Pens Respond To Fast Eddie's Cronies

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Pens Respond To Fast Eddie's Cronies

Postby imau2fan on Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:48 am

imau2fan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Odenton, MD

Postby NIN on Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:55 am

This section is some grade A Forrest City BULLCRAP!!

In his letter, Mr. Ratner said he was confident Forest City could meet the projections for a number of reasons.

For one, he said, Forest City plans to invest more than $150 million more in its casino than competitors. For another, Harrah's is the "premiere name in gaming" with a database of more than 40 million customers.

That, plus a customer loyalty program, allows Harrah's to generate about 33 percent of its business in cross market play -- people who play at a Harrah's casino outside of their home market.

"This is a marketing tool and patron base that none of our competitors can match. We will draw visitors to Pittsburgh from all of the Harrah's properties in America. These factors will enable Harrah's Station Square casino to be a regional gaming destination for America and generate the most revenue for the taxpayers of Pennsylvania," he said.


HAHAHA RIiiiiiight! Like they are gonna lure poeple from Atlantic city to come to Station Square?

Here is another crooked victory for the Forrest City of Suckersbrugh economy rappers:

"The bottom line is there's no urgency to rush and support any proposal at this time. We have to do our due diligence and, hopefully, the consensus will be to pick the best one for the city of Pittsburgh," he said.

His words make my moniter smell bad! "NO URGENCY". Folks all of this hype and all of the number digging is grinding it down and all of the idiots around here will see inflated numbers and wonder why the other 2 applicants are even making a fuss. It's brilliant in it's simplicity.

Won't we all be surprised when their so-called "property-tax releif" is once again DENIED by our local schools and all that "promised" releif gets rederected into "other" areas of his inflated budget. Dear God, why am I still living here?
NIN
 

Postby Pitts on Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:05 am

I think the Pens and, especially, Don Barden covered that PR move by the Ratners well. Barden is dead on when he says this is a drive-in destination and not a high-income area for a casino. Sure, people will be playing them here, but I don't see this area a a "hopping" slots town. I see the casino as a spot for tourists and people in town on business or conventions. If people want a "getaway" casino, they'll still hit WV and Toronto, even from Pittsburgh.

Forrest City is clearly punching up the numbers to fight the "free area" deal.
Pitts
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,445
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Working ....

Postby Tocchet on Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:21 pm

If Ratface wants to talk about *other* costs behind a proposal, why doesn't he explain how the South Side will be able to handle all of the traffic that would result in his grandiose revenue projections? Unless Ratface and Forest City is going to pay for all of the infrastructure that will undoubtedly be necessary to support their plan, Ratface is, again, telling bald-face lies to skew public opinion.
Tocchet
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:52 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Pens Respond To Fast Eddie's Cronies

Postby pfim on Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:33 pm

imau2fan wrote:http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655402.stm


Ratner makes a point about the "free" arena, however he neglects other taxes the arena would bring in, and his reasons for Harrah's and Forest City acheiving the proposed $600 million are cheesy at best.
pfim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,789
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am
Location: Sitting in front of my computer

Re: Pens Respond To Fast Eddie's Cronies

Postby dboss on Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:37 pm

pfim wrote:
imau2fan wrote:http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655402.stm


Ratner makes a point about the "free" arena, however he neglects other taxes the arena would bring in, and his reasons for Harrah's and Forest City acheiving the proposed $600 million are cheesy at best.


I think this is the most interesting quote from that article:

"Furthermore, Harrah's has a history of exaggerating numbers in order to win a license, particularly in New Orleans, another place where Harrah's promised to bring in $600 million per year and didn't, and they are currently operating at $339 million per year," Mr. Morehouse said in a statement.
dboss
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:33 am
Location: McCandless Twp, PA

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:30 pm

Jenna wrote:
Financing your government on vice is sleazy. What will they do when this does not work? Legalize drugs and prostitution for tax purposes?



I respect your opinion.

I just want to put something out there for everyone to consider.

Taxes discourage activity.

Would you rather tax income, and property (positive economic indicators) or consumption particularly of Tobacco, alcohol, etc...

Obviously you have to draw a line somewhere and say that activities are not only to be discouraged but are totally unacceptable and should be made illeagal.

But taxing income discourages production. (I've turned down offers for sidework because my after-tax income made the retunr not worth the effort.)

Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.

Personally I'm for the Leagalization of marijuana (No, I haven't used it in 17 years), but against the legalization of other drugs etc...

I sort of sit on the fence when it comes to gambling, I want to be able to have it as an option for recreational purposes, but NIMBY. (I know, I know)... I won't even tell you my views on prostitution (But I will say that the Mustang ranch seems to be doing quite well in Nevada and there haven't been any health issues. - more than I can say for the illeagal trade down on Liberty avenue.)

I do share your sentiment that I don't think slots are the answer in PA, and I think the estimates are all inflated. Once it comes in, it will never leave, even if it's a complete bust.

I'm happy that Pittsburgh was only granted one license. I hope it stays that way.
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 HomerPenguin on Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:31 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.


This paradox, I think, is the problem most opponents have with this. The tax can be imposed with the stated goal of discouraging use while also bringing in revenue, but these goals are at cross purposes. If magically everybody stops smoking, then your cigarette tax on which you'd planned to bring in X% of your revenue suddently dries up. Same thing with gaming. It puts the government in a position of having to hope that people keep engaging in that "harmful" activity because the government needs the cash.

That said, I just don't find gaming that serious a concern. Particularly with no sports book. I find an all-slots casino to be incredibly silly and of no particular appeal to me, but that's another story.
HomerPenguin
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,884
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:50 pm
Location: ...

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:30 pm

HomerPenguin wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.


This paradox, I think, is the problem most opponents have with this. The tax can be imposed with the stated goal of discouraging use while also bringing in revenue, but these goals are at cross purposes.


You're absolutely right. The tax on Tobacco is a perfect example. It's more than the cost of the raw materials and shipping combined. It's certainly caused some people to quit smoking completely. But it'll never stop everyone. There are people who would spend $10 for a pack of 'smokes'.
(hey, I routinely spend $20 for a good cigar).

So while they are at cross purposes, their is a point of intersection.

Let's take Pot for example. Cheaper to grow than tobacco. If it were legalized, more people would use it. (The threat of being arrested is probably the greatest inhibitor) yet you could tax a pack of 20 joints for $100 and still be below the current street price for the same thing.

There's always that point of intersection where you don't discourage the activity and still collect maximal revenue.

But how did this thread become an economics debate?

NEVERMIND!
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.


Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

e-mail