New Stadium for the Falcons approved by city Mayor.

#26
#26
Any Splost $$ going toward the new stadium?

No. The public part is being paid for by hotel taxes that will pass the costs on to visitors. Pretty standard.

As a Georgia taxpayer, the main thing that worries me is this: what the hell are the city and state doing so involved with real estate in downtown Atlanta that they have to bend over to keep a football team down there eight days a year? At least this stadium deal is mostly out in the open. What else has been going on that got the city/state to this point?
 
#27
#27
I feel like they don't want the beltine/light rail project to fail and it probably would have if the stadium was built outside of that

That Beltline/rail project smells like a boondoggle to me but I really like Mayor Reed so I trust him (sorta)
 
#29
#29
I think they are building it right now. I saw in the AJC yesterday they were laying some track down around Olympic park
 
#30
#30
I think they are building it right now. I saw in the AJC yesterday they were laying some track down around Olympic park

I saw the same thing. Looked like streetcar tracks, but I can't remember where it was going in.
 
#31
#31
Blank wants to be able to play outside. He has the money to build his own open-air stadium out in the suburbs, specifically at the old GM plant site in Doraville. But apparently the city and state desperately need the Falcons to stay downtown because of how involved they are in the real estate in and around Centennial Park downtown. I'm sure if you talk to Arthur Blank, he probably feels like he's doing the city/state a favor by staying downtown and not building the completely open-air stadium he wanted to build.

He's putting up $800 million of what's supposed to be $1 billion and staying in a suboptimal location to benefit the city. He could have said the hell with it and done the whole thing on his own. Stadium deals are always bad bets for the public, but compared to most of them I don't feel like the taxpayers are getting bent over too badly. It's usually worse.
Makes sense. Keeping them downtown because certainly not many reasons to head downtown other than sports venues imo. I mean it hasn't always been like that.
 
#33
#33
It's a good deal relative to others. I just don't think it will make Atlanta a premier event destination outside of what it already has. The SEC championship works well because the SEC folk are used to it and know where to go. But for stuff like the Superbowl, it's just not a great place for it. It's not a well laid out area for what the Superbowl needs. And as far as the area building up around it, that's a joke. I suppose it will be a crutch, but it's not going to miraculously just turn around that part of the city.

But I've only lived here for a year and a half. I think I've been downtown maybe three times. So maybe there is a lot to do, and I just don't know it.
 
#34
#34
It's a good deal relative to others. I just don't think it will make Atlanta a premier event destination outside of what it already has. The SEC championship works well because the SEC folk are used to it and know where to go. But for stuff like the Superbowl, it's just not a great place for it. It's not a well laid out area for what the Superbowl needs. And as far as the area building up around it, that's a joke. I suppose it will be a crutch, but it's not going to miraculously just turn around that part of the city.

But I've only lived here for a year and a half. I think I've been downtown maybe three times. So maybe there is a lot to do, and I just don't know it.
People say that about downtown all the time, but mysteriously the NFL thought Atlanta was good enough to put two Super Bowls there. Then, a freak ice storm and Ray Lewis' posse suddenly made things different. I've always thought it was a bad rap.

I went to school there and I'm downtown 4-5 times a month. It's just not as bad as some want to make it out to be.
 
#35
#35
If you could take Atlanta's weather, airport, hotels and convention space and Indianapolis' stadium area footprint, you'd have the perfect NFL town.
 
#36
#36
It's a good deal relative to others. I just don't think it will make Atlanta a premier event destination outside of what it already has. The SEC championship works well because the SEC folk are used to it and know where to go. But for stuff like the Superbowl, it's just not a great place for it. It's not a well laid out area for what the Superbowl needs. And as far as the area building up around it, that's a joke. I suppose it will be a crutch, but it's not going to miraculously just turn around that part of the city.

But I've only lived here for a year and a half. I think I've been downtown maybe three times. So maybe there is a lot to do, and I just don't know it.

The point of the new stadium isn't to turn anything around. The point of the stadium is that the Falcons owner's lease is up and he has a billion dollars to spend and he doesn't want to play in a dome anymore. The city/state can either get in on it and cut a deal that keeps the team downtown, or they can watch him build his own stadium in Doraville.

Most of the action is supposedly to be in midtown rather than downtown. I am old and have a couple of young kids, though, so I don't go down there much.
 
#37
#37
This.

Geez the Georgiadome isn't even that old.

Blank wants to host another Super Bowl. Goodell basically told him it wouldn't happen unless Atl got a new stadium, preferably, with a retractable roof. The city of Atlanta is in a no win situation. Don't agree to chip in 20% and lose out on all the revenue the Dome brings in.
 
#38
#38
Sounds like its the people who visit the city that will be paying for it not the taxpayers who live in ATL.
 
#39
#39
Thats my understanding. Also I was downtown last weekend and I noticed they are building the College Football HOF, that should go nicely with the new stadium
 
#42
#42
How? They say the tourists through the ski resorts in Utah paid for the soccer stadium, but a lot of that was in-state money.

It says through a hotel/motel tax that will be applied to rooms. While Im sure the city of ATL will have instate visitors I doubt too much of that would be from people that live in the city.
 
#43
#43
It says through a hotel/motel tax that will be applied to rooms. While Im sure the city of ATL will have instate visitors I doubt too much of that would be from people that live in the city.

That's always the argument. Problem is that folks that live in GA are paying hotel taxes in other states to pay for stuff there.
 
#44
#44
It says through a hotel/motel tax that will be applied to rooms. While Im sure the city of ATL will have instate visitors I doubt too much of that would be from people that live in the city.

That's a pretty good way to do it, but it still impacts the economy. If hotels could raise their prices without losing customers they would, but this will reduce hotel stays on a macro level. How much is the tax supposed to be, percentage-wise?
 
#46
#46
Every city I go to now has hotel taxes over 10 percent. This is how politicians pay for projects that they believe are good for the public despite being unpopular with voters.

I'd far rather there be no public money at all going to it, but from everything I've read, the whole Georgia Dome/World Congress Center complex is completely dependent on having the Falcons as a tenant, so the city can't afford to risk letting Blank move out to the suburbs. I think taxpayers probably dodged a bullet here; it's been far worse for some other cities.
 
#49
#49
I mean, this is a city where there are so relatively few Falcons fans that half the time I wear a Falcons shirt out during the offseason, some other fan comes up to me randomly and wants to talk Falcons football. Most people here either transplants who root for other teams or college fans who put all their energy into that. Blank was having to cut season ticket prices only a few years ago; he's crazy if he thinks most of his fans are going to be willing to pay a significant PSL on top of higher ticket prices.
 

VN Store



Back
Top