City’s consultant releases ballpark survey results, potential sites narrowed down

Tags: , , , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 05/30/2012 - 3:30am
Updated: Wed, 05/30/2012 - 5:10pm

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — The City of Wilmington is one step closer to building a ballpark and bringing a minor league team to the Port City. The city’s consultant, National Sports Services, presented results from a recent survey about the ballpark Tuesday night, as well as some possible sites.

About one thousand people took the survey, that was available on the city’s website and sent to those in the Chamber of Commerce email database, and Convention & Visitors Bureau email databases. 69 percent of those who took the survey were residents of Wilmington. 95 percent lived in New Hanover County.

According to the survey results, 47 percent supported a public-private partnership in funding the stadium while 40 percent did not. When asked how much they would be willing to contribute as taxpayers, 46 percent said nothing, 18 percent said up to $2/month, 16 percent said from $2-$4/month and 19 percent said $4-$6/month. 67 percent agreed a ballpark would enhance quality of life, while 25 percent disagreed; 9 percent were undecided.

Though the group admitted this is just the start of a long process, some were not happy with the survey. Several spoke out against the survey results, saying they were inaccurate and not scientific.

“The sample is completely skewed,” said Ben McCoy, who has helped organize a petition against a taxpayer-funded ballpark. “I don’t know how you can really point to these results. It really shakes up to be a cheerleading thing, like go minor league baseball in Wilmington.”

Also at the meeting, potential sites were narrowed down from six to three. They include the greater downtown area, the MLK Parkway corridor and the Eastwood Rd. corridor. NSS says the sites will be narrowed down again after honing in on more specific details.

The city and NSS say they have a long way to go before a final decision.

“Part of what’s going to happen in this last phase is looking at all the information that we have in try to tell a story,” said Matt Perry, who serves as president of NSS.

“It’s a first look at it and its just another step in the process. This process is nowhere near finished,” said Margaret Haynes, a Wilmington City Councilwoman.

After a few more weeks of gathering data and making assessments, National Sports Services will give another report to city council on June 15th.


  • Guest CommonTater says:

    I too would just simply like to have my voice heard via my vote. I am against any taxpayer money being used but I will live with the decision of “the people” not what the vision of the empty seats on the council want everyone to think they “need”. THAT’s how it should work folks…..

  • Guest CommonTater says:

    someone doesn’t agree with your vision doesn’t make them “closed minded losers, small thinkers and dooms day advocates”. How small minded and ignorant of you… are you a current council member by chance?

    Between you and dookie you are the best thing going for the opponents…

  • taxpayer says:

    Your argument in favor of a taxpayer-funded stadium by using numbers gathered from other cities much larger than Wilmington reminds me of this segment from the Jon Stewart Show:

  • Guest2020 says:

    Just think how much of this could have been avoided if the majority of Wilmington voters had refrained from re-electing these idiots.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    how many times does it have to be said that comparing Durham and Wilmington is like comparing a watermelon to an apple?

    The area in Durham, to which you so fervently refer, was an area of boarded up tobacco warehouses and manufacturing sites.

    Had the stadium not been built, none of those items you refer to would have materialized.

    Private investors, note the word private, came in as the repacement stadium, note replacement, was built and began to rehab or replace the run down properties.

    That’s a big difference from what will happen in Wilmington. Are you trying to say that the area surrounding PPD is run down and needs a massive injection of renovation capital?

    Why don’t you try to build support for the stadium by using realistic comparisons and realistic numbers? Pie in the sky projections will continue to doom the stadium’s future.

    How can you say no one is making revenue projections? Go read the consultant’s prelimiary report. It’s pretty specific as to projected attendance. That will feed concession sales and parking revenue.

    And your buddy Devil has been pretty blatant with pie in the sky numbers which even the most liberal thinkers, who would like a stadium, agree are unrealisitic.

    Keep up the good work.

  • MikeT says:

    You are sparring with closed minded Losers, small thinkers and doomsday advocates. There is no hope that you will influence a change within them. This breed if wrong 99% of the time would never admit it. However the one time they may be right, they would relish the opportunity to say I told you so. If you told them, that on a one and a half sq. city block in Durham NC there was generated over 5 million dollars in revenue during the month of May, they wouldn’t care! If you told them the Durham Center for the Performing Arts was booked solid for 2012 and 13 with events, it wouldn’t matter, If you told them that approx. 1,000 people have jobs in this area of redevelopment, they would say , it’s part-time! If you told them,if this can happen in Durham, it could happen in Spiveys Corner, they would say Wilmington isn’t Spiveys Corner.
    Duke, there are lots of open minded people within your reach, your message is good, look for people you might influence and encourage.
    Duke, two good things are occuring here. We are having a good debate between parties that thank God will have nothing to do with the final outcome and second WalMart is selling a ton of batteries to all the part time accounts out there for there pocket calculators.
    Have a good day friend and keep up the good work!!

  • taxpayer says:

    i want it
    Submitted by Mike T on Wed, 05/30/2012 – 9:34am.
    Take my money in taxes and spend it on this. It really isn’t my fault I’m not very smart.

  • Carol Kramer says:

    A non-random survey is worse than useless. Come on WWAY, wonder over to UNCW and talk to a statistics professor, I bet they’d be happy to explain it to you.
    I can not believe that building a ball park ON THE WATERFRONT in downtown Wilmington is even being considered. It is insane..but so is:
    Building a cement plant (offering $$$ to Titan to come)
    Building a uranium enrichment facility (and giving GE $10,000,000)
    Building an elementary and middle school on a subdivided SUPER FUND site in Castle Hayne and paying top dollar for the property.

    I’m wondering if any of these downtown sites are actually part of the Brownfields Program:
    “Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and working lands.”

  • Mr. MikeT says:

    The property upon which the redevelopment project in either Durham or Wilmington in irrelevant. The challenge is where in each city is the best location to provide the additional development opportunities surrounding the stadium and the necessary revenue to make the total project work. The property tax and sales tax revenue associated to the Durham project creates over 1.5 million to the city annual. As I have said take an afternoon drive to Durham and see all this for your self.
    Your lack of business knowledge and you small thinking are showing in your comments.

  • Mr. MikeT says:

    Please help me out. Research each and every post that I have made over several months and show me any statement made that says I support Tax Payer Funding for the proposed Stadium. Unlike so many of you doomsday advocates, I have waited and will wait for the consultants to make a professional projection and see what involvement and what risk the city would undertake before either supporting or not any tax payer funding.
    You people who flounder around in your own irresponsible assumptions should simply back tract and wait for the proposals to be announced.
    We should all know by 6-19-12 or soon there after.

  • GuestAboutTown says:

    Mike, Durham has a team with a following. The team proposed to come to Wilmington isn’t much further up the prestige ladder than the Sharks.

    Since it is you, Mike, trumpeting the success of Durham, please share with us how much the Durham taxpayers are funding their stadium. If Durham taxpayers are on the hook for debt of 30 or so million, then the 1.5 mil a year really isn’t so much after all. If you want folks to support your arguments you really need to present all of the facts.

    Given a choice of whose opinion to respect in this debate, Surf City Tom wins by a landslide. Many months ago when I was writing here under another name, Surf City Tom and I became involved in a debate about the benefits of the proposed increase in film credits from the state. Just as he is asking you, Tom asked me for hard numbers. I was able to refer to the NC Film Office site and locate the money spent by film project and present calculations of sales tax and income tax revenue. I don’t believe that I changed Tom’s mind about the credit but he did acknowledge appreciation for the receiving of the information.

    Mike, the time is right for you to cut out your pseudo-intellectual insulting babble and do what Tom asks. Give us real numbers.

  • Mr. MikeT says:

    Sir if you haven’t noticed I have had to change my name because some clown out there has taken my name so they post silly comments. Surely even you are smart enough to recognize that. I do enjoy the flattery of this however I make a mistake when I hope for intellectual responses.

  • 1981duke says:

    99.9 percent of the time…

  • Grand Ole Party says:

    Maybe he just assumed you were intelligent enough to register your user name. If not the first time, maybe the second go around. Guess that is not the case.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    put your pointed little heads together and do what so many, including myself, have called for?

    Take each facet of the proposal; crunch the numbers; and show us where the flood of revenue will come from?

    Having said that; get off the Durham comparison. There is no comparison. The area in Durham was abandoned and run down. Anything which resulted from the erection of the new stadium had to drive up deflated property values and property tax revenue.

    And don’t point to Charlotte as one of you has unsuccesfully tried twice. Charlotte was not asked to underwrite or gaurantee the loan to build the new stadium. They were asked for $11 million to help cover construction; and they very clearly noted the funds would come from hotel and restaurant taxes. And they were asked to waive property taxes for a period of time; and the Council balked on that one.

    The more you guys spout off with hot air and no specifics; the more you try to paint a pie in the sky picture with exagerated and unsupported numbers, you dig a deeper hole for the developer, Mandalay, and the team.

    Keep up the Good Work.

    Oh yes; instead of doing an entitlement seeker cry; why not man up and answer questions with specifics?

    One final question. Do either of you actually own real estate within the city limits? That’s a yes or no answer; and should not take 4 paragraphs to respond. Frankly if you do not, you have no chips on the table. You won’t be impacted by this albatros as you have no vested interest in Wilmington real estate and property tax levels.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    you flop around more thn a politician or an attorney.

    You point to Durham as a shining example of all that will happen should the city fund construction of the ballpark.

    The surrounding dynamics, or lack of, are very relevant to the impact stadium construction will have if it is built.

    I’ve said it before. You offer no concrete facts or numbers. You attempt to compare apples and watermelons. And you flop over when someone quotes one of your own posts or data from the Consultant’s preliminary report to disprove your position of the hour.

    Y0u and Devil are doing more harm than good for the supporters of the stadium with your madcap posts.

    Keep up the good work.

    Just for the record, I’m in Durham every other week or so. I attend Bulls games in the evening. I supported the team back in the 80’s before I relocated to Richmond. So, Mike, I am well aware of the area demographics, then and now.

    And I also enjoy games in Greensboro and WS when I am there working. In act 2 weeks ago, I was at a WS evening game with attendance of 1,800.

    Nice Try; but you fail again.

  • taxpayer says:

    free ride
    Submitted by Mike T on Thu, 05/31/2012 – 8:45am.
    will it get me free stuff at the expense of taxpayers? that is what im really after.

  • GuestAboutTown says:

    MikeT, remember this. Calling folks who are questioning your use of invalid comparable situations in other communites and your weak financial analysis to support your desire to build a stadium does not make us “small minded losers”. Both you and duke are doing a poor job of winning friends and influencing people.

    Your interests have repeatedly failed to provide facts that would lead an investor (or in this case, captive taxpayers) to make an informed decision about the REAL efficacy of this project.

    You are not providing supportive answers but insulting your opponents. I have children whose dreams I am responsible to fulfill, not your stupid ideas about baseball.

    I am looking forward to a referendum on this to either get the project underway or to get the books closed on this issue so that our council can get back to the real needs of this community.

  • taxpayeriam says:

    I just look at whom is going to benefit the most from the deal,i am talking about the people personally that will reap from the deal and get
    taxpayer monies stuffed in there pockets.

  • Mr. MikeT says:

    I wanna watch some baseball! I like to lick my glove.

  • Shammalammadingdong says:

    So it takes thousands of dollars and a “consultant” to conduct a survey? I suppose the city has never heard of Survey Monkey. They could have gotten these same results for $25. Hooray for unnecessary spending!

  • Mr. MikeT says:

    Any time you would wish to challenge my claims of success or comparisons from other cities successes all you need to do is get in your car and drive to Durham NC. Maybe with your vast knowledge of failures you could supply your list of cities that have failed with Baseball Stadium Projects and I will provide my list of cities which have succeeded. As I see it the only thing keeping Wilmington from the same success as has criss-crossed America is Wilmingtons abundance of closed minded losers, small thinkers and dooms day advocates. Those who have the responsibility for revenue projections have yet to even announce those projections, so whats your knowledge of projected failure? You must have volumes of numbers that qualify doom.
    Try www. durham center for performing arts .com or www. durham bulls and try to get a weekend ticket. Try www. tobacco road, try to get a reservation on the patio over looking the left field wall of the Bulls stadium on any game night.

  • Leslie Posey says:

    A city website survey is not accurate. Many of us did not even know it existed; the same person can vote repeatedly. The city should undertake a qualified, professional survey that questions a random sample of the entire population. Even my middle schoolers know that!

    I don’t understand the thinking of our city officials. If the Braves can take this team away from its current site, who’s to say they won’t move it somewhere else in 10 years and leave us stuck with the bill. If Mandaley and Atlanta think Wilmington is such a wonderful place for a ball park let THEM pay to build it.

    Put our tax money where it belongs-city infrastructure-roads, schools, fire dept, police, etc.

  • Guest CommonTater says:

    was right….

  • 1981duke says:

    As per NSS a solid survey with high turnout.
    These guys are Professionals do this for many sports related endeavors,but in 3 less than 3 weeks the finished product.

  • ma_lashley says:

    If that’s your basis for accepting this tripe, then you should quickly change your name to Lemming.

    If NSS believes in their data so strongly, is so accurate in predicting successful revenue and thinks that we should proceed with such due haste (3 weeks doesn’t equate to efficiency but lack of oversight) then I propose the following. Let NSS provide a bond to the city guaranteeing their predictions. If ticket sales do not match their soon to be heralded “scientific” numbers, they will make up the shortfall. You’ll see the stammering and staring at the the floor when it comes to defending the survey at that point.

    Here’s as close as a scientific survey I can provide. I asked 35 of my voting, property owning neighbors when circulating the petition. Only 2 declined to sign because they support the tax increase, the remainder opposed public funding. Much different than the 47%:42% which NSS is claiming. They apparently didn’t ask anyone in my neighborhood.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    I wish you’d stay with one screen personna; you change so fast and it is obvious you are trying to drum up support for a dying albatross.

    An extra 5 games; gee that means an extra 31,000 tickets to sell; assuming all games sell out. And even in the first season, that is unlikely.

    My comment about frustrations came from the Star News and one of the long time property owners and tax payers who was at the meeting with no obvious purpose.

    But keep up the good work. Every time you post, you convince those of us, who know about business success and pay property taxes, that this proposal is a scam and full of hot air.

    When all else fails, follow the path of those weasels and leaches who live off the public dole and attack the taxpayers who will be picking up this tab. Heaven forbid you might actually come out with some real facts.

  • ma_lashley says:

    He’s got us there Tom. He’s been to City Council meetings; I’ve only watched them on TV so I guess they must be handing out “secret papers” at the door to anyone wearing a Braves hat. I suppose we’ll hear next that they read it somewhere but can’t cite it specifically.

    Plus Tom, you should be way more careful. 5 additional home games would give the city an additional $31,000 based on 70 SOLD OUT games. That defrays the city’s annual investment down by 1.5%, I don’t know how you could have made such a monumental mistake. I’m starting to see the light, we’re almost home, somebody get me a Chipper Jones shirt, size fleeced.

    I can’t attest to the business acumen of the individuals in support of this stadium, but I know that I never would have traded $2 million/year on the prospect of a $130k return. Never.

    Additional development surrounding the stadium won’t contribute significantly to the tax base because the next hurdle will be density issues or too many ABC permits in the vicinity. Existing business owners will complain further development leaves them all competing for a finite number of customers. The end result is city taxpayers wind up subsidizing this as these minor league teams lose money.

  • Guest111 says:

    You have not been downtown. If you had you would know that folks urinate everywhere and you can smell it. Duhh

  • guesty says:

    The same WAVE that commissioners were considering adding a fee to vehicle registration to pay for a beach route? Thanks for clearing up you are a typical liberal that wants to take as much as you can from the people that work, own property and pay taxes.

  • 1981duke says:

    That is why any stadium venue will be served by WAVE transport,and you have a ‘urine” thing?

  • taxpayer says:

    now THERE’S a shining example of an efficiently-run business!

  • Vog46 says:

    Mil-A teams are profitable right?
    Well not all of them. The top 40% of the teams account for about 80% of all profits and they share one thing in common ALL the profitable teams OWN the stadiums.
    This makes me suspicious of Mandalay and the Atlanta Braves. I’ve heard of team and city (or state) partnerships for PRO teams but never for MiL-A teams. (The state of Minnesota and the Minnesota Vikings are a prime example) But these are pro teams with much larger stadiums.
    This is different.
    Mandalay and Atlanta are trying to “sell” the team to the city so of course they would take any numbers they could find that buttresses their position – which is YOU take the risk, YOU pay for it and we’ll give you $1 per ticket.
    This way if the survey was wrong (oh the horror these guys do this ALL the time) they can just pack up and leave.
    I’m very suspicious of this – its way too one sided. We are going to pay for this for years. we may also be taking a very valuable piece of real estate downtown to build a potential albatross to hang around the city’s neck. I’d rather give the land down town to Cape Fear CC. That brings kids and instructors down town almost all year long opposed to 60 days per year for home games (There’s a boost to down town businesses for you).
    I go back to my business sense. If it will turn a profit the Mandalay group will have no problem putting up the majority of the money………..They are trying way too hard to sell this to the city.

    Best Regards

  • Vog46 says:

    According to today’s news (compared to THIS story)
    About 1,000 took this survey.
    4,000 People who are against using taxpayer dollars to fund the park signed the petition.
    Now these people are not against the stadium, they are against using tax dollars for it. These are two distinct subjects but are intertwined.
    We may want a stadium but we want the parent MLB team to pay for it.

    The city seems to want the team/stadium so badly they’re willing to pay for it – which goes against a fairly substantial portion of the city population.

    Best Regards

  • SurfCityTom says:

    based upon the preliminary report filed by NSS, as you note, the average attendance during the first season will be around 3,350 with about a 25% drop in attendance projected by year 5.

    And that is a consistent pattern for just about every minor league baseball team.

    Those who know far better than we who took math and business courses, project $10 million in additional sales tax revenue which would require about $125 million in additional sales activity. And they fail to note the state will take a significant portion of the sales tax revenue leaving about 20% of what is reaped for the city.

    I’m still waiting to see where the $125 million in additional sales activity, directly tied to the ball park and team, will come from.

  • Vog46 says:

    The tax revenue projections are pie in the sky and will be influenced by where the stadium is located.
    As I’ve noted on multiple story comments the attendance figures are for ticket sales – so a family of 4 represents 2 adults or half of that attendance figure are really “spenders”.
    Its good, clean, family fun – as advertised.
    But for revenue enhancement?
    I’m not so sure……

    Best Regards

  • Vog46 says:

    Tom wrote this:
    Now, I have taken one aspect, ticket sale revenue sharing, and crunched specific numbers. They show that if all games sell out, the city would recieve $1 per ticket sold after the first 300,000 have sold. Based on 65 games and 6,200 available seats, that generates about $64,000 in ticket revenue for the city.

    It’s in the proposal. It’s written and in black and white.

    That assumes that seasonal attendance is 403,000.
    Yet in an article from the star news:

    Pg 2:
    Preliminary findings by National show a year one attendance for a Wilmington stadium projected at 217,600 and about 176,800 by year five.

    Surf City – this means that ticket sales will NOT exceed 300,000 meaning the city will get NOTHING from ticket sales if your information is correct.
    This also seems to indicate that each game will average 3347 per game attendance – which I think reflects reality much better than assuming sell outs.
    Previous articles have stated that Mandalay will kick in about a 3rd of the $35M construction costs or about $12M. Apparently the construction costs do NOT include land costs. This of course would be a mute point if they go with the Camerons donated land at the Martin Luther King corridor.
    But this poses a big problem. Right now there’s no hotels nearby. Theres no restaurant’s. In fact along the corridor theres nothing so people coming and going would go from parking lot to the stadium. If it were down town they could walk the area and eat in the area. The economic impact of the stadium would be far less if they used the land the Cameron family is offering.
    I can see why Mayor Saffo has asked for Mandalay to put more skin in this game. Under the NSS info (referenced by the Star news) the city would receive NOTHING in revenue from attendance.
    This is an interesting dilemma the city finds itself in – but given that 4000 signatures represents 25% of the last voter turnout here in the city I think this will fail if put before the voters. Rather than embarrass themselves, I wonder if council will just reject it outright? They sure overstepped their bounds with forced annexation didn’t they? And look where THAT got them.
    Best Regards

  • SurfCityTom says:

    I think we are on the same page of the game plan.

    The advocates seeking public funding will say anything; use any numbers; and perhaps invoke the spirit of Shoeless Joe Jackson to convince anyone who will listen that public funding will really yield a cornucopia of tax revenue.

    As I’ve said repeatedly, if this is such a good deal, let private investors fight for the opportunity to pledge their wealth to build what will likely prove to be an albatross around the property tax payers’ necks.

  • Mike T says:

    will it get me free stuff at the expense of taxpayers? that is what im really after.

  • Guest7969 says:

    “try to tell a story”…that’s about what we expect…its what we get from the City Council already!

  • 1981duke says:

    Maybe 50 percent waht you write is true?
    June 15th 2012 the financial analysis is due City,what is your panic,why mis-state the task at hand?

  • SurfCityTom says:

    at the meeting was the limited advance notice given to taxpayers concerning the poll and how to participate.

    Several long term property owners noted they were unaware of the poll; and felt a much better job of promoting the survey could have been done to ensure a broad spectrum of public opinion from the property taxpayers who would have to support this albatros.

    And even with the skewered manner in which the survey was apparently distributed to a group more likely to support this albatros, ie Chamber of Commerce data base, they could only get 47% in favor of this item.

    I’m sorry. But business owners who operate businesses in leased real estate, on which they pay no property taxes and thus would have no chips on the table, are hardly the folks who should be voting on an item which will have no impact on their taxes.

    I’m challenged to understand what was so earth shattering about the session last night. By their own admission, they have much more to do. If this was an attempt to turn the tide of public support to favor the stadium, the numbers would indicate they failed.

    Now, I have taken one aspect, ticket sale revenue sharing, and crunched specific numbers. They show that if all games sell out, the city would recieve $1 per ticket sold after the first 300,000 have sold. Based on 65 games and 6,200 available seats, that generates about $64,000 in ticket revenue for the city.

    It’s in the proposal. It’s written and in black and white.

    I’ve challenged Mikey, BlueDevil, and some of the other palavering supporters to set aside the hot air spoutings and take a couple of other aspects of the proposal; crunch the numbers; and show specific benefit to the city tax payers.

    So far, no takers.

    I guess we can expect another round of empty hot air spoutings.

    In that sense they help the opponents. When they can not show specific value and return on investment, they show the proposal for what it really is — another noose to be placed around the city property tax payers’ neck.

    And note, that is specific. Not hot air filled statements that thousands of jobs will be created or millions in property tax revenue will be raised. Be specific.

    The ball team itself, management, and stadium maintenance and concession personnel will have minimal impact on jobs creation. Team members and management are employees of the Big League team. Concession workers are contract laborers paid on the basis of what they sell; and with 65 home games, their earning capacity is limited. Stadium maintenance — after the season ends, what then until the following spring.

    Look for further attacks on Surf City Tom rather than specific data which might turn the tide in favor of the ballpark.

    That’s the liberal, entitlement seeker way.

  • Vog46 says:

    lets look it this way.
    From the GOP perspective:
    If the free market is to work the Braves would build the stadium at no cost to the city because they would make a profit off of it.
    So why don’t they? Simple. The GOP is no different than the liberal entitlement seeker when it comes to corporate welfare. In this case they want to pony up to the government teat and drain it for all it’s worth to see just what THEY are entitled to.
    If the city were to say “No government funds to be used” we’d see just how serious the Braves are to build in Wilmington.
    I don’t see how this could work for the Braves myself UNLESS the stadium IS built using city funds. We just aren’t a big enough market to make it profitable for them if they have to carry the mortgage on the stadium.
    Best Regards

  • 1981duke says:

    Surf City Man,
    I have been at City Council as well as County Meetings since early this year,what you say is alot of fiction.
    By the way the regular home game season is 70 games,not 65.

  • Vog46 says:

    Well ANY survey coming from the City, Chamber of Commerce and Convention Center data basses will be highly skewed to being “rah rah Wilmington”.
    I agree with Mr McCoy on that one.
    The interest in the ball park and team seems tepid to me and the over whelming numbers that don’t want to pay anything towards the stadium tells me we’re not ready for this.
    If this were a stellar situation the Atlanta Braves would bear the brunt of the costs because they would see profits down the road. Obviously they don’t as their level of skin in this game is negligible.
    The taxpayers are assuming too much risk in this venture and at this stage of our economic recovery we are pretty much against most risk taking.
    The city needs to draw the line and tell the Braves – put at least 60% in or look for another town………The tepid response to the survey would indicate that the loss of this would be no big deal.

    Best Regards

  • 1981duke says:

    Ok Vog you hard to convince,how about Star News May 22 2012,

    Still, an overwhelming majority of the survey takers – 1,240 of them – said they “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” about a statement that the presence of a minor league baseball team would be beneficial to Wilmington. Those who strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with that statement added up to 513.

    Unquote,like this one better?
    ANY negative survey you have we will have more on “pro” side.

  • ma_lashley says:

    From the same survey:

    “28.2 percent of the responders said they’d go to one to four games per month, and 23.6 percent said they’d go to two to six games in a season…..25.9 percent of the people who answered the question about how many games they’d attend said “none.”

    Ok, so 50% of the respondents would attend less than 6 games per year and 26% would attend none. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for your favorite slogan. Maybe you should adjust it to “If you build….sometimes they’ll come but mostly not.”

    “52.5 percent said they thought taxes should only be increased 2 cents or less..” We should assume “less” equates to nothing in this case.

    52.5% is still greater than any majority I know of. In as much Star News couldn’t restrict this survey to the people who will actually being paying for this, I’d expect that number to be much higher in any referendum but still >50% still wins. Again, it tracked more than 90% in my neighborhood against ANY public funding.

    You can’t selectively dissect the information you wish to promote while omitting what you’d care didn’t exist.

    As a city resident I get a flyer from the city regularly. I don’t understand with the expense of printing and mailing that why the city couldn’t have taken the pulse at least by including an insert which could have been mailed back. I believe it’s because they don’t want to ask a question they don’t want to hear the answer on.

  • Mike T says:

    Take my money in taxes and spend it on this. It really isn’t my fault I’m not very smart.

  • MikeT says:

    When the Circus left town they must have forgotten one of their Clowns!!
    Flattery will get you nothing!!

  • bjones says:

    I think it was appropriate that the mayor stated that the Mandalay Group did not have enough “skin in the game”. I think the same can be said about the mayor and the city council. If this is such a good deal for taxpayers they should put some personal skin in also. What if they personally invest $180,000 in this venture over 30 years on the taxpayers side of the equations? That’s only $6,ooo a year and then they will each own a pro-portional part of the stadium. If it is a good deal for us it must be a good deal for you so are you ” All In” ?

  • rogelio says:

    This is a good investment for Wilmington, but only if it attracts people downtown. The two minor league stadiums that are helpful are Durham’s and Greensboro’s. If the stadium has little near it, then it will be more like the RBC center (whatever it’s called now) in Raleigh. If the RBC Center were downtown in Raleigh, then there could be businesses that would actually benefit from its existence. No such luck.

    Wilmington…do not make the mistake of putting this anywhere other than downtown. Preferably near the water.

  • Guest111 says:

    Heck Yes! Get yourself downtown, smell the aroma of urine, look at all the trash in the bushes, spit and what ever on the windows, mingle with all the sidewalk folks and listen to their lovely language PLUS you have the opportunity to go there at night and take a chance on getting raped or murdered. Oh, by the way. Leave your car in Ogden and walk. There’s no where to park.

  • Guest010512 says:

    Let the people who support the ball park with taxes, give taxes to support it. The people who oppose giving taxes to support the ball park, Let them Not pay taxes… What’s the problem??? I mean, why can’t the 46% give money in taxes to the city and the city accept it, without forcing the rest of us to pay taxes for it?! Why does it have to become a law? Weeeeelllll…’s probably because the city knows I’m not gonna pay it, and most of us won’t go to a game and buy popcorn and hot dogs at nine dollars each. Therefore, the city has to take my money in taxes. Goverment has such an evil mind.

  • Guest111 says:

    The powers that be are NOT LISTENING to John Q Public!! Remember this.

  • Vog46 says:

    The analysis of Mandalay is expecting 7%-8% of Wilmington’s population to turn out for each game. That is way too high as we don’t have large cities nearby to draw from.
    Durham has Raleigh down the road.
    We’ve got Navassa. Waht city is within 25 minutes that would support a minor league baseball team here?

    Again, the city’s negotiating stance should be “we start at ZERO city input into this stadium” then lets see what Mandalay comes up with for an alternative. If they believe their own stats then they should see the potential for profits and offer up a much better deal to city leaders.
    The risk is being borne in it’s entirety by city taxpayers.
    This is a sports version of a derivative trade – the city is basing its investment on what the underlying asset (the team) will be worth.
    Best Regards

Leave a Reply