Posted on 07/02/2013 4:43:57 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
The biggest issue facing the Atlanta Falcons' eye-popping new football stadium: whether to build it just north of the current Georgia Dome, which would mean greater distance from hotels, the airport, transit, and the city's skyline, or just south, which would mean buying the land presently occupied by a pair of historic churches.
The team prefers the south site. Those churches also prefer the south site. Friendship Baptist, established in 1866 and the wellspring for both Morehouse and Spelman colleges, has rejected the city's offer of $13.5 million for the property, asking for nearly double that. Mayor Kasim Reed told 11 Alive he's upped the offer by $2 million. Meanwhile, the state is negotiating with Martin Luther King Drive's Mount Vernon Baptist.
While the houses of worship could stand to collect windfalls (the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports the combined land is worth just more than $2.2 million), they are of course not governed strictly by financials:
"I don't think [money] should even enter our decision-making. I really don't," said [Friendship] parishioner Juanita Jones Abernathy, whose late husband [Ralph David Abernathy] was a confidant of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "It's a landmark. I think it should remain. It's been there for generations, and it needs to be there for generations to come."
Considering Mt. Vernon Baptist's real estate is worth an amount similar to Friendship Baptist's, it could cost the city and state significantly more than $30 million to secure the land, which could raise the public cost of the stadium beyond the $200 million for which it's on the hook. A $30 million price tag would amount to 3.7 percent of the $800 million the team's committed to building the facility, and it wouldn't include the $50 million Arthur Blank's setting aside for undetermined neighborhood improvements as a part of the overhaul.
Can the Falcons show the city and state it's worth that much money to play a few blocks south? I don't know. I'm imagining the kind of church one could build with $20 million in one's pocket, but luckily, it's not my decision to make.
The Falcons stadium deal is, as far as stadium deals with public components go, a relatively good one for its city. That $200 million was earmarked for tourism anyway, and it's been argued that an even bigger public number would need to be spent in order to maintain the apparently far-more-aged-than-the-human-mind-can-fathom Georgia Dome. Land acquisition fees from the public's trusts will never be popular, though at least they'd be going to longtime local institutions and not some corporation, right?
The parties have until Aug. 1 to reach an accord. If none is found, the hemisphere's boldest stadium will be built just north of the team's current house.
If they go by way of eminent domain, it would be purchased for fair market value.
That is not the it’s value to the church nor its value to the city, but what a willing buyer and willing seller would pay for the property in an arm’s length transaction.
Church properties can be acquired by way of eminent domain.
I’m a big NFL fan but, surprisingly, I’m with the churches on this one. Unless the church’s facilities aren’t nearly as old as the age of their congregation, how brazen is it to ask a church to abandon the land that has carried so much history?
The Georgia Dome is hardly old. They should have paid to build a better stadium.
Houston is trying to decide what to do with the Astrodome that has gone largely unused since 2000. Maybe Atlantans could pay to blow up the Georgia Dome and then transport the Astrodome to the same site. It withstood Hurricanes Alicia (1983) and Ike (2008) with hardly a scratch. It could use a good paint job, though.
The property’s worth a little over $2 million. The church wants ten times what the property would be worth for any other purpose. And the corrupt third world politicians want to get the money to them.
If building and operating a stadium or arena were profitable, the teams would insist on building their own facilities, rather than stick the taxpayer with the tab.
keep it secured for any kind of emergency headquarters etc. you can land helicopters inside if necessary.
Ding, ding, ding. Winner!!!
I heard the mayor giving an interview on a sports show and eminent domain is absolutely not an option. What he didn't say is it would be political suicide.
I don’t think you could buy a similar property in the area, build two new churches of like size and caliber and get it all done for 30 million. Churches aren’t cheap to build and the land and design work is going to eat up about 7.5 of the 30. That leaves about a little over 11 per building — nope, not a good deal.
Buying the dirt would cost $2 million. Buying another lot and building a very large replacement facility could easily cost $20 million.
Now I know who's responsible for me getting stuck at the light at Northside and MLK all the time.
Here's the sticky part. From what I understand the City has agreed to buy and prep the land as their part of the deal.
Looks like an angry, open sore.
I hate to see historic buildings destroyed for the sake of money. However, if the churches think money is more important than I say soak the Falcons and let the rich pay their fair share. I’d also hold out for season tickets, in perpetuity, for members of each church and their immediate families.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.