When I read this, I'm reminded of how nice it is to have a county/city partnership....so we're not stuck going to Texans games in Fort Bend County...or to Astros games in League City...or to Rockets games in The Woodlands. Good for so many reasons...not the least of which is having a compact center for your sporting arenas and entertainment/urban areas for attracting repeat events like the Super Bowl or the Final Four. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/2740680 Cowboys in line for new stadium Arlington deal needs approval of council, voters By THOMAS KOROSEC Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle ARLINGTON - Arlington city officials announced Monday they have struck a deal with the Dallas Cowboys to build a $650 million, 75,000-seat retractable-roof stadium between Dallas and Fort Worth. The deal is expected to be approved today by the Arlington City Council and also would have to be approved by city voters in November. Under the terms, the city would pick up half the cost by levying a half-cent sales tax and raising taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars. "I feel confident about the outcome," Arlington mayor Robert Cluck said of the stadium's prospects for council and voter approval. He pointed to an economic study that predicted a stadium would add $238 million a year to Arlington's economy. Stephen Jones, the Cowboys' chief operating officer, told reporters: "We worked hard to do something in Dallas. It didn't work out. We're excited to be in Arlington. They had some wonderful leadership, and people worked hard to get this done." Arlington voters have been generous to sports teams in the past. In 1991, they voted to raise $135 million in sales taxes to build a baseball stadium and keep the Texas Rangers in the city. But Warren Norred, head of the Arlington watchdog group DFW Review, said the Rangers deal "has been great for the team owner but nobody else. This one is also worth nothing more than bragging rights." Norred said stadium opponents are apt to be hugely outspent by the Cowboys, who have sent mailers to residents. Meanwhile in Dallas, several officials were asking who fumbled a deal to move the team to Fair Park, a proposal that died in June when the Cowboys suddenly cut off negotiations with Dallas County officials. In an e-mail to Dallas mayor Laura Miller that was circulated among Dallas City Council members last week, mayor pro tem Don Hill blasted the mayor for speaking out against the prospect of public financing for a stadium in Dallas. "You have handled this important matter and trusts as the mayor very carelessly," wrote Hill, characterizing the project as important for two minority neighborhoods. "You have not sought the feelings of the council, and this way of doing things is totally wrong." Miller, who built her career on opposition to public funding of the American Airlines Center basketball arena, told reporters she would not get into a bidding war with Arlington and would not back anything close to $325 million in public money. "If I had $350 million to spend to give Dallas, Texas, a huge economic impact jolt, I'd put it in (remaking the city's riverfront) and downtown Dallas," she said. State Sen. Royce West, a democrat from the city's southern sector, said Dallas lost economically by failing to lure the Cowboys from their current home in Irving. "Somebody dropped the ball someplace," said West, who sponsored legislation in Austin that would have let Dallas County raise revenue for a stadium. Several Dallas officials said they were unconcerned about the Cowboys' move further west. "I wouldn't vote to give Jerry Jones one red cent," Dallas councilman Mitchell Rasansky said, referring to the team's owner. "They aren't going to change the name to the Arlington Cowboys or the Texas Cowboys. It's taken them 40 years to build the name."
The stadium looks pretty cool on their plans, and the whole complex will probably be cooler than Reliant Park. How much did Reliant Stadium cost? It was the most expensive stadium ever built and I don't remember it costing that much. But, on a related note: **** the Cowboys.
where are you seeing what the complex will look like? it better be damn cool...because i've been to arlington. i think dallas missed a HUGE opportunity around Fair Park on this one.
Oh no, I saw it on Fox Sports Southwest last night, but you can get a glimpse of it from the inside at www.dallascowboys.com. But that's not a very indicative pic, the whole deal is a massive and beautiful complex that ties in with the Ballpark at Arlington or whatever it's called nowadays. And, from what I saw, the retractable roof doesn't look nearly as bulky and obvious as either of the two in Houston.
i don't doubt the stadium will be super-nice. but again..i'm not a big fan of building sports venues in suburbs. particularly when you're trying to attract events like the Super Bowl. to miss an opportunity to bring the Dallas Cowboys to DALLAS is, in my opinion, a huge mistake. and again...makes me glad of the harris county/houston ability to get crap done. the erosion of cities like dallas and detroit to different taxing authorities is a huge concern. they've been promising growth around the Ballpark at Arlington since they built it when I was at Baylor in the mid-90's...hasn't happened. it's engulfed by a huge parking lot, instead. it's built to resemble an urban ballpark...but is along an interstate in the middle of nowhere. build it up so you can't see out when you're in the park...because there's nothing to see....it's prarie land.
http://cf.nbc5i.com/dfw/sh/videoplayer/video.cfm?id=3658121&owner=dfw There's a video of a news report that shows it, if you want to see. It's a popup window that the Google toolbar and Firefox will block, so you'll have to hold down control when you click that link if you have either of those.
Having the teams in the suburbs isn't a big deal up here since they've been in the suburbs for decades, especially the Cowboys since the treks out there aren't that frequent and are usually on the weekends. But I do think it would've been better to be at Fair Park. But Dallas is a Can't Do city. And when you've got a mayor whose whole purpose for running for Mayor was apparently her opposition to the American Airlines Center (which also has no development around it despite being downtownish... not to mention the promised development around Reunion Arena never came despite being downtown), you're running an even bigger uphill battle in getting something done. I suspect we'll see Texas-OU and the Cotton Bowl head for the suburbs, as well, and I think that's sad.
oh, i hear ya. i know they're used to it up there...it just seems like a big time missed opportunity. i've heard others from dallas mention that same thought about the Cotton Bowl moving out of town...wow. dallas will be left with the arena...and that's it.
I'm glad we have it as tourist tax... I personally wouldn't be wanting to pay extra sales tax EVERY time I buy an item to pay for the teams stadium
This works for me. Arlington is a hell of a lot closer than Dallas is. Of course, Irving is even closer. I'm going to miss Texas Stadium...
yeah, no crap. that leads me to believe this proposal may not be a slam dunk with the voters. we'll see. it's much easier to sell a rental car/hotel tax for sports venues than it is to jack up the sales tax rate. yikes.
Of course, you guys in Houston (and me, too) are already paying a higher sales tax than residents of Arlington and will continue to do so even with an additional half cent for the Cowboys stadium. The Ballpark was a sales tax deal, too, and it got 60% of the vote. American Airlines Center was a tourist tax deal, and it barely passed (different city, of course). Some say it wouldn't have passed without the standard voter fraud deal that happens in just about every Dallas city election. I think the Dallas proposal was a bigger uphill battle than even the AAC deal since it required a vote of the entire county rather than just the city of Dallas. I just can't imagine people in Irving, for example, voting to spend their tourist tax dollars to build a stadium to allow the Cowboys to move away from Irving. The Ballpark is considered a success in Arlington. That will help a lot. Not to mention that Arlington would be getting something they've never had (the Cowboys) and it is the premier team in the Metroplex. The Rangers are nice to have, but the Cowboys are the be-all/end-all of sports in the area. Not to mention the Super Bowl the stadium will inevitably get. And I think people in the suburbs, in general, like to show how they can succeed where Dallas fails. I lived in Arlington for several years (and actually started going to school there after I moved to Plano), and while no vote is a slam dunk, I don't think it will have a problem passing. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cowboys stadium do better than the Ballpark did at the polls.
i hear ya. but when faced with a referendum that pits sales tax against sports stadium...yikes. i knew the ballpark referendum went over well. we'll see how this one plays out. i'd say it has a better chance of passing than not passing, to be sure. and you're right...they'll get awarded a super bowl. hell, jacksonville is getting a super bowl. but i don't think you're going to get repeat performances of the super bowl with a suburban stadium.
I'd just be annoyed by the sales tax increase.. It's not much of a hike but, in Nashville the sales tax is 9.25% and I notice the difference over what it is in Houston whenever I buy something... for me if I had to pay a higher sales tax.. I'd be thinking .. "oh goody more money out of my pocket for a sports team" whereas the tourist tax I don't pay and don't notice.. As much as I love sports though I'd probably end up voting for it... but if I was a non sports fan.. no way would I want my sales tax increased.. especially if the team isnt' going to have my cities name in front..
Its just that in this day and age, when you're going to put up big big money no matter where you build it, why not just put it in an area where at least there's a POSSIBILITY to spur some economic growth and create a national treasure. I know AAC and Reunion have failed to deliver on their promises of spurred growth, but that doesn't mean its impossible in all situations. I do, however, feel that any sort of new development in Arlington will be even LESS likely. This probably won't prevent Dallas from getting a Super Bowl, but it definitely makes it that much harder for them to break into the regular rotation... especially when you consider that events like "media day" take place right at the stadium which normally has a close proximity to where the media actually stays, thereby creating a diluted epicenter for the buzz surrounding the entire event. Overall, however, its not that big of a deal for an NFL stadium (which is used far less than both ballparks and arenas, year-round). This is the reason why Arizona, San Fran, New England, New York, and Buffalo can all afford to have their stadiums well away from the city-centers.
The question isn't between putting it in Dallas and putting it in Arlington. Arlington is the only city that's agreed to let it go to vote. The Fair Park proposal was forbidden by state law and the Legislature isn't going to meet again to change it until after Jerry wants the vote done. There's money in Arlington. There's no money anywhere else. Not to mention Dallas County scoffed at the proposal. The city of Dallas scoffed at the proposal. It wasn't a "let's negotiate", it was a "we're so far apart, I don't know how we'll ever get it done." And not to mention to get Dallas County to approve it, you'd have to actually get voters in the city of Irving to agree to give the Cowboys away to another city. There's already a lot of activity in Fair Park and they can't get any redevelopment going. Is an extra eight dates really going to be the difference between economic development happening and not happening? For that matter, why built Reliant where they did in Houston? It's not downtown, is economic development going to pass it by? I don't understand the why anyone would think being in Fair Park would be better for media day or things like that. At least there's a hotel in Arlington. There are restaurants nearby. There's a convention center. There's even a baseball stadium. Fair Park has a bunch of rundown buildings, no hotels, no restaurants, a lot of boarded up buildings, etc. Fair Park is one of the worst neighborhoods in Dallas and will likely still be one of the worst neighborhoods in Dallas for some time to come whether there was a stadium there or not. A stadium in Arlington has a better chance of attracting a second Super Bowl. A stadium in Fair Park would guarantee there'd never be another Super Bowl in Dallas. If the Cowboys follow through and actually build both the stadium and the Cowboys Park that's part of the proposal, there will be plenty down there in Arlington. Much more than will ever be downtown or at Fair Park. What you're all really saying, after all is said and done, is that the Cowboys should just stay in Texas Stadium because that's the actual choice they've been presented with. Just like the Rangers, they tried to get something done in Dallas. Dallas, the Can't Do City, couldn't get anything done. So someone had to step up. This stadium was going to the suburbs, whether it was Grapevine or Arlington or Las Colinas, it was going to be in the suburbs. Dallas didn't want to do it despite being given mutiple chances to get something done.
