Posted on 12/20/2004 11:43:23 AM PST by agenda_express
Peterson Outlines Plan To Pay For Colts Stadium
Indy Mayor Wants Pull-Tabs To Help Pay For Stadium
December 20, 2004
INDIANAPOLIS -- The city will ask the General Assembly to approve pull-tab legislation to help pay for a new stadium deal that would keep the NFL's Colts in Indianapolis for 30 years, Mayor Bart Peterson said Monday.
The city will ask lawmakers to approve pull tabs, which are slot machine-like devices, for horse racing tracks in Anderson and Shelbyville and an off-track betting parlor in Indianapolis, Peterson said at a news conference.
Colts owner Jim Irsay and the NFL will contribute $100 million in loans toward the cost of the 63,000-seat stadium with a retractable roof, Peterson said.
The new stadium and an expansion of the Indiana Convention Center, which are part of the same package, would cost about $800 million, Peterson said.
The convention center expansion could be financed with an increase in a local hotel tax to 9 percent from 6 percent and by increasing other hospitality taxes, Peterson said. Property, sales or income taxes would not be raised.
All of the proposed financing would need approval from the General Assembly. Pull-tab legislation has failed to win approval from lawmakers during their past two sessions, but various proposals have been discussed.
"I want to be flexible. There are a lot of ideas floating around," Peterson said. "I think this will help crystallize those ideas."
Peterson proposed a pull-tab vendor would make a one-time payment of $50 million, and the government would need at least $40 million annually in revenue from the gambling proceeds.
House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he wasn't sure how lawmakers will respond to the pull-tab proposal, but said he did not favor the idea of using gaming revenue to fuel economic development.
"Personally, I think linking any major economic improvement like the (stadium) to the expansion of gaming in our state is a mistake," Bosma said.
The Indiana Coalition Against Legalized Gambling will oppose any attempt to expand gambling in the state, said the Rev. Richard Hamilton, a United Methodist minister and a leader of the group.
"This is just another move -- not unexpected -- to turn downtown Indianapolis into a gambling center," Hamilton told The Indianapolis Star.
The proposed new stadium, which would open by the fall of 2008 on a site about a block south of the RCA Dome, could be expanded to 70,000 seats to make the city eligible to host a Super Bowl, Peterson said
"This isn't just about money. This is about the excitement and the attention that NFL football brings to Indianapolis. We have something that we can't lose," the mayor said.
Of the $100 million from the Colts and the NFL, about $33.3 million will be a loan from the NFL that will be repaid through club-seat revenues. The remaining $66.6 million will be a loan from the Colts that will be repaid from other revenues generated by the new building, Peterson said.
The city's agreement with Irsay keeps the team in Indianapolis and removes the threat it could relocate to a more lucrative location within two years under terms of the franchise's current lease agreement at the RCA Dome, which would be leveled for the convention center expansion.
"We knew that the Colts could leave as early as 2006," Peterson said.
The mayor and Irsay announced the stadium agreement Sunday night on the field of the RCA Dome before the Colts' nationally televised victory over the Baltimore Ravens.
The Colts moved to Indianapolis from Baltimore in 1984 in part over a stadium dispute. Peterson said the announcement's timing was ironic but not intentional.
The stadium would include a retractable roof similar to Reliant Stadium, where the Houston Texans play, but the design in a computer animation shown to Colts fans bore a closer resemblance to Conseco Fieldhouse, home of the Indiana Pacers.
Peterson said the arena was designed to host both NFL football and college basketball -- specifically the NCAA men's and women's Final Four.
The NCAA, which is based in Indianapolis, was involved in the design, he said. Indianapolis has an agreement with the NCAA to host both Final Fours and preliminary rounds of the basketball tournament as well as the NCAA convention on a five-year cycle through 2039.
Among the factors driving the city toward building a new stadium has been the Colts' desire to earn more revenue than they do now at the RCA Dome, which has the smallest seating capacity among current NFL stadiums at 55,506.
The new stadium would seat about the same number as Chicago's rebuilt Soldier Field and Oakland's Network Associates Coliseum, which also are among the NFL's smallest. The expanded capacity would be in line with that of stadiums in Houston, Atlanta and San Diego.
Under the current deal with the Colts, the city is required to make payments to the team if annual revenues do not meet the league median. The new deal does not include such a clause, a news release said.
Peterson said officials worked out the final details of the deal Saturday.
Gov.-elect Mitch Daniels released the following statement in response to the announcement:
"I have said that the state's fiscal condition precludes using current state revenue sources for this project. Additionally, since the Colts presence chiefly benefits Central Indiana it would be unfair for Hoosiers outside this region to be burdened with any cost. The Mayor's plan attempts to address those two criteria. This plan and any alternative raises large fiscal and social questions, so it's well that the debate has gotten started."
You would think that after a costly trial, conviction, and death sentence Peterson would have bigger things to worry about.
lol. damn. you beat me by three minutes............not even close!
heh
Great minds think alike.
And so do ours.
ROTFL...
Apparently Jackie and Lee still have some cash to throw around.
I guess there are other folks named Peterson, out there. I, too, caught the headline just for the name, to be fair. And I wonder where the Colts would otherwise go? LA? Is LA now going to be the threat whenever Al Davis or some other franchise doesn't get every bit of public money from a desperate mayor's office? Admittedly, it's not 100%. But as I read that article, I kept saying to myself - c'mon, I dare ya, raise property taxes! The alternative even makes gambling seem preferable. But people are disappointed when the gambling centers don't sport Clark Gable and just general merriment and good times. And besides, if you open casinos in every city of every state, um . . won't you run out of gamblers at some point?
Heh-heh!
Ah, good one. I wonder if ole Bart and Scott are related...
How many people in Indianapolis will benefit from the stadium and convention center expansion?
Here's another:
Pittsburgh did the same thing. Two stadiums and a convention center. The city is on the verge of bankruptcy every other news cycle. Why would you repeat the same mistake?
How many people in Indianapolis will benefit from the stadium and convention center expansion?
Two - Irsay and Peterson. Ok, maybe 3 - the head of the convention center may benefit, too.
The city ought to tell the owner to either finance the stadium with his own money or move the team back to Baltimore. The story doesn't say who gets the naming rights worth some $300-350 million.
It's the "cool" thing right now - similar to how dome's were the thing to do about 25 or 30 years ago. I can't imagine the maint. cost on that thing.
Two thoughts with but a single mind between them, lol!
Two days a year the weather in Indiana is fit to be comfortable outside, so they want the option to open it if they happen to be playing a game on the one day that it happens in October.
It appears, once again, that the rest of the state is called upon to ante up for so-called "improvements" which will only benefit a few in Indianapolis.
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.