Shell Energy Stadium

[The Great Hizzy!]

if the City would maintain all parks property, that would be just as beneficial. they tend to maintain some better than others.

Now, this we agree on.

[west20th]

The Gus Wortham proposal mentions using city funds, possibly even sales tax revenue, to build this complex. No one has a problem with this? Are we going to allow ourselves to be screwed yet again by a privately owned sports team?

Edited February 8, 2007 by west20th

[Houston19514]

The Gus Wortham proposal mentions using city funds, possibly even sales tax revenue, to build this complex. No one has a problem with this? Are we going to allow ourselves to be screwed yet again by a privately owned sports team?

Well, the plan is to build a multi-field soccer complex for public use, so it would seem entirely appropriate for some public funding to be involved. (and as to getting screwed by privately owned sports teams, can we give that tired line a rest? (1) the arrangements for MMP, Toyota Center, and Reliant Stadium were all approved by the voters and (2) Unless you rent a car, stay in a hotel, or attend an event at one of the stadia, you are not providing any of the funding for them, let alone getting "screwed.")

[west20th]

Well, the plan is to build a multi-field soccer complex for public use, so it would seem entirely appropriate for some public funding to be involved. (and as to getting screwed by privately owned sports teams, can we give that tired line a rest? (1) the arrangements for MMP, Toyota Center, and Reliant Stadium were all approved by the voters and (2) Unless you rent a car, stay in a hotel, or attend an event at one of the stadia, you are not providing any of the funding for them, let alone getting "screwed.")

I do rent cars but rental car/hotel taxes aren't what is being proposed for this project. And don't forget toll road funds are being used to cover shortfalls on Reliant bonds. And will city funding be confined to the public use facilities? Probably not.

One last thing, what does attending an event at one of the stadia have to do with funding the stadia? Nothing.

Edited February 8, 2007 by west20th

[Houston19514]

I do rent cars but rental car/hotel taxes aren't what is being proposed for this project. And don't forget toll road funds are being used to cover shortfalls on Reliant bonds. And will city funding be confined to the public use facilities? Probably not.

(1) There is actually no proposal on the table for money of any kind. The word tax just appeared in a list of possible funding sources along with private donations and money from the team. As such we have no idea what city funding might pay for... By all means, contact your city councilperson, mayor and county commissioner and let them hear your concerns.

(2) Toll road funds are not being used to cover shortfalls on Reliant bonds, at least not in a way that costs toll road users any money. The toll road authority has merely loaned money to the Sports authority so they can make payments on the Reliant bonds. Impact on tolls and cost to toll road drivers: ZERO.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Houston19514

[musicman]

(2) Toll road funds are not being used to cover shortfalls on Reliant bonds, at least not in a way that costs toll road users any money. The toll road authority has merely loaned money to the Sports authority so they can make payments on the Reliant bonds. Impact on tolls and cost to toll road drivers: ZERO.

they are being used to cover shortfalls. if looks suspicious that toll road funds are used for shortfalls on hotel/motel tax. not saying anything is wrong legally but it just looks bad.

[west20th]

(2) Toll road funds are not being used to cover shortfalls on Reliant bonds, at least not in a way that costs toll road users any money. The toll road authority has merely loaned money to the Sports authority so they can make payments on the Reliant bonds. Impact on tolls and cost to toll road drivers: ZERO.

"merely loaned money"? Yeah right. Like they will ever get that money back. Impact on tolls? Who's to say a future increase won't be impacted by this "loan". Why would you think there won't be future shortfalls requiring additional loans? That won't have an impact on tolls either I suppose.

Edited February 8, 2007 by west20th

[KinkaidAlum]

Uggghhh.

Lets see, lose a historic gold course. Lose numerous large trees. Lose much needed green space.

Replace with numerous soccer fields and a stadium. Don't forget the MASSIVE surface parking lots that would be required.

HUGE MISTAKE.

[Houston19514]

"merely loaned money"? Yeah right. Like they will ever get that money back. Impact on tolls? Who's to say a future increase won't be impacted by this "loan". Why would you think there won't be future shortfalls requiring additional loans? That won't have an impact on tolls either I suppose.

Well, you just holler at me when the sports authority defaults on the loan. In fact, if I thought there would be a way to collect from you, I would put money on the loan being repaid to the Turnpike Authority. In the meantime, I don't really feel like re-hashing this whole non-issue. If you want to review, go to this thread (you too, Musicman):

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=8018

[west20th]

Well, you just holler at me when the sports authority defaults on the loan. In fact, if I thought there would be a way to collect from you, I would put money on the loan being repaid to the Turnpike Authority. In the meantime, I don't really feel like re-hashing this whole non-issue. If you want to review, go to this thread (you too, Musicman):

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=8018

No one wants the sports authority to default on the loan. I brought it up to point out you were incorrect to state only car and hotel taxes are being used to fund the stadiums. If you don't like re-hashing the issue then don't, who is forcing you? The issue of taxpayer funding the soccer complex is certainly on topic to this thread.

[Houston19514]

No one wants the sports authority to default on the loan. I brought it up to point out you were incorrect to state only car and hotel taxes are being used to fund the stadiums. If you don't like re-hashing the issue then don't, who is forcing you? The issue of taxpayer funding the soccer complex is certainly on topic to this thread.

And I responded to tell you that you are wrong. Wrong as can be. Again, the money from the Turnpike Authority is a LOAN, it WILL be paid back, with interest. (If the Sports Authority had borrowed the money from, oh, say JP Morgan Chase, we would not be saying that JP Morgan Chase was paying for the stadium, let alone that JP Morgan Chase depositors were paying for the stadium. It is equally fallacious to say that Turnpike toll-payers are paying for the stadium.) It merely replaced a loan that was originally in place from the owner of the Texans. End of story.

The only "public" or tax money that will in the end pay for those stadia is indeed car, hotel and ticket taxes. Is there some imaginable scenario under which the Sports Authority will be unable to pay the loan? I suppose you could dream one up, but it is highly unlikely and not worth worrying about. If the Turnpike Authority had not loaned the money to the Sports Authority, presumably that money would be sitting in an account earning interest or be loaned to some other entity in the form of bonds. It would be just as easy to imagine scenarios that would cause those investments to go bad. (Plus, it is my understanding that they are earning a higher rate of interest from the Sports Authority than they were previously earning; pretty much a win-win.

The issuer of taxpayer funding of a soccer stadium is certainly a fair topic for this thread, but the Turnpike Authority loan to the Sports Authority has nothing to do with taxpayer-funded stadia.

[west20th]

And I responded to tell you that you are wrong. Wrong as can be. Again, the money from the Turnpike Authority is a LOAN, it WILL be paid back, with interest. (If the Sports Authority had borrowed the money from, oh, say JP Morgan Chase, we would not be saying that JP Morgan Chase was paying for the stadium, let alone that JP Morgan Chase depositors were paying for the stadium. It is equally fallacious to say that Turnpike toll-payers are paying for the stadium.) It merely replaced a loan that was originally in place from the owner of the Texans. End of story.

The only "public" or tax money that will in the end pay for those stadia is indeed car, hotel and ticket taxes. Is there some imaginable scenario under which the Sports Authority will be unable to pay the loan? I suppose you could dream one up, but it is highly unlikely and not worth worrying about. If the Turnpike Authority had not loaned the money to the Sports Authority, presumably that money would be sitting in an account earning interest or be loaned to some other entity in the form of bonds. It would be just as easy to imagine scenarios that would cause those investments to go bad. (Plus, it is my understanding that they are earning a higher rate of interest from the Sports Authority than they were previously earning; pretty much a win-win.

The issuer of taxpayer funding of a soccer stadium is certainly a fair topic for this thread, but the Turnpike Authority loan to the Sports Authority has nothing to do with taxpayer-funded stadia.

I see how much you hate re-hashing this subject. Anyway, we'll see if the HCTRA gets their money. I see non-payment and more loans from the toll road authority in the future. Face it. The renta-car and hotel taxes provide an insufficient funding stream to pay off the bonds. What in the future will change that? And did you ever wonder why the money wasn't borrowed from someone like JPMorgan Chase? Probably because they wouldn't like their chances of getting their money back. There is a reason they went to another government entity for the cash.

Edited February 8, 2007 by west20th

[Houston19514]

I see how much you hate re-hashing this subject. Anyway, we'll see if the HCTRA gets their money. I see non-payement and more loans from the toll road authority in the future. Face it. The renta-car and hotel taxes provide an in-sufficient funding stream to pay off the bonds. What in the future will change that? And did you ever wonder why the money wasn't borrowed from someone like JPMorgan Chase? Probably because they wouldn't like their chances of getting their money back. There is a reason they went to another government entity for the cash.

They probably could have gone to JPMorgan Chase, for a lot more expense, probably a higher interest rate, and a lot more time to do the transaction. I believe the loan is secured by liens on revenue streams and on the practice field properties, so there is little reason that JPMorganChase would not have been interested.

And worst case scenario (if the sports authority does default as you so confidently predict) the Turnpike Authority gets a very valuable chunk of real estate; one that gets more valuable with each passing year.

[musicman]

I see how much you hate re-hashing this subject.

LOL

[west20th]

And worst case scenario (if the sports authority does default as you so confidently predict) the Turnpike Authority gets a very valuable chunk of real estate; one that gets more valuable with each passing year.

They are not going to default. They won't pay back the money. They will get extentions and the HCTRA won't push the issue. They will just loan them more money. Anyway, I hope your right and I'm wrong but I just don't see it.

Edited February 8, 2007 by west20th

[DJ V Lawrence]

In other related stadium news, Real Salt Lake and the state of Utah (MLS's smallest market), have just confirmed a new stadium deal.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5186530

It's gonna be a mixed-use development in the suburb of Sandy. Great looking design, too.

I'm happy for them. It was a crazy rollercoaster-ride for the city and state to pull off the deal, but they finally did it. It's also expected that San Jose and St. Louis will be the next two cities with MLS franchises in the next 3 years.

Edited February 9, 2007 by DJ V Lawrence

[Guest Marty]

Look's great thank's for the info yo

[EastSideMom]

Did anyone read this in yesterday's Chronicle? Your thoughts?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/eas...ws/4532429.html

[ricco67]

Did anyone read this in yesterday's Chronicle? Your thoughts? <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/east/news/4532429.html" target="_blank">

</a>

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/eas...ws/4532429.html

Yeah, we're discussing it right here on this thread.

Moderator edit: topics now merged.

[brerrabbit]

I commented on this thread or possibly another one that I would be really sad to see Worthem closed for a soccer stadium or anything else for that matter. It is a piece of history in that it was one of the first if not the first golf course in Houston. It is also one of only four courses left inside the loop. (Worthem, Memorial, Herman, and River Oaks) However the reality is this, of the City of Houston owned courses only one is in the black. The rest bleed red ink. Memorial because of the wranglings that were done when it was renovated has a provision that all revenues generated have to stay at Memorial and the funds cannot be used to fund any of the other courses. The way the City looks at the situation is what facility on this location will serve the most users? My best recollection is Memorial has somewhere around 70,000 rounds of golf played there a year. Worthem has less than half of that. Lets for discussion sake say its 30,000. If closing the course and transitioning the area into soccer fields, baseball fields, lacrosse fields, and additional park area would serve say 200,000 to 250,000 citizens a year then its a no brainer the city will opt to ditch the course. Whatever the go forward position is one thing is clear, if any additional facilities are built at the site, the course will close. No plan would ever consider retaining any part of the course while adding any other facilities.

As far as the discussions with the Dynamo the current belief is that if they reached an agreement all the City would contribute to the mix would be tha land. The Dynamo would be responsible for all construction costs.

[musicman]

As far as the discussions with the Dynamo the current belief is that if they reached an agreement all the City would contribute to the mix would be tha land. The Dynamo would be responsible for all construction costs.

All they would contribute is the land? land isn't cheap. I'll bet the the city would be required to put in money for some of the practice fields too. there are just too many unknowns at this point.

[Houston19514]

Whatever the go forward position is one thing is clear, if any additional facilities are built at the site, the course will close. No plan would ever consider retaining any part of the course while adding any other facilities.

Why would they never consider retaining part of the course?

[DJ V Lawrence]

Why would they never consider retaining part of the course?

Why would they? If the amount of people using the golf course is low as an 18-hole course, why would more people use it when it became a 9-hole? When I play golf, my friends and I always go to a 18-hole course minimum.

[brerrabbit]

Why would they never consider retaining part of the course?

It goes right back to the issue of usage. The course is currently very under utilized and with only a nine hole course it would probably be even more so. Again the philosophy of the City is to maximize the number of users and visitors to the greenspaces in the City. This means building the most needed, and requested facilities to reach more people. Golf at that location is not it.

All they would contribute is the land? land isn't cheap. I'll bet the the city would be required to put in money for some of the practice fields too. there are just too many unknowns at this point.

The discussed tradeoffs would be community participation in the form of youth clinics and community involvement. I could not imagine the city contributing anything more and if they did I think it would be a bad decision. In talks with other places for the stadium it has been made clear there would be no financial support from the cities. At least when I spoke with several of the Pearland city councilmen thats what they told me.

[musicman]

The discussed tradeoffs would be community participation in the form of youth clinics and community involvement. I could not imagine the city contributing anything more and if they did I think it would be a bad decision. In talks with other places for the stadium it has been made clear there would be no financial support from the cities. At least when I spoke with several of the Pearland city councilmen thats what they told me.

I've heard the team was responsible for stadium but they want cities to help with the practice fields which will end up being for the public's use as well. last night, councilmember wiseman was mentioning the proposed park fee for the various youth groups to use the fields. I know the city expects them to maintain the fields now. many have spent thousands (50k for one park i know of) for lights and now the city wants to charge them to use the park. unfortunately for most houstonians, all parks are not equal.

[Houston19514]

It goes right back to the issue of usage. The course is currently very under utilized and with only a nine hole course it would probably be even more so. Again the philosophy of the City is to maximize the number of users and visitors to the greenspaces in the City. This means building the most needed, and requested facilities to reach more people. Golf at that location is not it.

Good points. But I had thought perhaps a well-maintained and operated 9-hole course could draw as much or more use as the (apparently) poorly maintained and operated 18-hole course. With the benefit of using half the land and thus making room for the soccer complex. If my theory is correct, the end result would be a maximized usage of the entire park. I hope they don't make these decisions on nothing more than assumptions about potential usage of various amenities.

[brerrabbit]

Good points. But I had thought perhaps a well-maintained and operated 9-hole course could draw as much or more use as the (apparently) poorly maintained and operated 18-hole course. With the benefit of using half the land and thus making room for the soccer complex. If my theory is correct, the end result would be a maximized usage of the entire park. I hope they don't make these decisions on nothing more than assumptions about potential usage of various amenities.

What information I do have is from a very good friend who is very involved with the whole park business in Houston, in fact its his job. According to him the city as well as the group he works for is getting a ton of pressure from the community to increase the number of sports fields available in to the public. As the city grows a lot of open space that once was dedicated to Little League, Soccer, Softball, and Lacrosse is being gobbled up for new construction. The latest victim being the Lacrosse complex at the corner of Stella Link and West Belfort. They plan on extending West Belfort thus getting rid of the fields there. I was involved with Little League for many years and can tell you that the majority of the Leagues in the state are on public facilities that the city or county provides and pays the light bills for. The only current exception I know of is Pearland where the Dads Club owns the land and the Little Leagues pays for there own lights. East End LL, Magnolia LL, Friendswood LL, Sagemont Beverly Hills LL, and Dixie LL all play on public facilities and have no worries as to light bills. As the trend to public facilities continues and youth sports grow the demand will only increase. This means that facilities like Gus Worthem are being looked at pretty hard to decide if they can continue to operate as golf courses. In the end I think the city will opt out to the playing fields.

[rps324]

At a community meeting tonight in Glenbrook, it was brought up by one of Carol Alvarado's assistants that there is a move afoot to take out the golf course at Gus Wortham and replace it with a soccer field. Has anybody else heard about this? I think that would be a terrible move for the area.

[musicman]

At a community meeting tonight in Glenbrook, it was brought up by one of Carol Alvarado's assistants that there is a move afoot to take out the golf course at Gus Wortham and replace it with a soccer field. Has anybody else heard about this? I think that would be a terrible move for the area.

this is being discussed in another thread

[ricco67]

this is being discussed in another thread

yeah.

read more .....