Prop 420: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
Cubs Birdseye
Wrigleyville West concept artwork
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
12 comments:
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Butters posted at 8:55 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
A good reason why NOT to trust anything coming from the mouth of MesaAzGuy, Mayor Smith's propaganda czar.
MesaAzGuy wrote: The Cubs will be buying the land from the city at Riverview.
From the website of http://www.keepthecubs.com
Is the city giving the stadium to the Cubs?
No. Mesa will own the stadium and the Cubs will lease it from the city.
Butters posted at 8:52 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
MesaAzGuy wrote: The Cubs will be buying the land from the city at Riverview.
MesaAzGuy, AKA, Mayor Smith's propaganda czar, why is the city stating they will LEASE the land at Riverview to the Cubs? What proposal did you look at that calls for the purchase of land at Riverview by the Cubs? Is there a backroom deal that your boss isn't being upfront about with the citizens?
Rich posted at 6:09 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
"Rich- when the Cubs send a letter, the Mayor, every member of the city council, the campaign, and city all say there is a cap, you can bet there is a cap. I would think a judge would agree."
Doubt it highly. "Caps" don't happen in Mesa. Especially when "the Mayor, every member of the city council, the campaign, and city" are currying favor with billionaires. C'mon Richins hasn't held a regular job in years, he's paid by a "non-profit" for his vote on the council. And he pushed both Riverview and Waveyard. Looking to people like that for a "cap" is like believing in fairies.
Slabside posted at 3:55 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
One major point not remotely discussed here is... THE CUBS STINK! These over paid prima donnas couldn't win a world series if God willed it. They do not rate a new stadium.[thumbdown]
mrfixer123 posted at 1:54 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Thanks for the best article yet on why this deal needs to be voted down. Cubs outgrowing Hohokam? THEY ARE HERE 6 WEEKS A YEAR. If they want to go somewhere else let em. I'd pay double what I pay to golf at Riverview and never bat an eye. The course is the best 9 hole course (was originally planned to be 18) in Phoenix. If the City wants a draw that keeps the snowbirds and other part time residents doing business in Mesa then keep the golf course. After all they are here longer than the Cubs. I play the course year round and I thoroughly enjoy it every time. Kill the Waveyard and Prop 420.
MesaAZGuy posted at 1:24 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Rich- when the Cubs send a letter, the Mayor, every member of the city council, the campaign, and city all say there is a cap, you can bet there is a cap. I would think a judge would agree.
Rich posted at 11:50 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
MesaAZGuy
"An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." - Samuel Goldwyn
MesaAZGuy posted at 11:32 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Unlimited possibilities, except of course for those pesky caps agreed to by all parties and stated publicly many many times by everyone.
Accuracy posted at 11:03 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
The Chicago Cubs moved from Scottsdale out to Mesa’s Hohokam Stadium for the Cactus League spring training in 1979.
In 1996, “KEEP THE CHICAGO CUBS” in Mesa was the push . . And the City of Mesa spent millions of dollars to build a new Hohokam stadium and the Fitch Park training complex along with a clubhouse for the Cubs.
But most of the Mesa Voters are not fooled and deceived this time, by the "Keep the Cubs" push, and by the incomplete Proposition 420, and its unlimited possibilities to be paid for by Mesa's public funds.
MesaAZGuy posted at 10:36 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Nice try if he actually got all of the facts straight.
The Cubs have outgrown Hohokam and Fitch. While other teams would fit perfectly, e Cubs are by far the largest team in MLB for spring training. Hohokam does not provide the opportunity for development which is what the Cubs are looking for and have been offered in Florida.
Even if there is one year lost while bringing the other team in, maintaining a stadium that is not usesd for baseball is much cheaper than what the city currently spends. The alternative, the Cubs leave and we're stuck either way.
The Cubs will be buying the land from the city at Riverview. Tjose proceeds will be used to relocate the fields. Just as it was under Waveyard.
The city shouldn't be artificially lowering prices and competing against private golf courses in the city. Nice course but its better to be out of the golf course business.
It's a wiser use of funds to create an asset that has proven to generate millions in additional revenue.
This is where he goes off track. The Ugly.
If the Cubs want to spend millions of their own money to build something then why wouldn't they make a profit. Mesa benefits from tax revenue and more people visiting the city.
There are NO incentives for Wrigleyville. There never has been and there won't be.
The enhancements were to make Hohokam bigger. The new stadium will have ample room for seating etc and shouldn't need upgrades.
Cubs are signing a 30 year lease. So, they wont be threatening for at least 30 years. Meanwhile, Mesa will benefit greatly between now and then. As I've said other places, we can call their bluff just like Seattle did to the NBA. Worked out there didn't it.
F-NO 4-2-0 posted at 9:06 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
This is one of the best articles I have read on this matter. At some point in time, we have to say enough is enough.
1. The Cubs used Florida to get Arizona to raise the cost of the project by $40MM. Forty Million Dollars!
2. The Governor, state representatives, and Major League Baseball told the Cubs that they would do whatever it takes to keep the Cubs.
3. Whatever it takes meant Mesa got the bill.
I cannot wait to vote no on this. I haven't handed out flyers since Reagan's second term, but we're going to kill this thing.
votenomesa posted at 6:37 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
The "Bad" and "Ugly" points make this an obvious NO vote.