Which college football bowl is LSU headed to?
BusinessReport.com
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Make Us Your Homepage |
Subscribe |
E-Newsletters |
Advertising |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Work for Us
Comments by brdreamer
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on October 9 at 11:14 a.m.
I am apparently too longwinded so I have to break my response into two.
Why does this have to be an all or nothing? Does anybody really think that the whole thing will go away if it doesn't pass in November? I'm betting that the mayor will take note of the voters, revamp the proposal, and resubmit it. THAT's what I want to see happen. As far as the LSU and UNO economic studies, I'm reading this off Audubon's site, the ~actual~ economic impact of all 11 of their facilities for 2007 was 313.8 million (this includes side spending, etc), and yet those same 2 institutions predict 575 million in new spending for just this one? Those same two institutions predicted 450 million for the 11 existing facilities for 2009. So this one facility will DOUBLE what the Audubon Institute does? Take those studies for what they are ... guesses under ideal situations. Economists are not fortune tellers. You need to use your own good common sense to evaluate what they are saying. And again, if we can get those same numbers by spending a more reasonable 100 million,wouldn't that be better?
All I want is for the current proposal to be revamped. Look at the designer, I'm not knocking PGAV, but there are much bigger fish in the industry, why them? Based on their portfolio, seems like a much bigger project than they are used to, but then there has to be a first for everything and they may indeed be capable. Pretty much all that has been publicly talked about are attractions that already exist somewhere, they would just be under the same roof here (which again, makes me wonder about costs as I know costs of each of those attractions to compare against). You have the Soarin type ride (that I'm REALLY wondering how they're going to get past Disney patent attorneys on, and just an "okay" attraction with little repeatability, imho), animal exhibits, a storm simulator (Universal has Twister, a yawner of an attraction, there's always rumors of Disney doing something like this in the Land area of Epcot), and a theater. I'm sure it'll all be cool, but not exactly cutting edge. If there's more, they haven't talked about it publicly. Maybe get a little input from the people that have to pay for it before trying to cram it down our throats in an all or nothing deal, is that too much to ask?? And you know, maybe I'm just a little jaded because I DO know more than most.
Posted on October 7 at 5:38 p.m.
jtoussaint, I'm glad you've done research of your own and if you've made your decisions based on that, and not just the mayor's pr, good. Everybody has a right to their opinion and I highly respect those that bother to do their own research and don't accept things just because somebody said so. I have done mine as well and have decided otherwise. As I said, I would be all for it if it were a reasonable price tag, although I still don't agree that it should be at the taxpayers expense.
I'm not basing my decision on "assumptions" as batonrougeforward is, but on things that I know a lot about because of the industry I work in (fwiw, Jazzland ended its life years before Katrina, despite economists that said it would be a successful project, SFNO was making a profit and not bankrupt). I know what a project like this ~should~ cost. I really don't care if the economists predictions of eventual proceeds are right or not, it doesn't make it okay to spend more than necessary on something. The people that do these type of feasibility studies will tell you that, at best, they are educated guesses. If you want to believe it at face value, fine, but at least consider that the budget amount ~might~ be out of line. Do you really know what that 250+ million is being spent on? We're talking over $1100 per square foot! That's a lot of money. Do you think it "must" cost that much to do what they say "because they said so"?? Look at those numbers I was comparing to. Even the Shaw Center, which is a beautiful facility, only cost 37 million. Or could they be spending 500 million on a toilet seat and you wouldn't care as long as the economists said it would make the city money?
Posted on October 7 at 2:11 p.m.
How is this a nightmare?? Let's see, using Rolfe's numbers as I don't feel like going to look elsewhere at the moment, let's be optimistic and say that they will get 700,000 visitors a year. Kip said Saturday night that Alive would pay for itself within 10 years. So 7,000,000 tickets would be bought, right? Let's assume a hefty ticket cost of $40 for everyone. I don't know about anyone else, but $160 for a family of 4 doesn't fly with me and my family won't visit. With 100% of the gate coming back to the parish, that just about DOES pay it off in 10 years, ignoring interest ... with Audubon supplying all the maintenance, payroll and overhead costs for free. Silly me, I guess it does make economic sense. Now, of course, I realize that they are planning for those people to pay for other things downtown to help pay the bond off, and other businesses to open, yada yada yada. The point is, they still need $40 a head, somehow, and sorry, I've read far too many feasibility studies to put much faith in those generated numbers. The one for Hard Rock Park (400 million, 80 acre tourist project that opened the beginning of summer) looked just as pretty ... until they declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago.
Posted on October 7 at 1:54 p.m.
Again, I hope the majority doesn't buy into this. I'm not sure who you work for or who's feeding you the information, but a world class facility that does what you are preaching, outshines anything neighboring cities could have, brings in tourists in droves, does not have to come with an inflated price tag. I could quote you comparative costs all day and it's obvious you wouldn't listen (want to try the upgradable Tower of Terror at DisneyWorld ... 100 million complete). Showing the world, and our young people, that we're willing to throw money out the door is only going to move us back, not forward. Believe me, I'm 100% for doing something positive with downtown and I LOVE the idea of a tourist attraction. I just don't want to spend 4 times more than I have to.
Posted on October 7 at 1:10 p.m.
Responding to jtoussaint, I have obviously read about what the project proposed, but I'll be fair, would you consider the Alive project more in line with a science center with IMAX theater? How about the California Science Center (where I hear things are expensive to build) clocking in at 225,000 sq. ft. (ever so slightly larger than Alive) and cost 38 million in 1997? I will give you that they did re-use an existing buildings facade, rather than build the outside from scratch. If you knock 100 million off the Alive project to balance out for the site prep and building exterior (even tho they did retrofit the building for seismic upgrades), you're still looking at 200 mil vs. 38. Today's dollars versus California '97 dollars, I still think it's overpriced and will be voting NO as I don't want Baton Rouge to have a nightmare.
Posted on October 7 at 12:59 p.m.
Never said it was an aquarium, Rolfe is the one comparing the project to the two aquariums, I was merely completing the comparison. And honestly, I'd think the aquariums would be more expensive constructionwise. The costs for this project are completely out of line for a 5 acre site. As for wanting the community to "share", I certainly hope the majority disagree with you.
Posted on October 7 at 12:55 p.m.
sorry, second largest ~freshwater~ aquarium, at least according to wikipedia, which is not necessarily the most accurate source.
Posted on October 7 at 11:59 a.m.
It just gets better, the Tennessee Aquarium, also mentioned in your article, currently the second largest in the world behind Georgia, cost $42 million and was funded by PRIVATE donations and foundations (hint, hint, BRAF). Granted, that was 15 years ago, but I don't think costs have gone up 700% since then.
Posted on October 7 at 11:43 a.m.
I'm sorry, but I have a serious problem with the taxpayers being asked to pony up 300+ million to pay 100% of the costs for this tourist attraction (81% for EBR, and 19% for the state ... which includes EBR so we're doing 100% of it). And what happens if the state says "no" to their 55 million? Would EBR throw in the other 55 million or do the project for less? If it can be done for less, do it for less in the first place.
As for budget, let's compare. The Georgia Aquarium, the largest aquarium in the world, mentioned in your article cost 250 million ... not a dime came from taxpayers ... it was funded by a donation by the founder of Home Depot. It covers 20 acres. The Alive project is slated to cost 305 million ... 100% coming from taxpayers ... and will cover 5 acres. Simply put, a 5 acre site should cost nowhere near the proposed budget.
The bond issue is being supported by the so-called "respected" BRAF because it was BRAF's idea. They came up with the Alive project over dinner with their buddy from New Orleans who runs Audubon. The numbers are extremely optimistic, and the budget overpriced. I wouldn't have a problem with a tourist attraction downtown, I have a problem with the inflated price tag. BRAF has enough funds at their disposal to foot the bill themselves. Let them take a card from Georgia and do it.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Poll
Sponsored by
Posted on October 9 at 11:30 a.m.
What am I dreaming of for Baton Rouge? Well yes, it does include world class tourist attractions. Not at 100% taxpayer expense, and not with an inflated pricetag. Who knows, if they'd have a little faith in themselves, set the stage, maybe a private company would step in and create something remarkable ... with their own money. I do believe that the destination tourism industry brings with it more of a think-based workforce and industries. Look at Orlando and how many high tech companies are there now. Those industries also foster more tolerance and diversity. We might have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go on those fronts. The other things I want for the city absolutely includes better roads, better public transportation (a nice sleak monorail starting with a park-n-ride at the EBR/Livingston parish line, running down the center of Florida until it hits BRCC where it turns, has a station, and continues down North Blvd. to downtown I think would do a LOT of good ... polished enough to appeal to more of the masses ... and entirely within EBR parish so it makes money off those working here but living elsewhere, while getting them off the interstate), better schools (which this bond proposal does not address in the least), more for police and firemen, fixing the sewage issues, etc. It also includes public officials that actually believe in our state. I have met with people at LED and the department of tourism that had no faith that they could actually attract world class attractions. It's truly depressing leaving those meetings knowing that those are the people that are selling our state to others. I'm tired of them going after the steel mills and plants instead. For what it's worth, I'm not just dreaming, I'm taking action to try to get us there on a daily basis. As everyone should now realize after Gustav, the rest of the country doesn't hardly know we exist. The entire state is "New Orleans" as far as they are concerned. I was told by the vp of a major economic research group that the tourism market for Louisiana just consisted of adults wanting to party (he was referring to N.O., but generalized it to the whole state). I want them to know that there's more to the state than just the French Quarter. The Greater Baton Rouge area could truly be transformed into something wonderful. This bond proposal, however, I do not believe is the ticket, as it is currently fashioned.
On A referendum on our future: Vote YES