Pens will get a new arena IMO

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Pens will get a new arena IMO

Postby Draftnik on Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:32 pm

While driving home from the game I heard David Morehouse, the Pens arena consultant/lobbyist on the post game show. Before he came on his appearance was teased as though he would be presenting major objections the Pens had to Rendell's Plan B.

What do you think he objected to? The $4M in annual fees. No, the Pens are paying $3M under their own/IoC plan. The $8M up-front payment. No. The lack of non-hockey revenue streams. No, apparently the Pens receive those under Rendell's plan. Morehouse had 3 objections:

1) Harrah's/Forest City and Barden have not publicly agreed to contribute their ~ $7M share. That is legitimate, but Onorato said they have told him that is no problem and the Pens obviously would not sign a deal without that specified contractually.

2) Plan B doesn't address the redevelopment of the Hill District. This is a joke. The Pens and the Hill are in a marriage of convenience with IoC. Most of the 8K residents displaced in the late 50s are probably dead and none would be repatriated for free. The Pens want a new arena. They don't care about the Hill.

3) The ~$7M development tax contribution may require legislative action. It is probable that Rendell can't unilaterally distribute this $$$. It also is probable that the State House and Senate would approve this usage because none of them want the Pittsburgh Pens blood on their hands and many of them are already on record as supporting an initiative to keep the Pens in town.


Who could have thought these minor points would be the only objections the Pens have to Plan B.


As an aside did anybody else notice how short Crosby's shifts were during the game. There were several times he went off the ice 20-25 seconds before Hilbert and Armstrong. I wonder if he was admonished by Therrien to keep his shifts shorter.
Draftnik
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,011
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:52 pm
Location: Peters Twp.

Postby bill from turtle creek on Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:48 pm

I guess that maybe Morehouse and Sawyer aren't the idiots I thought they were.

However, I remain convinced that Craig Patrick is.
bill from turtle creek
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,686
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Serenity Now, Serenity Now.

Postby bill from turtle creek on Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:48 pm

I guess that maybe Morehouse and Sawyer aren't the idiots I thought they were.

However, I remain convinced that Craig Patrick is.
bill from turtle creek
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,686
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Serenity Now, Serenity Now.

Postby netwolf on Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:27 pm

Good stuff, as usual D. Thanks for posting that for those of use that did not listen to the post-game.

Things are looking up to be sure...
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,387
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am

Postby Stoosh on Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:48 pm

I know it's tough to feel good about Rendell's Plan B because the guy is a snake. But it's an alternative plan in a situation where one is likely needed to ensure that the team stays here. And at the very least, this provides a workable framework for keeping the team here.

And honestly, for my own selfish reasons, that's really the main reason why I want to see IoC win...it guarantees that the Pens stay. If it takes a Plan B to keep them here, so be it. I can live with it.
Stoosh
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,478
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:19 am
Location: Aliquippa, PA

Postby ExPatriatePen on Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:23 am

double post, sorry
Last edited by ExPatriatePen on Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby ExPatriatePen on Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:19 am

Draftnik wrote:Morehouse had 3 objections:



2) Plan B doesn't address the redevelopment of the Hill District. This is a joke. The Pens and the Hill are in a marriage of convenience with IoC. Most of the 8K residents displaced in the late 50s are probably dead and none would be repatriated for free. The Pens want a new arena. They don't care about the Hill.


In the IoC scenerio, the Pens get *exactly* the arena *they* want.

In Plan 'B' they get the Arena someone else builds for them.

The Hill District redevelopment is the *key* difference. I've been saying this for MONTHS.

I don't think the Pens are dismissive of the Hill District renewel effort. I certainly wouldn't classify it as a 'Joke'.

I don't think anyone has used the word 'repatriated'. The damage done to *individuals* is done and can not be reversed. The damage done to the city as a whole *can* be repaired.

It's a FACT that many low-income people who currently live on the hill will actually be displaced by this plan. The poverty won't be totally eliminated, much of it will just move to Manchester, or the North Side or wherever low cost housing is available. But there will be some low-income units available, and some jobs created which will improve many families lives. Plus those fortunate enough to live on the edges of the redevlopment effort will see their property values increase. (See the doubling and tripling of south side property values from 1985 - 2000).

All in all what happens is that the Pittsburgh economy gets stimulated by this redevelopment effort. Instead of a fringe area with little access completely accreoss the river getting a few new condos, the IoC proposal takes the relators creed into consideration. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. The Redevlopment of the Hill takes some of Pittsburghs most prime real estate and starts to make it attractive again.

I really bristle at the characterization of the Hill Redevelopment as a "joke".
Last edited by ExPatriatePen on Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby Jim on Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:24 am

Oh, the Penguin franchise will definately get a new arena... The question is whether it will be in Pittsburgh of not, HA!
Jim
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,751
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby NIN on Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:30 am

ExPatriatePen wrote:
Draftnik wrote:Morehouse had 3 objections:



2) Plan B doesn't address the redevelopment of the Hill District. This is a joke. The Pens and the Hill are in a marriage of convenience with IoC. Most of the 8K residents displaced in the late 50s are probably dead and none would be repatriated for free. The Pens want a new arena. They don't care about the Hill.


In the IoC scenerio, the Pens get *exactly* the arena *they* want.

In Plan 'B' they get the Arena someone else builds for them.

The Hill District redevelopment is the *key* difference. I've been saying this for MONTHS.

I don't think the Pens are dismissive of the Hill District renewel effort. I certainly wouldn't classify it as a 'Joke'.

I don't think anyone has used the word 'repatriated'. The damage done to *individuals* is done and can not be reversed. The damage done to the city as a whole *can* be repaired.

It's a FACT that many low-income people who currently live on the hill will actually be displaced by this plan. The poverty won't be totally eliminated, much of it will just move to Manchester, or the North Side or wherever low cost housing is available. But there will be some low-income units available, and some jobs created which will improve many families lives. Plus those fortunate enough to live on the edges of the redevlopment effort will see their property values increase. (See the doubling and tripling of south side property values from 1985 - 2000).

All in all what happens is that the Pittsburgh economy gets stimulated by this redevelopment effort. Instead of a fringe area with litle access completely accreoss the river getting a few new condos, the IoC proposal takes the relators creed into consideration. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. The Redevlopmen of the Hill takes some of Pittsburghs mos primes realestate and starts to make it attractive again.

I really bristle at the characterization of the Hill Redevelopment as a "joke".


I think that the point he/she was trying to make was that the Penguins don't veiw it as a top priority from a business stand point. I can't help but agree that some of those comments made to the media were posturing not unlike a politician.

The reason I feel this way is because the owners want the maximum amount of ticket sales. If the HIll is redone then it becomes more attractive to go over there, hence more ticket sales. Now if the parlor is within throwning distance they will get ALOT more ticket sales. That's why its so important for the location of it to be as close as possible to the arena.

I think they sincerely feel like they are doing the right thing and doing whats best for the community and maybe they are. However, they would'nt even be involved at all if they werent trying to get a new arena, that was the prime objective from the get go.

If they can tweak this backup plan alittle it would work just fine for them and the city and state. I would rather have a free arena but honestly, at the end of the day, I don't want a slots parlor at all. I don't care if they build it underground or have it floating above my home. I just want to watch hockey and maybe if I am lucky save a couple more bucks on property taxes. I know that isnt the right attitude but Im just being honest.

Sign it Sawyer and except your victory with grace and determination for your IOC plan. After that, let the chips fall were the may.
NIN
 

Postby newarenanow on Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:03 am

Until it is signed on the dotted line, I am remaining skeptical the way this whole process has gone.
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,492
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Postby Draftnik on Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:32 am

ExPatriatePen wrote:The Hill District redevelopment is the *key* difference. I've been saying this for MONTHS.

I don't think the Pens are dismissive of the Hill District renewel effort. I certainly wouldn't classify it as a 'Joke'.

I don't think anyone has used the word 'repatriated'. The damage done to *individuals* is done and can not be reversed. The damage done to the city as a whole *can* be repaired.

It's a FACT that many low-income people who currently live on the hill will actually be displaced by this plan. The poverty won't be totally eliminated, much of it will just move to Manchester, or the North Side or wherever low cost housing is available. But there will be some low-income units available, and some jobs created which will improve many families lives. Plus those fortunate enough to live on the edges of the redevlopment effort will see their property values increase. (See the doubling and tripling of south side property values from 1985 - 2000).

All in all what happens is that the Pittsburgh economy gets stimulated by this redevelopment effort. Instead of a fringe area with little access completely accreoss the river getting a few new condos, the IoC proposal takes the relators creed into consideration. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. The Redevlopment of the Hill takes some of Pittsburghs most prime real estate and starts to make it attractive again.

I really bristle at the characterization of the Hill Redevelopment as a "joke".


No offense intended. If you care about the Hill that is obviously your prerogative. My point is the Pens are interested in getting a new arena to maximize revenue potential and market value of their franchise. Do you think the Pens will redevelop the Hill if they leave Pittsburgh? I didn't think so. Do you think IoC would offer a free arena if they could get the license without that gimmick? I didn't think so. Do you think the Pens really care about the Hill or are they using the redevelopment angle as a gimmick to make their proposal more attractive/well rounded and not just about a new arena.

IMO if the Pens get a new arena on their terms from Rendell they will drop the Hill like a bad habit.
Draftnik
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,011
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:52 pm
Location: Peters Twp.

Postby ExPatriatePen on Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:21 am

You're probably right Draftnik, the redevelopment of the hill is probably pretty low on the Pens priority list.

I don't think they'd turn their nose up at it (Who doesn't want to live in a better neighborhood?) But it's certainly behind having a home at all.

It's the City that should care. If I were Ontarado or O'Connor I'd be taking ads out the size of Mt. Washington for IoC.

I just keep envisoning a complex that is even better than nationwide in Columbus. It drives me nuts to know it's so close and yet so far.

No offense Guy, no offense.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby topshelf on Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:31 am

I think MT was trying to keep Crosby away from the Madden line, which is why some of his shifts were short.
topshelf
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,595
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:13 am
Location: Florida

Postby Pitts on Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:49 pm

I think redevelopment of the Hill is a valid concern for the Pens with a new arena. With the redevelopment, retail, bars, restaraunts, etc., it stands to reason the an upscale area may help draw bigger crowds to the games. Not to mention the traffic having a casino not far away will bring.
Pitts
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,719
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Working ....


Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: malkinshair and 9 guests


e-mail