Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK
Literally none of what I said came from the club. Everything I posted about the Tempe deal is 100% true.
Did you even bother to read the propositions or do any research yourself? Or is Lanny your source?
We've owned property in the valley for 15 years, I'm informed enough.
|
Here is an excerpt from the GCI study, which IMO is the most objective data that is out there. Link to the full study is attached.
"The TED is an expansive, multi-phased development that requires a significant investment to cover remediation and infrastructure costs. An added 16,000 seat arena is likely to create a significant business model challenge as the region will have three large arenas that need to book a relatively fixed number of available concerts and other large events to be economically viable. GCI’s analysis finds that the project will not generate nearly sufficient additional municipal tax revenue to offset revenue the city has allocated to the CFD to assist in paying off the project’s $208 million bond. For every $2.70 of tax dollars redirected to the CFD, Tempe will only gain $1 in new revenue.
Further, overall gross tax revenue to the city from the project is not likely to exceed alternative uses of the site that do not require a CFD. Because the Coyotes have been in the Phoenix MSA for more than 30 years and most entertainment spending is simply redistributed, the impact on the greater Phoenix metropolitan economy is negligible."
https://grandcanyoninstitute.org/wp-...pr_17_2023.pdf
Feel free to show your work, from something that is not sourced back to the Coyotes.
It's hard to believe you're arguing against the idea that the Coyotes should be working towards an agreement with the relevant local government. You really believe they want to pay for the entire cost themselves?