Thanks again Baldacci

[grittys457]

Never saw this article. Just some more insult to injury.



UMaine eyes Portland as potential NCAA site
By Larry Mahoney
Monday, March 28, 2005 - Bangor Daily News

MINNEAPOLIS - In the movie Field of Dreams, one of the catchphrases is "If you build it, they will come." University of Maine athletic director Patrick Nero is hoping that a proposed new arena in downtown Portland, to replace the aging Cumberland County Civic Center, gains approval in order to give the university an opportunity to host an NCAA hockey tournament regional.

He has talked to Joe Boulos and other members of the group that hope to build the facility and received a favorable response from them.

"He has showed me the designs and some of the blueprints," said Nero. "It's a first-class arena. It will also have a convention center and a hotel. It's the type of facility, with 10,000 seats, that would be perfect for a regional.

"It would be a great facility for hockey and for everything that goes around the tournament."

He said CCCC Authority administrator Steve Crane, who would "move over and run the new facility" with his staff, shares his optimism.

"Steve and I are together on how much we would love to host a regional," said Nero.

If the facility is built, it would be finished in 2008 or 2009, according to Nero.

"If you look at the history [of the NCAA regionals], they [NCAA] have a rotation. Our hope is we could get Portland into the rotation so we could host it at least every third year or so," said Nero.

Since the University of Maine would be the host school, the Black Bears would get to play at that regional as long as they qualified for the NCAA Tournament.

Nero also said he would like to see New York City's Madison Square Garden place a bid to host the Frozen Four.

"That would be a great place," said Nero.

This year's Frozen Four will be held at the Value City Arena in Columbus, Ohio, on April 7 but the next three sites will be at Midwest or West sites: Milwaukee (2006), St. Louis (2007), and Denver (2008).

"The only East Coast facility that could host a Frozen Four would be the FleetCenter and I know BU has put in another bid [to host the Frozen Four at the FleetCenter] hoping they can get into that rotation," said Nero.

Next year's regionals will be held in the Pepsi Arena in Albany, N.Y., the Worcester (Mass.) Centrum, the Resch Center in Green Bay, Wis., and at Engelstad Arena in Grand Forks, N.D.

They have also been selected for 2007: Blue Cross Arena in Rochester, N.Y., the Verizon Wireless Arena in Manchester, N.H., the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Mich., and the Pepsi Center in Denver.

 

[cneal]

Don't knock yourself about it too much.

The thing is, there are plenty of better things to spend our tax dollars on. Big arenas are for cities with low self-esteem, places that need big sports events to redeem themselves in the public eye. But in a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, they rarely pencil out, and from an urban design standpoint, they're dead zones in the urban fabric: lifeless hulks during the daytime that require huge parking lots for events at night. There's a good reason for all the surface parking lots around Brian Boru: the CCCC needs them.

Big cities can and do thrive without big new sports arenas. Seattle won't build a new arena for the Sonics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/u...858938a3189226&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Does this herald the downfall of the city of Microsoft and Boeing? Doubtful. Quite the opposite, actually: in our market economy, the millions of dollars that the Sonics wanted to have are bound to buy more useful things instead.

 

[Patrick]

Re: Don't knock yourself about it too much.

The thing is, there are plenty of better things to spend our tax dollars on. Big arenas are for cities with low self-esteem, places that need big sports events to redeem themselves in the public eye. But in a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, they rarely pencil out, and from an urban design standpoint, they're dead zones in the urban fabric: lifeless hulks during the daytime that require huge parking lots for events at night. There's a good reason for all the surface parking lots around Brian Boru: the CCCC needs them.

Big cities can and do thrive without big new sports arenas. Seattle won't build a new arena for the Sonics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/u...858938a3189226&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Does this herald the downfall of the city of Microsoft and Boeing? Doubtful. Quite the opposite, actually: in our market economy, the millions of dollars that the Sonics wanted to have are bound to buy more useful things instead.

wrong. Cost-benefit analysis leads you to the short-run, but it leads me to the long run. in the short run, arenas don't make enough to keep the lights on, and must be subsidized. In the long run, however, one notices that event attendees generate business for surrounding businesses, which is referred to generally as a "spin-off" benefit, but which is in fact the main reason arenas are built. So, in the end, what we have is increased business, which does a lot to boost investment in an area, and leads to a higher tax base for the city, increased tourist traffic, increased interest in the area, etc...all being paid for by a slight increase in meals and lodging taxes. those are taxes on people spending in the industries which benefit the most from an arena, so their business is not hurt at all by the increase, and the city takes the additional taxes generated by new businesses that open up and funnels it back into the needs of the city. how do you like that, arenas pay for themselves in the long run! Look at manchester, nh as an example. A new arena in bayside would have magical affect on the surrounding fabric.

 

[portlandneedsnewarena]

Re: Don't knock yourself about it too much.

The thing is, there are plenty of better things to spend our tax dollars on. Big arenas are for cities with low self-esteem, places that need big sports events to redeem themselves in the public eye. But in a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, they rarely pencil out, and from an urban design standpoint, they're dead zones in the urban fabric: lifeless hulks during the daytime that require huge parking lots for events at night. There's a good reason for all the surface parking lots around Brian Boru: the CCCC needs them.

Big cities can and do thrive without big new sports arenas. Seattle won't build a new arena for the Sonics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/u...858938a3189226&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Does this herald the downfall of the city of Microsoft and Boeing? Doubtful. Quite the opposite, actually: in our market economy, the millions of dollars that the Sonics wanted to have are bound to buy more useful things instead.

wrong. Cost-benefit analysis leads you to the short-run, but it leads me to the long run. in the short run, arenas don't make enough to keep the lights on, and must be subsidized. In the long run, however, one notices that event attendees generate business for surrounding businesses, which is referred to generally as a "spin-off" benefit, but which is in fact the main reason arenas are built. So, in the end, what we have is increased business, which does a lot to boost investment in an area, and leads to a higher tax base for the city, increased tourist traffic, increased interest in the area, etc...all being paid for by a slight increase in meals and lodging taxes. those are taxes on people spending in the industries which benefit the most from an arena, so their business is not hurt at all by the increase, and the city takes the additional taxes generated by new businesses that open up and funnels it back into the needs of the city. how do you like that, arenas pay for themselves in the long run! Look at manchester, nh as an example. A new arena in bayside would have magical affect on the surrounding fabric.

Add a Convention Center to the complex (as Joe Boulos had planned and Baldacci originally stated that Maine desperately needs) and just imagine the $$$ that would generate. Many people would attend a convention in Portland and then head upstate for a long weekend or for a weeks vacation and yes spend $$ in our state. Also, a new state of the art Convention Center/Arena would reflect great publicity for the State, City, etc. You would read about it in the Boston Globe, probably NY papers etc. and people would look at Maine as a place where things are happening.
I see it as a win situation for all and that it would generate business, tax dollars for the whole State that would hopefully help everyone.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

Re: Don't knock yourself about it too much.

Big cities can and do thrive without big new sports arenas. Seattle won't build a new arena for the Sonics:

Does this herald the downfall of the city of Microsoft and Boeing? Doubtful. Quite the opposite, actually: in our market economy, the millions of dollars that the Sonics wanted to have are bound to buy more useful things instead.

You do realize that Seattle already has built TWO state of the art stadiums in the last 7 years. Safeco was built for the Mariners in 1999, and Quest field built in 2002 for the Seahawks.

Considering the Sonics are the least popular team in Seattle they probably figured "who cares" when it came to building a new stadium especially since they just funded the two other stadiums.