Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre2010
How is it a bluff? They have asked COG for all the documents for this transaction with Hulszier under freedom of info act. The city is trying to sell municple bonds to GIVE the proceeds to Hulszier to buy a private franchise, under the assumption they are buying parking rights from the team that the city already owns??? The City has guarnteed the bonds with excise taxes (public money) if they don't make enough money off of parking revenues from a parking lot that has never charged for parking before. Oh yeah they're also paying another 78 Million in fees for Hulszier to run the arena over the next 6 years. All GWI is saying that this deal is bad for tax payers, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.... must be a duck. aka BAD DEAL for taxpayers.
|
I'm sure you meant arena rather than team, however, if there is no team, there is no parking rights to sell or buy. And I agree, this is definitely a case of creative financing. But the fact that it is creative, and the opinion that it is a bad deal for tax payers does not automatically make it illegal.
All of this is speculative, but there is a possibility that the issue gets settled in this fashion, Hulsizer stabilizes the franchise, it continues to win, leading to higher attendance and higher than anticipated parking fees. At the same time, as arena manager, he manages to bring more events, also charging for parking, and the deal turns out quite profitable.
Likely? Maybe, maybe not, and I'm not holding my breath. But it is possible. I suspect that a legal challenge on the legality of the bond issue would revolve around that: the deal
could be a big win for the city and taxpayers, but there are no guarantees. Lacking the guarantee, does state law/constitution support it? As I said above, that is something a judge will have to decide.