lake pumps,just another failure waiting to happen. Not a very well heeded message from the voters, who are the... REAL fools here. Throw the bums out on the next election, or stay silent about this shell game. Have a good day.

Horace | 7:34 a.m. Nov. 7, 2007

Once again another worthless article that does nothing but instgate people about an issue long since dead. There's nothing that can be done about the stadium now. Thanks for wasting everyone's time Deseretnews and Thanks again for making everyone cheezed off!

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.