AUSTIN | Moody Center (U.T. Basketball Arena) | Complete

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Unless they have found some rich Exes foolish enough to bankroll the whole boondoggle, they should take $ from the football pool and transfer it to the academic pool. The University is, after all, an academic institution and that should be its principal mission.

Yes, many exes provide millions of dollars to the athletic department. Also, tv revenue, Longhorn Network, bowl payouts, merchandise sales, advertising, etc.

And that article said UT is one of the only schools in the country to transfer money from their athletic department to the academic department.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Except we wouldn't have that $20M per year without the F1 race. That's the whole point of the METF.

They could get that $20 Million from NCAA playoffs, and other sporting activities. Although I'll admit it'll be hard to find such an activity every year.

The point of hosting a COA F1 race is to generate economic activity. While commercial enterprises see revenues gains, the local government doesn't. All the extra revenues the race generates ends up going to Europe for sanctioning fees.

[jowens]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Austin will need a multi-purpose indoor arena for things such as large indoor concerts. Not everyone wants to go to a large concert outdoors nor is the weather always the best for it. Look at Adele coming. She has to do two nights and tickets for both sold out way too quick. We need something that can accommodate at least 25k seated people and preferably more to bring in the really big acts that tend to bypass us for the larger arenas in Houston, Dallas or SA.

Yes we need a new multi-purpose arena, but it doesn't have to seat 25k. For basketball, San Antoinio AT&T seats 18,400, Houston's Toyota Center seats just over 18K, and the American Airlines Center in Dallas seats, 19,200. The Erwin Center currently seats a little over 16,500 for basketball. Concerning the Adele Tour, she's doing 2 shows in most cities in North America. Dallas, Houston, and Austin are all 2 shows per city. I'm assuming the only reason the Adele tour chose Austin over San Antoinio has to do with a scheduling conflict with AT&T arena, probably a Spurs game. Austin definitely needs a new multi-purpose arena with the Erwin turning 40 next year. The capacity just needs to be in the same range as the above arenas in Houston, Dallas, & San Antonio.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

The Alamo Dome sits more than 25K and most of the big acts play there. I'm not necessarily advocating for the city to build a multi-purpose arena anytime soon. All I'm saying is that eventually something will need to happen once the Erwin is torn down. It's going to be a few more years anyways so it's not an urgent issue.

Plus it's not just concerts, other non sporting events use large arenas. Another option would be to have a huge version of the Moody Theater. Something aimed solely for music. After all if we want to keep the title of live music capital Then that includes all facets of music venues from the small intimate bars to a large indoor concert venue and everything in between.

Dude, The Alamo Dome sits 70,000 people for concerts and it was built with the intention of being a NFL stadium. That's a whole different deal than an arena. Many many concerts plays in ATT center which is the a apples to apples comparison to what UT can make. http://www.attcenter.com/events/all

I don't believe they host concerts at the AlamoDome but I know NRG stadium does in Houston which is also a 70,000 seat football stadium.

http://www.alamodome.com/events/all

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by brando

Dude, The Alamo Dome sits 70,000 people for concerts and it was built with the intention of being a NFL stadium. That's a whole different deal than an arena. Many many concerts plays in ATT center which is the a apples to apples comparison to what UT can make. http://www.attcenter.com/events/all

I don't believe they host concerts at the AlamoDome but I know NRG stadium does in Houston which is also a 70,000 seat football stadium.

http://www.alamodome.com/events/all

I was using it as an example not to be nitpicked every freaking comment I make....

A stadium for NFL that they never had to begin with and will likely be torn down for yet another stadium if they end up with a team but this thread isn't about the ridiculousness of what other cities have spent money on. All I am saying is simply someday Austin will need to face up to the fact that we will need some sort of arena for concerts and other events. Who cares about the seating at this point I was throwing out 25k just as a figure. I don't know the seating capacity of other cities arenas so excuse my ignorance.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I am saying is simply someday Austin will need to face up to the fact that we will need some sort of arena for concerts and other events.

Austin has facilities for concerts and other events already. Cedar Park's H-E-B Center can accommodate up to 8,700. UT's Frank Erwin Center can accommodate up to 17,900. Austin's Convention Center Sports Hall can accommodate up to 5,285. For an outdoor concert facilities, Circuit of America's 360 Amphitheater can accommodate up to 14,000, although not all with seats.

Just how many facilities does Autin really need? The facilities Austin has today can accommodate just about every possible event.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Austin has facilities for concerts and other events already. Cedar Park's H-E-B Center can accommodate up to 8,700. UT's Frank Erwin Center can accommodate up to 17,900. Austin's Convention Center Sports Hall can accommodate up to 5,285. For an outdoor concert facilities, Circuit of America's 360 Amphitheater can accommodate up to 14,000, although not all with seats.

Just how many facilities does Autin really need? The facilities Austin has today can accommodate just about every possible event.

Plus the proposals for expanding the travis county expo center.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Plus the proposals for expanding the travis county expo center.

except that won't happen with the current price tag, voters won't do it.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by electricron

Austin has facilities for concerts and other events already. Cedar Park's H-E-B Center can accommodate up to 8,700. UT's Frank Erwin Center can accommodate up to 17,900. Austin's Convention Center Sports Hall can accommodate up to 5,285. For an outdoor concert facilities, Circuit of America's 360 Amphitheater can accommodate up to 14,000, although not all with seats.

Just how many facilities does Autin really need? The facilities Austin has today can accommodate just about every possible event.

Cedar Park Center is not in Austin.

Erwin Center is going to be torn down.

ACC Sports Hall is not very big.

COA is outdoors.

I can see Austin needing an indoor arena in the future. Will Austin, a city that never seems to favor spending on sports, ever approve a project like that? Remains to be seen. Maybe if they take the music and events (like Disney on Ice or something) angle, it could work. Also, they may want to attract a political convention in the future.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I was using it as an example not to be nitpicked every freaking comment I make....

A stadium for NFL that they never had to begin with and will likely be torn down for yet another stadium if they end up with a team but this thread isn't about the ridiculousness of what other cities have spent money on. All I am saying is simply someday Austin will need to face up to the fact that we will need some sort of arena for concerts and other events. Who cares about the seating at this point I was throwing out 25k just as a figure. I don't know the seating capacity of other cities arenas so excuse my ignorance.

Wow, chill out. An example isn't an example if it doesn't apply. You citied a stadium as an example of what would have enough seats that you think Austin needs but that venue doesn't host any concerts because San Antonio has an arena the exact size of what we are trying to build. The point being San Antonio has a useless stadium because they have an arena.

The point is that this arena is on par with every other area that hosts major concerns and Austin doesn't need anything bigger.

[brando]

Sorry, no update.


There will hopefully be a vote this November for a 720 million project to improve mobility in Austin unless Ann Kitchen and Delia Garza torpedo it. It will require purchasing 200 million in bonds which will raise taxes about $120 for average house. There will be another one in 2018 and it really needs to be even bigger given our needs and I'm sure the council will want to put a housing bond and maybe others as well.


Given all of that, would you support paying for half of the cost of a new all purpose arena to replace the Erwin center? The whole cost would likely be around $500 million given recent trends. It's possible that could come from a hotel/motel tax but I really have no idea. It's possible it raises sales or property taxes.

The alternative would be UT building a 12,000 seat arena off campus for basketball/graduations etc. That would mean Austin would not have any venues that seat more than 12K and the ones it would have are as far away as COTA and Cedar Park. It would likely mean losing A-list concerts and events like WWE and other things. UT has released their on campus plan for a new arena however I'm sure they would explore off campus options if it was a bigger arena. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the city to co-fund the arena. UT doesn't need Adele to perform on campus.

TLDR:
-Recent cheaper Arenas have cost around $500 million
-Major concerts/events would only book Austin if it had a professional level 17,000-18,000 seat arena.
-Would you vote for a bond program where the city splits the cost of a new 500 million dollar professional level arena?

[We vs us]

You can't have any funds from the hotel occupancy tax, sorry. Earmarked for the Convention Center expansion, if I have my way.

[brando]

Originally Posted by We vs us

You can't have any funds from the hotel occupancy tax, sorry. Earmarked for the Convention Center expansion, if I have my way.

I would like to see it but many council members said they would rather build a new arena than expand the convention center. I hope the expansion happens but the Council booted that out of the water. There is a profound misunderstanding of the impact that conventions have on the city. A lot of them are not easy to put in a spread sheet.


They kicked it back to the Economic Opportunity Committee. A motion from Mayor Steve Adler directed city staff to gather more information on more than a dozen factors, including traffic impacts, possible community uses of the facility and how the project’s cost might affect tax money that could go to other venues and events. San Antonio released their expansion plans since the time the council last discussed the convention center.


The most ridiculous quote about it from District 1 rep Ora Houston

I have a concern about this tourism and hospitality industry. It feels like a giant that just keeps growing and growing and has to be fed, so there’s some unintended consequences. I need more time to understand if we have to continue to feed this giant.”

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...-hold-for-now/
http://www.expressnews.com/business/...on-6781178.php

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by brando

Wow, chill out. An example isn't an example if it doesn't apply. You citied a stadium as an example of what would have enough seats that you think Austin needs but that venue doesn't host any concerts because San Antonio has an arena the exact size of what we are trying to build. The point being San Antonio has a useless stadium because they have an arena.

The point is that this arena is on par with every other area that hosts major concerns and Austin doesn't need anything bigger.

I wouldn't say the Alamodome is useless UTSA plays their home games there and it's still being used for other events.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by brando

The most ridiculous quote about it from District 1 rep Ora Houston

Honestly, a better way to capture the growing tourism and hospitality industry is to keep feeding the "giant" and increase sales taxes.

While we're heading that way, we should LOWER or eliminate property taxes so that we're not pricing people out of enjoying our growing city.

I pay roughly 2.25% of my home's taxable value EVERY year to the city of Austin, the health district, and AISD. Crazy.

Okay...back on topic.

[brando]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

I wouldn't say the Alamodome is useless UTSA plays their home games there and it's still being used for other events.

I suppose I should have sent relatively given how many events their arena took away from the dome when it opened. A division 2 college football team and a bowl game are %90 of their events.

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Honestly, a better way to capture the growing tourism and hospitality industry is to keep feeding the "giant" and increase sales taxes. While we're heading that way, we should LOWER or eliminate property taxes so that we're not pricing people out of enjoying our growing city. I pay roughly 2.25% of my home's taxable value EVERY year to the city of Austin, the health district, and AISD. Crazy.

It looks like Austin is at the max allowable sales tax rate of 8.25%. Also, I don't believe it's the property tax that is making it hard to buy. It's the property value which has appreciated so dramatically which affects the overall sale price.

Ellen Troxclair is the council member from westlake and she proposed increased the tax exemption to 20 percent which would mean 23 million in city services and personnel would need to be eliminated.


Raising the current exception from 2 percentage points from 6% to 8% would take a $3.8 million chunk out of the city’s General Fund. City staff projects that the owner of a $250,000 home would stand to save $22.95 on her annual tax bill. Very small savings make a massive cumulative difference to the city's resources unless you are more affluent and your savings would be higher. However, those are not the people that are going to be taxed out of Austin.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by brando

It looks like Austin is at the max allowable sales tax rate of 8.25%. Also, I don't believe it's the property tax that is making it hard to buy. It's the property value which has appreciated so dramatically which affects the overall sale price.

Many of the folks in Houston's district (East Austin) already owned their homes, but had to sell because they couldn't afford the increasing property taxes on their increasing property values. 2+% of your home's value every year in property taxes can be really significant if you're on a fixed income (thankfully, I am not).

[brando]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Many of the folks in Houston's district (East Austin) already owned their homes, but had to sell because they couldn't afford the increasing property taxes on their increasing property values. 2+% of your home's value every year in property taxes can be really significant if you're on a fixed income (thankfully, I am not).

yea gentrification is another ballgame altogether. However, Houston other council members from districts like hers oppose raising homestead exceptions because they don't really make that much of a difference in terms of the actual dollars saved a year for their homeowners. The potential losses in city programs and services in order to pay for the revenue losses can affect services in those districts.

Also, renters are the ones that are most affected by rising housing costs and homestead exceptions are likely to increase rent. Here is some background: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...6-to-28/nmGFf/

[llamaorama]

While we're heading that way, we should LOWER or eliminate property taxes so that we're not pricing people out of enjoying our growing city.

Is it really a good idea to have a revenue monoculture of just sales taxes and miscellaneous service fees? What if some trend in the future causes sales tax revenues to decrease? For example what happens if the bulk of routine brick and mortar retail shopping goes obsolete?

[hereinaustin]

Kevin, maybe we should move this discussion to a different thread?

Also, renters are the ones that are most affected by rising housing costs

The argument made in that article is nonsense. The only reason renters would hypothetically be dumped by a higher homestead exemption is because the city has no other revenue generating options: i.e. raising sales taxes.

If there were no property taxes, rents would DROP, affordability would INCREASE, and gentrification would DECREASE. Here's an example: the owner of a $300,000 home pays roughly $500/month in property taxes. If he rents the house out, he would charge at least $1500/month to cover his mortgage, property taxes, plus a nominal buffer. If the property owner no longer has to pay that $500 in property taxes, he could charge as little as $1000/month for the same house. That's a lot of money saved by a renter! For a homeowner, that's also a huge boon.

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Is it really a good idea to have a revenue monoculture of just sales taxes and miscellaneous service fees? What if some trend in the future causes sales tax revenues to decrease? For example what happens if the bulk of routine brick and mortar retail shopping goes obsolete?

yea gentrification is another ballgame altogether.

The sad reality is that gentrification is directly related to rising property taxes. If you can no longer afford the property taxes for the home you and your family have owned and lived in for generations, you will be forced to move. That's the real reason people fear development in their area.

Sales tax will obviously need to be reworked at the state level to ensure a sales tax dependent model will work at the city level: i.e. capturing online sales that are shipped to Austin/Travis county. One thing is for sure: people will always need to buy things, whether through a physical store front or online or whatever. The actual amount of the sales tax will depend on the shortfall created, but I would expect it to be <4% of a purchase (so an item that previously cost $50 after tax would now cost $52). Groceries/produce would still be tax-free to avoid hurting the poor.

At the end of the day, Austinites would pay roughly the same as before, but at least our homes would be cheaper to own and there wouldn't be any risk of losing it if our property values increase. Gentrification is a problem our tax code has created.