Onorato on DVE

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Postby imau2fan on Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:28 pm

I find it interesting that the Pens posted a link to that interview on their web site. Verbally in the media the Pens have stayed on message, always touting the IoC plan, complying with their contract.

But Onorato floats the possibility that he could endorse another plan, given of course that they fully fund a new arena, and the Pens quietly publicize those statements in cyberspace.

Sounds like the Pens are saying, "Please support the IoC plan, but if you can force Ratner or Barden to cough up $290 mil instead, we certainly won't stop you, wink wink." :)

I hate to trust any of the Three Amigos, and leave myself vulnerable to heartbreak. But I must say there's an obvious logic to what Onorato is saying. Better to create three arena possibilities, then to roll the dice on one, especially when it's questionable how much of a difference his endorsement will make to the Gaming Board.
imau2fan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Odenton, MD

Postby Ginger on Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:02 am

passmaster16 wrote:
Thats funny. I used to work for Bombardier Transportation...my brother worked there for a while on the DFW and San Francisco contracts...never got to vegas though.

By the way....maglev has not been offically scrapped, the federal money still has not been awarded -- but it's supposed to be between baltimore and pittsburgh as the two sites competing for the funds. Bombardier's involvement in that deal is minimal as their expertise is not magnetic lev but supposedly they were and still are interested in building the guideway. LRT to the north shore is still in discussion but the costs are high with having to bore tunnels under the allegheny river.

Wow! Are you kidding me? Greg also worked in San Francisco (San Jose actually) & headed up the Santa Clara Valley LRT!!! Dallas/Fort Worth too! That wasn't Bombardiers job out there in the Bay Area but they had consultants there. Greg has to know your brother!

I know they aren't mag technology. They're rubber tire straddling a single guideway. Disney World monorail is also Bombardier. And Bombardier *doesn*t build their guideways; they sub out to another company so it's likely not going to have anything to do with the long range trains. Gawd only knows who & what that will end up being...the way they're adverse to spending money, maybe thumb stations?

All this is way too much info for this topic however. :P
Ginger
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,734
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:32 pm
Location: Basically in my own little world

Postby passmaster16 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:10 am

imau2fan wrote:I hate to trust any of the Three Amigos, and leave myself vulnerable to heartbreak. But I must say there's an obvious logic to what Onorato is saying. Better to create three arena possibilities, then to roll the dice on one, especially when it's questionable how much of a difference his endorsement will make to the Gaming Board.


I think that of the three, Onnorato is being the wisest when it comes to this situation. I believe he understands the negative impact the Pens departure could have on the city as well as his political aspirations. I like his idea in theory, however how can you force the gaming board to do that? Remember the original requirement of the slots is property tax relief. That will be the board's primary focus. Does that mean they will disregard the arena during their consideration? No, but I don't see how Onorato expects to change the rules of the game halfway through. And is this leading us down a wrong path? If our focus is on lobbying for the board to require the arena in all proposals and the effort fails, doesn't that mean game over? Wouldn't it be better to simply support the one plan that includes an arena? Here is my concern. Onorato goes on the record with his plan of requiring any proposal to include the arena. In the end the plan fails, and the board does not follow his recommendation. License is awarded to Harrah's, and the Pens leave. Onorato can just come back and say "sorry, I tried to get all three proposals to include the arena but the board did not follow my suggestion" It seems to be an easy out for him...just push the blame off on the board. Everybody gets mad at the board, but the spotlight is put on them and not Onorato, et al for the final outcome.
passmaster16
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,576
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: West Mifflin, PA

Postby bill from turtle creek on Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:17 am

I'm not sure Onorato can do much more than this right now, though. If he really starts screaming from his bully pulpit it's going to piss off Rendell, and it seems clear that O and O don't want to do that; they may need Rendell later to come up with more state money. Onorato is showing a little more independence thus far than O'Connor, though, who's head is so far up Rendell's butt that only his feet are visible.
bill from turtle creek
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,686
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Serenity Now, Serenity Now.

Previous

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

e-mail