make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

The Mayor and Council man O'Grady

Did not look at, nor evaluate, the NSS information. They ha egg on their faces when Padgett pointed out the very BIG discrepancy about the jobs figures which they added together for 20 years. IT turns out to be 25 full time jobs and very limited part time jobs.
But when you look at comparable ball parks and chapter 6 estimated demand you then see how they painted Wilmington as such a rosy place to put a ball park.
Just look at page 75 and look particularly at the Fort Wayne Ticncaps stadium use figures. They have 5 TIMEs as many other uses as their closest stadium rival does. They have over 4 TIMES more non-tenant events then their closest stadium rival does - yet NSS used them. Why?

Well if they didn't the average would drop by a LOT.
And if the averages drop by a A LOT - the proposed estimates for ILM non baseball use drops by? A LOT !!!
Same goes for market penetration estimations.
Why did they not use the Lake County Captains and Stockton Ports? Why If they had their 0.2% market penetration would drastically LOWER the attendance projections for ILM's proposed stadium !!!

Now if attendance at ballgames is lower,and number of non-tenant events is lower what do you suppose happens to over-all economic impact? It is lower!
Then take a look at the multipliers used. All the academic studies show that multipliers are way too high and should be below 1.0 or 1.0 itself.

Its apparent to me that this project was proposed with passage in mind - no questions mind you - just passage. Information pertaining to projections was cherry picked so as to show positive results but attempt to do so showing some "not so good numbers" as well.
Council woman Padgett caught them on the jobs numbers fudging. Scott, Jim, Ben and Josh "called" them on these bad numbers.
We should run, not walk , RUN away from this project. It is the convention center redux or to put it in baseball terms - it's the second half of a double header!!! We lost on the first one - do we want to lose on the second as well?
The answer to taxpayer funding then was "NO", now is "NO" and in the future it should be "NO"...........

Vog

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.