Arena/Support for the Rockets

So, in other words, the NBA, and sports in general, have finally caught up to real life. It will never change, but at least sports gives the average person entertainment one way or another.

 

The referendum may have sucked, and I'm not a Houston resident so I didn't have the opportunity to vote upon the measure, but reality is reality. This is a new era of sports ownership. Whether you like it or not, municipalities will be 'forced' to finance a portion of the facilities occupied by the major franchises playing within those cities/counties. Those cities willing (and believe me, there are many many willing cities) to pony up the cash to attract or keep a major league franchise will do exactly that: keep or attract those disgruntled franchises . This reality was visited upon the fine residents of Houston only too well when Bud Adams packed up after being rebuffed by a similar referendum.

The real messed up situation occurs when you have teams like the Grizzlies, that under new ownership and for no apparent reason, have decided their hometown is no longer worthy of their presence. Obviously not a financial decision under the city's control since nearly all (if not all) Grizzlies games are sell outs, this team has decided for other reasons (merchandising?, t.v.?) to explore the other options available.

My only hope is that teams like these occupy the available markets before Les decides to move out. Believe it, it's only a matter of time before Les gets the hell out of dodge. He may not be losing money on his investment, but a good businessman knows if there's more money to be made by applying a different methodology, he/she is a fool for not taking that opportunity.

Fact: The Summit (sorry, that's what it was still called when I moved away) is the oldest building an NBA team calls home.

The main factor for the call for a new facility is the inclusion of the so called 'luxury suites' (see San Antonio & it's worthless Alamodome). Oakland solved this dilemma by completely demolishing the interior of its old arena and completely rebuilding it to include several luxury suites. This is a proposal I have yet to hear in the public conversation on this topic. Of course Golden State had to play a year in San Jose as it's surragate hometown, but that can only help to stimulate fan interest in areas outside of the immediate area of that team's homebase.

Opinion: Houston has a town has very little character.

As a 17 year resident of that fine city, I can attest to the lack of unifying character of Houston. The whole space city thing is about as old as my grandma, and really doesn't apply too much anymore. NASA is a glorified museum these days. The oil industry is just about dead until OPEC dedides to impose another embargo. The current development of the downtown area as a destination location for the weekend and weekday hours after 5pm, I believes, signals a new direction for this city. Enron Field should help during the summer, but a downtown arena for the Rockets (and a potential NHL team) could have been ideal. I'm afraid it's too late to take full advantage of this opprtunity.

I agree that citizens that do not attend games shouldn't be forced to finance a team's presence in a city. But, these days, if a city wants to keep a team, this unfortunate evil must be addressed.

[This message has been edited by driver8 (edited January 19, 2000).]

 

I'll give you, in a nutshell, the reasons I did not support the referendum, but first I'd like to point out that these are my personal beliefs. They bear no relation to the views of Clutch, the Crew, or clutchcity.net.

WHY KAGY DIDN'T LIKE THE ARENA REFERENDUM, or HOW I LEARNED TO LOVE BEING AN ANRGY YOUNG MAN

Let me see how brief I can be here.

Had we passed the referendum, we would have levied additional hotel and rental-car taxes and then earmarked the tax inlays specifically to the corporation that was created to build Les' Pleasure Palace.

OK, let's leave aside any discussion of the moral ramifications of diverting the government's attention from its most important missions. Let's consider what Houston would really be doing here:

Paying for the privilege to buy tickets to watch the Rockets play.

We wouldn't own the arena. (Inserted comment here: this is not entirely accurate. The City would own the arena, but would not be able to exercise unilateral control of it... which is an odd position for a government to be in. In essence, we'd own it free and clear, the moment the Rockets broke their lease and left town.)

We wouldn't own a stake in the team.

There would be no concerted effort to lower ticket prices so that the average family could attend games. If anything, the ticket prices would have risen.

We wouldn't have anything but a signature on a piece of paper to guarantee that the Rockets couldn't hold us up again 15 years from now by threatening to leave. Those of you who were satisfied with a promise have got to be the most naive people I have ever met. There has not been one single professional sports team in modern history that was successfully prevented from moving. Not one.

Notice that I said I could support a future referendum. I think I could. But it would have to do a hell of a lot more for the Rockets than the defeated referendum proposed to do.

My ideal situation, honestly, would be for Les to open his checkbook and pay to build the goddamned thing himself. We pay for the tickets, the merchandise, the concessions, the parking, the Dish TV to watch the games from Austin, and the products advertised on broadcast Rockets games. That's enough. If the Rockets want a new arena, they can damn well pony up the cash themselves.

If they want us to pay for it, we will-- as long as Les signs over a fair chunk of the team to the citizens of Houston. THAT would guarantee the Rockets stay here would be a permanent one.

Anyway, that's why I personally opposed the referendum. I doubt my position had much in common with that of the organized opposition. Too bad. Both sides of the debate were interested mostly in positioning themselves to exploit their influence with city officials rather than stop handouts to billionaire sports-franchise owners.

Folks, there are a lot of things the government can and should be doing. I just don't think propping up sports franchises was ever intended to be one of them.

PS: I know I promised a nutshell. Sorry.


[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited January 19, 2000).]

 

and on that note....

Let's hear it for the..

Baltimore Rockets
Nashville Rockets
New Orleans Rockets
Las Vegas Rockets

hehehehe

If Houston is so opposed to building an arena for the Rockets? Why weren't they opposed to building one for the Astros and the NFL Team that hasn't done anything for the city of Houston?

So what if the referendum would have raised Hotel and Travel taxes. Are you staying at a hotel soon? Do you plan on renting a car? People that travel to Houston should be used to paying those types of taxes-at least they do when they come to New York. As a former Houstonian, I know that the majority of people there are cheap! People used to complain about paying a $5 cover charge to get into a nightclub and heaven forbid if beers were more than $1.50 a bottle. hehehehe

Regardless, I will always be a ROCKET FAN no matter where they move to. Maybe then can move to the Woodlands? or Sugarland?

 

and on that note....

Let's hear it for the..

Baltimore Rockets
Nashville Rockets
New Orleans Rockets
Las Vegas Rockets

hehehehe

If Houston is so opposed to building an arena for the Rockets? Why weren't they opposed to building one for the Astros and the NFL Team that hasn't done anything for the city of Houston?

So what if the referendum would have raised Hotel and Travel taxes. Are you staying at a hotel soon? Do you plan on renting a car? People that travel to Houston should be used to paying those types of taxes-at least they do when they come to New York. As a former Houstonian, I know that the majority of people there are cheap! People used to complain about paying a $5 cover charge to get into a nightclub and heaven forbid if beers were more than $1.50 a bottle. hehehehe

Regardless, I will always be a ROCKET FAN no matter where they move to. Maybe they can move to the Woodlands? or Sugarland?

 

Thanks for the rundown Brian.I can see where you dont like the deal the Rockets want.

In Australia we are so sports mad so if a team needs a stadium it just gets built.The difference is that our sports teams over here arent just Franchise's that can be moved.They are Clubs who have members to answer to.Therefore the comunity gets a say in any move that may occur.Also ticket prices arnt stupid.A family can go to the Rugby League for around $60-$80 and if you get cheap seats you could get in for $20.

It would be a shame if the Rockets "left the building" so to speak.I dont like the thought of the Balitmore Rockets.


------------------
Your Starting Power Forward for the Clutch City Allstars

 

Rocket Rich NYC raised the final point I didn't have the time (or rambling space) to include. This tax proposal was merely a continuation of an existing tax paid mostly by non-Houstonians. The tax was originally agreed to by Houston voters to build Enron (if I'm not mistaken). So, the Houston voters are telling me they'd rather keep a baseball team in town rather than a NBA team.

The voter's will is what counts. But, from what I understand, alot of misinformation was disseminated prior to the referendum vote. I know former Mayor Lanier's support was probably one of the deciding factors against the vote (especially in my old stomping grounds, Kingwood). The morons who voted against the propsal merely to take a shot against Mayor Annexation were definitely not informed, and most likely didn't care to be informed about the merits (or lack thereof, if that's your opinion) of the referendum.

Bottom line: Houston will have to bend over for Les if they want to keep the Rockets. However, I think the missed opportunity of merely maintaining an additional tax mostly paid by non-Houstonians outweighs the burden imposed upon the few Houstonians that would become Mr. Alexander's sugar daddy. That was the best propsal Houston was going to get. Next time, I'd wager the actual cost to Houstonians is going to be alot higher if they'd like to continue seeing the HOUSTON Rockets.

 

The Houston Referendum: Basketball Arena Proposal

The fact that this proposal became a popularity contest between a native Texan who owned the rights to the future leasing of the Compaq Center and the present leasor, a Non-Native Texan (Les Alexander) who was his bitter rival in the pursuit of a Hockey franchise(as well as other entities), makes this a typical small town, backroom-good-old-boys turkey shoot.

Include the fact that the media who compete for dollars in the city's sports industry got involved and you can see that the main issue of right/wrong, good/bad for the community, got askew long before the issue was reasonably thought through.

Let's not even start to play the last minute "urban city tax dollars being squandered vs cash gifts to selected centers" card, either. We just leave that one alone.

Despite that fact that most agree in general, that government intervention into private enterprise at a capital investiture level, appears both irresponsible and clearly antitrust in nature, the mere fact that a precedent had been established with the prior sports teams proposals should have made this referendum a gimmmee for the Rockets.

The difference with this Houston Basketball Venue Referendum was .... that a similiar structure for football/baseball was approved ... and, that initial "downtown footbal/baseball structure" in fact did and will continue to take money directly out of city, county and state taxpayers pockets. The Houston Basketball Referendum Deal would not have cost the city,county, state citizens a cent in taxes unless they attended a "new arena" function, rented a car or stayed in a hotel while in town.

This small increase in user fees was minimal, easily assimilated and again, not broad-citizen tax based. The debt load pay-off was in less than a decade and yet was solidly guaranteed for thirty years by the Rockets.(I wonder what the city and county could have done with a continuance of those user fees for the other twenty or so years afetr it was paid off. Schools, parks, streets, crime, etc....????).

The amount of time, energy, taxes(millions and millions), civic pride, charitable funds(millions and millions), business spin-offs and philanthropic activities that the Rockets have provided in this city and the surrounding community is exemplery and incomparable to the "other" sports groups in Houston, if not in this nation.

In addition, the Rockets proposal that was less generous to the Rockets than the other sports franchises, and the fact that the financial success of the other franchises is a predominant question, adds insult to injury.

Compaq Computers, Exxon, Transco, Texaco, Wal-Mart Stores Ltd., Woods Construction, and literally hundreds of other community based businesses have infrastructure support, tax exemptions, utility credits, and zoning leeways directly provided by city, county and state authorities. That's hundreds of millions of tax dollars forgiven every MONTH.

I would have been incensed even if I were not a sports fan. The way this successful, high profile organization was treated was unconscionable. Reprehensible. IMHO

 

Hey Brian

My ideal situation, honestly, would be for Les to open his checkbook and pay to build the goddamned thing himself. We pay for the tickets, the merchandise, the concessions, the parking, the Dish TV to watch the games from Austin, and the products advertised on broadcast Rockets games. That's enough. If the Rockets want a new arena, they can damn well pony up the cash themselves.

From Les' perspective, why would he do the above? He has a free, state-of-the-art facility waiting for him in numerous cities. Why would he spend $200M to stay in Houston?
Referendums aren't about fairness, they are about competition. There are 30 NBA teams and more than 30 cities wanting NBA teams. The result? Whoever's willing to pay the most for them will get them. Simple free-market economics.

From what I understand of your position, you want to have the team stay, but you don't think you should have to pay as much for it as other cities (even if the taxes come primarily from non-Houstonians).

You haven't given the owner a single reason to stay while others have given him a reason to leave. So why would he stay?

 

Using that logic, Shanna, I could turn around and ask you why John Rocker would ever learn any respect for the minority groups he slurred two weeks ago. (I'm going to edit here to make my points a little more clear). Whether he does or not, it's completely justifiable to ask him to adopt the mores of our society. Likewise, whether Les likes it or wants it or not, it's completely justifiable to ask that he stop screwing us without at least a kiss first.

Remember that in my post, I stated that I doubted the organized opposition group shared my personal reasons for opposing the referendum. I have never claimed that my reasons are realistic, and I have never claimed that I wish to oppose the current referendum while working within the hypocritical and unethical framework that the professional sports leagues have foisted on America.

Why would Les do what I'm proposing?

That's the wrong question.

The right question is, why wouldn't more fans take the position that we shouldn't automatically have to use our local government to appease billionaire sports owners at every whim of their fancy?

Why shouldn't more fans demand that in exchange for their patronage and tax dollars, they want a large enough stake in the team to prevent it from moving in the future?

Why shouldn't more fans reject the double standard by which the owner operates from a position of tangible financial interest, while the fans operate from a position of intangible "love for the team" and "reputation as a big-league city"?

Why should the fans pretend that the owners and politicians are too sophisticated to oppose? That, if we want to play in the game, we have to let them set the rules without dissent?

***********

On a sidenote, the argument that the taxes that the referendum would have levied were OK because Houstonians wouldn't have had to pay them... oh my goodness.

Let me draw a completely fictional analogy. If the government were to pass a tax on silicon chip boards, would it only hurt the board-makers?

Or, would it force them to raise their prices, in essence passing the cost on to the purchasers of the boards-- PC vendors?

Would the PC vendors then have to raise their prices in order to offset the added cost?

Who ends up paying for the tax?

The consumer. The citizen.

If it suddenly costs more for businesses to produce a given product for any reason, they will seek to recoup that cost however possible.

If doing business or visiting Houston becomes more expensive, are these companies and individuals just going to swallow and smile? Hell no! We are going to pay for it. We always do.

I could go on and on regarding this subject, but I think my point is clear.

[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited January 19, 2000).]

 

Kagy,

I understand your point. I support your point. I wish everyone else would have supported your point. Unfortunately, that's not how it will ever be. The circumstances as they are, I believe that the citizens of Houston just passed up the best deal. The taxes that would have been raised (and I was under the assumption that the vote was just to approve the use of existing taxes, tax money that can only be used for this purpose as well) are the same taxes that are raised in almost every other city that builds a new arena. I have yet to hear of a city losing business and tourism due to the higher rental car and hotel taxes. Most visitors don't even realize it. Do you really think that people, when choosing a destination for business or pleasure really thinks of the rental and hotel taxes before picking? I doubt it. Now, if these new taxes were something like 1000%, then maybe. But as proposed, I doubt most would even notice much difference.

Why would Les put up money if he could get a stadium for free? That is the real question. I'm sure all of us feel that Alexander, and all other owners should foot most of the bill for new stadiums and arenas. Unfortunately, there will always be that city who can lure the team away for almost nothing. Why should we lose the Rockets over that. The money that we (citizens of Houston, I know neither one of us are) would lose could easily be regained in the form of All-Star games, and hopefully trips to the Finals. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the city of San Antonio got so much "free" publicity last year as a result of their appearance in the finals. I know that the fact that Houston will receive the Super Bowl in 2004 is going to allieviate some of the costs of actually bringing the team to Houston.

All in all, I agree with you Kagy. However, I don't want to lose the Rockets to a principle that unfortunately will never be learned by owners of teams. And I doubt the feeling that we would have by standing by this principle will outweigh the loss we will feel if the Rockets leave.

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited January 19, 2000).]

 

I don't live in Houston so I didn't have a vote As A Rockets Fan I would have voted YES. Friends of mine in Houston were going to vote yes but then they bought some Rockets Tickets In the nose bleads and saw what they would cost and said that it is already to expensive so they voted NO.

------------------
~John~
Rockets I Want Back In Clutch City: Mario "Junk Yard Dog" Elie and Sam my man Cassell.
Fav. Quote: "We Want Scottie Back.....Scottie Brooks That Is" ~Off of A Banner at the game.

 

Well, let's go through this...

Whether he does or not, it's completely justifiable to ask him to adopt the mores of our society. (Referring to John Rocker)

Sure, we have a right to ask... But he has the right to believe what he wants. We can hate him for it, but he has every right to live with whatever messed up beliefs he chooses.

Likewise, whether Les likes it or wants it or not, it's completely justifiable to ask that he stop screwing us without at least a kiss first.

And Les has every right to then say "Screw Houston; New Orleans is a much better opportunity for me."

The right question is, why wouldn't more fans take the position that we shouldn't automatically have to use our local government to appease billionaire sports owners at every whim of their fancy?

Because for many fans, especially those who don't have pro-sports right now, they don't mind paying to have a team that they can root for and bond with -- for free if they just watch them on TV. Hell, if I live in New Orleans and I'm told that I can have a local basketball team that I can watch on TV for free as well as an arena paid for by NOT ME, then why should I say no?

Why shouldn't more fans demand that in exchange for their patronage and tax dollars, they want a large enough stake in the team to prevent it from moving in the future?

I use Dell Computers. I pay them both in the form of corporate tax breaks here in Austin and for the products themselves, yet I don't demand they give me ownership in Dell for buying a computer. Why would it be different for an NBA team?

Why shouldn't more fans reject the double standard by which the owner operates from a position of tangible financial interest, while the fans operate from a position of intangible "love for the team" and "reputation as a big-league city"?

How is this a double-standard? The owner is providing an entertainment product - he is a businessman and is looking for a profit. We are the buyers of that product.
Supply & demand dictates the cost of the product, and the market currently favors the owner since the product is in higher demand than supply. This is how our entire economy works. This is just simple economics... Why should NBA-Team owners have to live under different rules than any other business ventures?

Why should the fans pretend that the owners and politicians are too sophisticated to oppose? That, if we want to play in the game, we have to let them set the rules without dissent?

You don't have to pretend or let it happen. Just be prepared to accept the fact that the market will always win - that's the fundamental concept behind our society. If you don't want to pay the price for NBA Basketball, that's fine... But don't act as those it's not "right" for Les to run his business as a business. There's no moral or ethical aspect of this -- it's just economics, and its the same economic system that runs the rest of the country. If New Orleans is willing to pay more for his product, he would be an idiot not to take it.

[This message has been edited by shanna (edited January 19, 2000).]

 

I have already been voiceing my opinion on this issue by emailing/spamming the office of the Mayor Lee Brown and the website email at www.hchsa.org.
Here is a email and a response that I sent to the mayors office about 2 weeks after the proposal was voted down. Check it out and I seriously encourage people to email the the mayors office and the Harris County Houston Sports Authority and do the same. So we won't end up losing the Rockets like we did the Oilers/Titans. Anyway here was my idea for a possible solution.
Where does the city go from here now that the arena proposal has been lost? What steps has the the mayor and the Houston
Sports Authority taken to make sure that professional basketball stays in the city of
Houston? I propose that we continue to work with the Rocket's organization
NOW and not wait until the last minute as was done this year. The Rocket's are the only
organization to bring 5 championships to this city and I think that is reason enough to have them high on your agenda and the sports authorities agenda. Also, to fix the
so called revenue/profit problem of the last deal. I propose this as a
possible way that the city can make this work. If at all possible can the
city have the Rocket's organization pledge a negotiated percentage of the
revenues to Houston Independent School District for the length of there
contract/lease. That would help pay for the continued repairs being done
the local Schools. Just a suggestion! Never the less let's not let the
Rocket's get away because it will cost more to bring another team back.

Concerned Taxpayer/Fan

The response from the mayors office.
November 16, 1999

Dear Mr. Medlock:
As you are aware, I am strongly in favor of the construction of a sports
arena for our City. Although the referendum was rejected, I have not given up the
pursuit of another deal that is beneficial for Houstonians. The Houston
Sports Authority has assured me that they will be looking at various negotiation deals
for the construction of a new arena. I am anxiously awaiting their proposals.
I encourage you to share your idea regarding the Houston Independent School
District to Dr. Rod Paige, HISD Superintendent at shammond@houston.isd.tenet.edu.
Thank you for your continued support and for
your vision of a world class metropolis.
Sincerely,
Lee P. Brown
Mayor
LPB:sdo

P.S. Here is the link to the HCHSA feedback page. http://www.hchsa.org/feedback99.htm and to the email address to the mayors office is
Mayor@ci.houston.tx.us.

 

I also think that we should keep inquiring to force some type of meetings or talks to take place and also show Les that we do want the Rockets here but he may have to compromise his bottom line and commit to the comunities future which I don't think he'll have a problem doing. Remember I said Think!!!!!!!!

 

A good way to get the arena for sure would be just find the 80 million from antoher corporate hotshot. i don'tt hink the city of houston would mind givn the Rockets the space just the 80 million....

 

Kagy, I hear what you are saying. The idea of forking out tax dollars to support billionaire sports team owners doesn't thrill me either.

But let's be pragmatic. There are clearly benefits to the city of keeping a world-class organization like the Rockets. OK, these may be mostly intangible, like civic pride, or maybe just something to talk about with our friends from New York. But Houstonians derive these benefits whether they go to the games, watch them on pay-per-view, read the paper, or just log onto Clutch City Online once in awhile.

Personally, one of the reasons I moved to Houston eight years ago was to enjoy big-city attractions like the arts, music, and professional sports teams. It certainly wasn't the climate, scenery, or fresh air! I don't think I'm alone in this feeling.

So let's get past the hang-up on throwing a few dollars at businessmen. And let's not begrudge Les Alexander for wanting to get the best deal he can get, whether it's in Houston or elsewhere. He's going to do what it takes to compete in today's big-time sports leagues, including supplementing ticket and broadcast revenue with tax dollars. It's called capitalism.

Our choice is simple: negotiate the best terms we can get with the Rockets (including some type of financial recourse against breaking the lease early) and reap tbe benefits, or start practicing all the different ways to say goodbye. (Sayonara! Adios! Adieu! Arrividerci! Later! Seeya!)

 

Brian:

One correction on your point...

Actually, the referendum would NOT have raised any taxes including the hotel and other taxes. Unfortunately, the proponents did an awful job of explaining it.

According to the actual ballot language, the referendum simply would have earmarked a percentage of the hotel and rental car taxes already voted into existence for the baseball and football referendum.

There were NO new taxes on this referendum at all. Like I said, it was an unfortunate inablility to communicate their point coupled with the oppositions distortions that caused it to lose.

I am in total support of your fundamental idea that an owner should pay for his own team's facilities, etc, but that is fantasy and this is reality. The reality is that the Compaq center is now the smallest and most out-of-date building in the NBA. Team owners in most every NBA city have received not just a free ride, but a PAID ride into new arenas.

This may be distastful, but it comes with the business of the NBA. If you don't like it, you certainly have a right not to vote for it or even campaign against it, but I assume by your constant participation in a fan site like Clutch City that you have more than a passing interest in the team's fate.

Les was being offered a good deal this last time around but not a great one. The next deal may come with a "build it or else" tag which could make things very ugly on both sides but it worked for Drayton McLane and would've worked for Bud Adams had he been allowed to get a referendum on the ballot.

It comes down to quality of life. If you think your quality of life is fine whether the Rockets are in Baltimore, New Orleans or Houston (I won't even mention Nashville), that is your choice, but if not, you have no choice than to vote for something that makes your life better or at least feel better. That is why we vote in the first place.