Shell Energy Stadium

[lockmat]

you walk a 10 minute mile? impressive

haha, ok. so maybe it took me fifteen mins? Or maybe it was less than a mile. I guess it just seemed like it.

none-the-less, it was a lengthy walk.

Or maybe I really am just impressive

[TheNiche]

Interesting, thanks.

So does that have a good or bad effect on the business owners? They have to raise their prices right, even though that extra cost they have to cover doesn't bring in extra revenue, it just covers the money they'd lose had they not raised their price b/c of the tax increase. Right?

So really, it's a no win for them. Or is there something else they do that I'm not thinking?

The net effect on owners of hospitality-related firms is negative. The taxes are passed straight on to the consumers, but when prices increase for any particular good or service, consumers will consume less of that good.

But as ad valorem taxes go, the Hotel/Motel tax has far less of an adverse impact than does a property tax. Hotel business at a local level tends to be fairly price inelastic, especially for business travelers. Another $5 per room night won't scare any outside firms off and they probably won't do enough research to figure out that if they just stayed outside of the city limits, they could avoid that tax...and even if they did, the City of Houston is a big place, so options are limited by transportation cost in many cases. But the cherry on top is that most City of Houston voters 1) don't rent hotel/motel rooms and 2) don't own hospitality or tourism-related businesses, whereas everyone would be affected by property and sales tax increases.

Non-profit and corporate money exists for spending on high visibility projects. The money doesnt exist on that scale for just a slush fund, people want to SEE what they pay for, so I dont agree that if donations available to the City was saved for projects like the park, that it would automatically still be available to spread in little amounts all over town.

By your reasoning, the only kind of outdoor advertising that should exist is that which is along freeways and other prime locations, as well as built in the most technologically-advanced form. But in truth, that is not the case.

[RedScare]

This may be slightly off topic, but here goes. Discussion here has come around to parking for events in downtown and that is certainly a big consideration, but the jest of the discussion is really about a new stadium for the Dynamo, how to fund it and where it will be. I'm all for sports and while I don't watch soccer I understand those who enjoy it. What is starting to bother me is the idea of build, build, build and let the city/ county pay for it. Make no mistake about it, if funds to build anything are provided by the city or the county, it costs you the taxpayer. Forget the politicians buzz phrases like "all the funds will come from hotel taxes, and rental car taxes, so your not paying it". Thats a load of BS because since that money is paying off Reliant, Minute Maid, Toyota Center, and oh by the way the $50 million of improvements to the Dome from the eighties its not going to other concerns that would benifit the larger population as a whole, like parks, roads, and other city infrastructure. Some one even mentioned the new park in front of GRB. While it will no doubt be nice, I seriously question the idea of spending $70 million on a 2 maybe three block park. Again the majority of the money is coming from donations, but just like any other scarce commodity (in this case money) there is a limited supply of it and they just took a huge chunk of it from the foundations and corporate givers for a while. This project will delay widespread park projects all across Houston because your spending so much, for so little. While Drayton McClain looks to be pushing for the new Dynamo stadium, keep this in mind, he will only support the ide if in return he gets a publically funded parking garage that he can take revenue from. He knows the loss of surface parking to the stadium will be what he needs to force the city's hand on the matter. The latest proposal for the practice facility to go along with the new stadium would be at highway 288 and Airport on a 40 acre piece of land there. And get this the rumor is the powers that be want the non profit group that aquires and build park for the city to fund the aquisition. Guess where they get their money from? The same places Mayor Bill has raided for his $70 million park at GRB. I want to see Houston be a dynamic beautiful city that grows and prospers, after all I am a native Houstonian, and a sixth generation Texan. This is my home, and this is my heritage, but mortgaged the future to get all this stuff is not what I had in mind. The city/county needs to stop spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave or Houston is going to suffer greatly tomorrow for todays short sighted actions.

Rabbit, you started off expressing concern for using tax money for sports stadiums (or, in this case, likely a parking garage), a concern I share. You even were intelligent enough not to say something stupid, such as, "They could use this money for schools", as you know (unlike some others) that hotel taxes cannot fund schools. Where you start to lose me is the suggestion that these funds could be used for other Houston projects. They cannot. The Sports Authority was created by the voters to fund sports infrastructure. The time to rail against its creation is long passed. A parking structure that serves the needs of 2 stadiums is a proper use of those funds. If the money comes from general revenue, that may be a different issue.

What really gets me is your complaint about foundations and corporations donating money for a park. These are charitable contributions. They may not have been made if not for the park. The park is for use by the public. The public gets a beautiful park for no tax money (other than the land), and you complain? This is the same argument used by anyone who thinks they have a better idea. Well, nothing stops you from starting a fund raising campaign for YOUR great park idea. The fact is, the Mayor and his wealthy friends thought the park would be a wonderful gift to the citizens of Houston, and they did the hard work necessary to scare up the $70 million in donations. You did not. So, guess what happened? Their idea got $70 million, and your idea got nothing.

Being a 6th generation Texan, you have probably heard the phrase, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". You probably even know how that phrase came about. Well, guess what? When it comes to wealthy benefactors choosing to donate $70 million to build a city park....don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

[hokieone]

I'm always amazed at the number of people who pay to park near Minute Maid. People will pay $5, $10, even $20 to park, when there is tons of free parking nearby.

I've never had to park as far as Dowling to get free parking (just have to watch for "No Parking" signs).

Dowling is all of a 4 or 5 block walk. It's all of 1/4 mile, or 1300 feet. That's about 520 steps. That's about 5-10 minutes depending on how slow you walk.

I've actually seen people pay to park in the grass lot at Dowling and Capitol, while there's free parking on the street on the same block! Don't understand it...

When beers are $7.50 a piece, you gotta be prudent on parking.

exactly - i never pay to park for astros games. the street is free and the lot at i think mckinney and st emmanuel is the one that cracks me up the most. $5 to park there and the entire street around it is free. i parked there last night on the street and saw people piling in to the lot - i think its perception that a lot is somehow "safer."

i personally don't think parking is a huge issue with taking away that one lot. if there is a combination of events on one day, then maybe there will be a pinch, but the same thing somewhat happens for rockets/ astros games. i know they are separated, but some of that middle area is used by both users. i think its great to see so many people walking around the near east end to astros games on game day, adds a definite festive feeling.

as for bars and other development, i think its already on its way somewhat - next to warehouse live, i saw a sign for a liquor permit for a "lucky's pub" - typically when there are show's at warehouse, there is no where to go right before or after the show except for the bus which is across 59. if a stadium opens on the east side of 59, i think you will see a couple of restaurants and bars give it a shot.

as for stadium sound, i live in the near east end - i can hear some announcer noise from robertson when there are games there. but i didn't move in close to downtown for it to be quiet country living anyway.

[lockmat]

I think most people who go to games only go to a few a year and probably don't go downtown very often. They're not aware of the free lots. They're just searching for parking and when they find it, they go in it.

[Guest danax]

as for stadium sound, i live in the near east end - i can hear some announcer noise from robertson when there are games there. but i didn't move in close to downtown for it to be quiet country living anyway.

Those folks in the Ballpark Lofts might be unhappy though.

As for the parking, it will resolve itself. The entire area is in transition so creating new lots or parking structures should be fairly easy.

I'm glad to hear that this might happen here as it'll likely attract some additional retail to the vicinity along with infrastructure and streetscape improvements , which will help move it from a transitional area into a neighborhood with more definition.

[TheNiche]

Rabbit, you started off expressing concern for using tax money for sports stadiums (or, in this case, likely a parking garage), a concern I share. You even were intelligent enough not to say something stupid, such as, "They could use this money for schools", as you know (unlike some others) that hotel taxes cannot fund schools. Where you start to lose me is the suggestion that these funds could be used for other Houston projects. They cannot.

I'm curious, Red: if not education, what other uses can Hotel/Motel taxes not be put to?

The Sports Authority was created by the voters to fund sports infrastructure. The time to rail against its creation is long passed. A parking structure that serves the needs of 2 stadiums is a proper use of those funds. If the money comes from general revenue, that may be a different issue.

Can we as a citizenry not rail against the way in which the Harris County Sports Authority is managed? Is there no mechanism for oversight? Perhaps it is not "too late"?

What really gets me is your complaint about foundations and corporations donating money for a park. These are charitable contributions. They may not have been made if not for the park. The park is for use by the public. The public gets a beautiful park for no tax money (other than the land), and you complain? This is the same argument used by anyone who thinks they have a better idea. Well, nothing stops you from starting a fund raising campaign for YOUR great park idea. The fact is, the Mayor and his wealthy friends thought the park would be a wonderful gift to the citizens of Houston, and they did the hard work necessary to scare up the $70 million in donations. You did not. So, guess what happened? Their idea got $70 million, and your idea got nothing.

This much, I agree completely with. What better proof that a government project has value than that the private sector volunteers to foot the most or all of the bill?

Being a 6th generation Texan, you have probably heard the phrase, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". You probably even know how that phrase came about. Well, guess what? When it comes to wealthy benefactors choosing to donate $70 million to build a city park....don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

I'm 8th generation, and always figured that it had something to do with Greek military history...wrong. Since when are Texans supposed to have knowledge of 16th century English proverbs?

[RedScare]

Those folks in the Ballpark Lofts might be unhappy though.

As for the parking, it will resolve itself. The entire area is in transition so creating new lots or parking structures should be fairly easy.

I'm glad to hear that this might happen here as it'll likely attract some additional retail to the vicinity along with infrastructure and streetscape improvements , which will help move it from a transitional area into a neighborhood with more definition.

If 40,000 at MMP doesn't bother them, should 20,000 at a soccer stadium?

The greatest value of this stadium is likely not to even be the soccer team, but the fact that MLS' marketing plan for these new stadiums includes a stage for putting on concerts. 81+ baseball games is good. 16 soccer games makes it a bit better. Add in the concert dates, and the potential bar and restaurant owners will start to see enough event days to justify a location nearby. I'd love to see some of the area between GRB and MMP fill in with some bars and restaurants. They could draw from the 2 stadiums, as well as park users and GRB. I am sure a few people from the Park Tower, Hilton, and the BRT stations would wander over, as well.

[JJxvi]

By your reasoning, the only kind of outdoor advertising that should exist is that which is along freeways and other prime locations, as well as built in the most technologically-advanced form. But in truth, that is not the case.

How exactly did you make this leap?

What I'm saying is that if you go around saying, give us money to improve all of Houston's parks (or as I have seen, give us money to help fund scholarships and programs) you dont raise nearly as much money as you do when you go in and say, give us money we have a goal for a beautiful new $70 million park and here are conceptual drawaing (or give us money to help fund a new 40,000 SF wing for the business school building, that will contain, X, Y, and Z).

Im saying that if you dont spend $70 million on Discovery Green or whatever, it DOES NOT folow that you would have that same $70 million to spend somewhere else.

[RedScare]

Niche, the 17% hotel/motel tax breaks down as follows:

The hotel occupancy tax has gradually increased since 1989 when it was 14 percent. In 1990, legislation was passed to allow Houston to raise its portions of the occupancy tax to 7 percent and to use the additional 1 percent to cover the cost of bringing the 1992 Republican National Convention to the city.

After the convention, this tax was not rescinded, but rather in 1994, was allocated as additional funds to the Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau and to the city's arts council.

In 1996, a bill was passed in the Texas Legislature allowing an additional 2 percent to the hotel occupancy tax to fund the three new sports arenas.

Should it be a surprise to anyone that we now have a total 17 percent hotel occupancy tax? This breaks down to 6 percent for the state, 2 percent for the county, 7 percent for the city and 2 percent for the Houston-Harris County Sports Authority. There is no other city in the country whose hotel visitors are taxed this much.

One percent of the City's portion goes to fund arts and the convention bureau, arguably helpful to hotels. Two percent goes to pay for stadiums, likely only helping hotels when a sports team goes deep into the playoffs. Two percent goes to the County general revenue fund. This may in fact be one percent County and one percent METRO. I am not sure. Six percent goes to the State general revenue fund.

Since the hotel tax was created by State statute, the money can only go to those entities authorized by statute. However, the Sports Authority may be able to spend their excess funds, if any, on other sports projects. This could include a parking garage to better serve its stadiums, and possibly, to build a soccer complex off Hwy 288.

[brerrabbit]

In my little rant I guess I failed to mention that what I was saying was really two different things. Corporate and Foundation funds can not be used on anything that taxes would probably go to pay for. So no they would not pay for the building of a new stadium. There exsists in Houston an orginazation that is the Houston Parks Board. A small non profit 501 © organization that solicites donations from the cities large foundations, and corporations and in turn buys land for parks and oversees the construction of the facilities. When they finish they give the park to the City of Houston. My rant covered two things, first how many stadiums can we actually pay for before we scream thats enough? Second in the current proposal to build a Dynamo stadium the Parks Board is being asked to spend money to buy and build the training facility for the Dynamo. In this case it would in fact be taking dollars out of the Parks Board hands to build other parks all over Houston and create a limited use facility on 288 for the Dynamo. Granted soccer could be played on some of the fields built there but the majority of the cost of the structure would be for the exclusive use of the Dynamo. There has been discussion on other parts of this board about the east of downtown project along Buffalo Bayou with the concert island on paths and developments. The project is on hold and somewhat scaled down in the near future and one of the big reasons is the amount of money that Bill White was able to get from the above mentioned donors. There is a finite amount of that available each year and he has got a lot of it for the next couple years to build a smaller $70 million park in downtown.

I guess the jest of my rant is that while I am a huge advocate of improving Houston in every way possible, I am pragmatic enough to know that it has to happen in moderation so we can afford it. Lets face it we already pay quite a bit in property taxes, and when you add in all the rest of the taxes we pay including an 8.25% sales tax we are pretty heavily burdened from the start.

[RedScare]

I'm with you generally, Rabbit, but allow me to make a point or two. White and his wealthy cronies made the decision that the park was more important at this time than the symphony island. Frankly, I agree, in that the park is more accessible, and will have more uses to a larger group of people. It has the added benefit of drawing large investments in the form of an apartment tower and an office building, both of which will contribute millions of tax dollars annually. You may have a different opinion than I (and the Mayor) do, as is your right. However, as I stated before, this charitable giving, and if the donors saw the park as a better recipient of their largesse at this time, so be it.

The soccer park and parking garage are separate items than the park, and each other. When do we scream "Enough!" on the building of stadiums? I suppose there are two answers. One would be when the Sports Authority has no more money to spend on them. If new taxes are required, we can vote it down. The second would be if a groundswell of opposition arises to the Authority's proposed expenditure on additional facilities. Since no proposal is in place, there is not really anything to object to. Until their is a proposal, I will reserve judgment on whether it is a prudent use of funds.

The soccer complex is the third item. A soccer complex, built with donated funds does not offend me. One built with funds dedicated to parks doesn't either, as soccer fields can properly be called parkland. I assume you object to use of the complex as a Dynamo training facility. I assume the Dynamo would rent the facility. If that is not the case, I would have a problem with it. All of Houston's pro teams rent their facilities, so the Dynamo should be no exception. The rent paid to the Park Board would help fund other park projects. If done correctly, this could be a plus.

Frankly, if you want agreement as to wasteful spending, you'll probably have to give us some numbers. Public-private ventures are not in and of themselves bad. The devil is in the details. I haven't seen any details, but I appreciate your suspicion.

Edited May 16, 2007 by RedScare

[brerrabbit]

Red, I don't have any problem with your logic, and I do agree that at some point the voters will get their say. While you point out that the parking garge and the soccer stadium are seperate I see them as being linked in the backroom negotiations as Drayton thinks if the stadium is built he will give his support on the contingency that he gets the parking garage that he feels he must have in return for the sacrafice of the surface lot to the new stadium. I doubt Drayton is merely a huge soccer fan. As far as the overall money I must admit I tend to be bias because I have a good friend that works in the middle of it all and gets extremly frustrated when money is not available from the private sector because there is a fixed amount of it available from year to year. He can and has lost numerous smaller projects because of the large amount of funds that have been dedicated to the GRB project. It is certainlt accesable to many but his multiple projects are spread all over Houston while the one that got the money is downtown. As far as addressing wasteful spending, I have no specifics other than my discussions with my friend as to how much the $70 million going downtown could have done in multiple other smaller projects.

[musicman]

Because Houstonians are fat and lazy, that's why.

thank you richard simmons!

[TheNiche]

How exactly did you make this leap?

What I'm saying is that if you go around saying, give us money to improve all of Houston's parks (or as I have seen, give us money to help fund scholarships and programs) you dont raise nearly as much money as you do when you go in and say, give us money we have a goal for a beautiful new $70 million park and here are conceptual drawaing (or give us money to help fund a new 40,000 SF wing for the business school building, that will contain, X, Y, and Z).

Im saying that if you dont spend $70 million on Discovery Green or whatever, it DOES NOT folow that you would have that same $70 million to spend somewhere else.

Well what is the intent of corporate donations? Usually, it is about good publicity, which is in the same strain as advertising. So it follows that a corporation would make donations in such a way as that the people that they intend to influence are provided the greatest amount of benefit per dollar that is donated. Big corporations even have a budget for donations of various sort, just as they have advertising budgets.

It does not follow that donations should necessarily go to the single most visible projects if the less valuable projects get better bang for the buck.

[JJxvi]

It does not follow that donations should necessarily go to the single most visible projects if the less valuable projects get better bang for the buck

It also does not follow that if you got rid of the prime and most high tech advertising spots, that the company's advertising budget would stay the same...

[musicman]

A possible scenario for partial funding for the stadium is hotel occupancy and sales taxes.

i believe last yr, the hotel/motel taxes didn't cover the outstanding debt therefore harris county borrowed from the toll roads to pay for the shortfall. not a good short term sign.

This is not something unique to the city of Houston though, is it? Not that I'm justifying it, but I'm sure other cities including ours has been doing this for years and years. It's just the way things are, right? Or no?

After all, I'm just assuming...which may or may not be a good idea.

take a stance.

So does that have a good or bad effect on the business owners?

i can't believe you asked this question. so you honestly believe it would be GOOD for a business if their costs are increased?

[lockmat]

take a stance.

Just stating the facts. I was not offering an opinion.

[musicman]

Just stating the facts. I was not offering an opinion.

guess i missed that in the post that said "After all, I'm just assuming...which may or may not be a good idea."

[lockmat]

guess i missed that in the post that said "After all, I'm just assuming...which may or may not be a good idea."

Oh, I thought you meant the part of it being justified or not.

My assumption is fine if correct, not fine if wrong

[musicman]

My assumption is fine if correct, not fine if wrong

....like i said..take a stance.

[lockmat]

....like i said..take a stance.

I don't understand it. Why do you make such big deals out of things so insignificant? Instead of trying to make me look like a fool, why don't you just tell me whether my assumption is right or wrong? I'm fine being told I'm wrong. Or do you just do this because you don't know the answer either and just feel the need to push the reply button one more time? I clearly put myself out there to be told right or wrong. Just do it. Why beat around the bush?

[nmainguy]

The Delmar site would remove the noise issue-as would the east end site. The Delmar site would also resolve the parking issues with a parking garage accessable from Hempstead, Mangum, 18th, 290, 610 and Dacoma.

[musicman]

Why beat around the bush?

if your quote "After all, I'm just assuming...which may or may not be a good idea." isn't beating around the bush than i don't know what is.

[Mr. Chenevert]

This is not something unique to the city of Houston though, is it? Not that I'm justifying it, but I'm sure other cities including ours has been doing this for years and years. It's just the way things are, right? Or no?

Anyone have examples to counter?

After all, I'm just assuming...which may or may not be a good idea.

Paying $5 to park to ensure that you dont get a $35 parking ticket (or multiple tickets) or worse yet, have your car towed is cheap insurance.

If you come from the suburbs, which Im sure is the majority of astros ticket holders, then you are not familiar with on street parking rules. The signage in that area stinks, and honestly, most people would probably prefer to pay a few bucks to be in what seems to be a safer lot than to park on the street by some abandoned warehouse.

So while I dont search out free parking when I go to an Astros game, Ive never paid more than $5 bucks and never have had much of a walk either. Parking isnt the issue here, its the rehab of an area of town.

As wasted as a surface lot is, you have to admit, the Astros lot is nicely done with new sidewalks, trees, lights, etc. I would much rather knock down a few of the abandoned buildings one or two blocks east and build the stadium there. Keep what looks nice, even if it is just a surface lot, and get rid of the ugly, dangerous buildings.

[musicman]

As wasted as a surface lot is, you have to admit, the Astros lot is nicely done with new sidewalks, trees, lights, etc. I would much rather knock down a few of the abandoned buildings one or two blocks east and build the stadium there. Keep what looks nice, even if it is just a surface lot, and get rid of the ugly, dangerous buildings.

interesting point about the manicured lot vs. the ugly, dangerous buildings. I think many hope that the ugly, dangerous buildings can be rehabbed too, but point taken.

[TheNiche]

It also does not follow that if you got rid of the prime and most high tech advertising spots, that the company's advertising budget would stay the same...

I don't follow. Please explain.

if your quote "After all, I'm just assuming...which may or may not be a good idea." isn't beating around the bush than i don't know what is.

Jeez, man. What is your problem with lockmat? You dog him pretty frequently and it just doesn't seem justified. If you don't like his style of communication or whatever, get over it.

[Jax]

So are there many abandoned buildings or not? Somebody else told me that artists lived in most of the buildings which appear to be abandoned. Does anybody know for sure how many area actually abandoned in that area?

[Subdude]

Paying $5 to park to ensure that you dont get a $35 parking ticket (or multiple tickets) or worse yet, have your car towed is cheap insurance.

If you come from the suburbs, which Im sure is the majority of astros ticket holders, then you are not familiar with on street parking rules. The signage in that area stinks, and honestly, most people would probably prefer to pay a few bucks to be in what seems to be a safer lot than to park on the street by some abandoned warehouse.

So while I dont search out free parking when I go to an Astros game, Ive never paid more than $5 bucks and never have had much of a walk either. Parking isnt the issue here, its the rehab of an area of town.

As wasted as a surface lot is, you have to admit, the Astros lot is nicely done with new sidewalks, trees, lights, etc. I would much rather knock down a few of the abandoned buildings one or two blocks east and build the stadium there. Keep what looks nice, even if it is just a surface lot, and get rid of the ugly, dangerous buildings.

I don't have any expectations that the proposed Dynamo stadium will lead to any more redevelopment in the area. Minute Maid Park had far less of an impact than originally anticipated. The ugly dangerous buildings nearby will probably remain so. Still, I like the idea of using the surface lot location, just to keep the stadium as close as possible to MMP and the "comfort zone" around there. My concern is that the Eastex forms kind of a barrier, and that some people might be hesitant about venturing to the other side because it is East End. I know that sounds silly, but believe me, I have spoken to people who have never been on that side of the freeway because they think it is too dangerous. I think it will work best if the architects do everything possible to orient the new stadium toward downtown and minimize the impression of a barrier (which is tough to do with an elevated freeway).

Maybe if addiitional parking does turn out to be necessary, they can tear down the ugly dangerous buildings and put it there?

[RedScare]

Considering that the Astros already park 900 season ticket holders over there, I don't think the "other side of the freeway" barrier is nearly as big as it once was. Consider also, that the Ballpark Lofts would buttress the southern border of the stadium, and the other lofts would border the eastern side, and the MMP garage would border the western side, either right up against the stadium, or just to the west of the freeway. This gives the stadium clean, landscaped new construction on three sides. Only the north side of the stadium would appear "ugly and dangerous".

And, if I can get Niche and a couple of others to go in with me on the 5 story warehouse with the water tower on Preston, we'll clean that badboy up real nice...maybe put a patio and dog run on the roof.