Question on new stadium remains: Why so soon?
If you haven’t yet read Jeff Schultz’s column today about whether it would be “the worst thing in the world if the Falcons moved to the suburbs,” I recommend it. Spoiler alert: Schultz thinks it would not be the worst thing in the world if that were to happen.
Although I think downtown is ultimately far preferable to the suburbs for the Falcons’ home games, Schultz makes a number of good arguments. But this is the part to which I want to draw your attention (with emphasis added):
The [San Francisco] 49ers couldn’t get a downtown stadium deal done, so they’re moving to Santa Clara, 30 to 45 minutes away. … By the way, Candlestick Park is 53 years old.
The [New York] Giants left the old Meadowlands stadium, which was 34 years old. The [Miami] Dolphins left the Orange Bowl, which was built in 1939. The [Dallas] Cowboys and [New England] Patriots left stadiums that were opened in 1971. The [Washington] Redskins left RFK Stadium, built in 1961.
The Georgia Dome opened in 1992.
For me, much of what’s disquieting about the drive to ditch the Dome is the timing. In 2017, by which time the Falcons insist they’ll be in a new stadium, the Dome will be a mere 25 years old.
The stadium the 49ers are leaving is twice as old (53) as the Georgia Dome will be in 2017. The same goes for the Dolphins’ old stadium (48) when their new stadium opened in 1987.
The stadium the Giants and New York Jets replaced was about as old (34) as most Georgians probably believed the Dome would be when it was replaced. Ditto for the old stadiums of the Cowboys (38), Patriots (29) and Redskins (36).
I think it’s fair to assume most Atlanta residents recognize that the Dome will have to be replaced at some point in time. I think it’s also fair to assume most of us wonder why that point in time is coming so soon after the Dome was built.
Of course, the Dome will need money for repairs if it stays open. As the AJC has reported, professional estimates of those costs run from $115 million by 2020 (when the Dome would hit 28 years of age) to $401 million by approximately 2035 (when it would be 43 years old).
So, it seems questionable to most people outside the Falcons organization that the Dome has to be replaced so soon. If we having this discussion five to 10 years from now, it would be going a lot differently.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
545 comments Add your comment
md
February 17th, 2013
1:41 pm
“The Thrashers left, and I hated to see that, but has it made any real difference in the grand scheme of things? Not really.”
I’m not sure we can use the Thrashers as a gauge considering hockey has a hard time in many cities outside Canada and the northern US.
Same with soccer (Champion Atlanta Chiefs?)…….
The core sports in the area are football and baseball, and even the Braves are questionable when it comes to fan support (Hence the number of out of town team support)
Football in the south? A whole different animal…….
MarkV
February 17th, 2013
1:45 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories @1:33 pm
“MIT’s Dr. Lindzen: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.’”
Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
md
February 17th, 2013
1:45 pm
“2. It’s probably caused by man-made emissions.
3. We don’t know how long it will last.”
Possible, not probable……hence the debate.
What percentage of the change is natural cycle? Give me that number and then we may get somewhere in the debate……..
Correct, we don’t know how long it will last because we have no idea what the natural cycle is…….
And don’t kid yourself to think we can use data for a few hundred or thousand years and compare it to a million or billion year cycle…….that is where all the assumptions begin……
indigo
February 17th, 2013
1:46 pm
MarkV – 1:23
Are you saying I’m just a glutton for punishment?
Now that I think about it, “utterly, totally and completely hopeless” does seem to be the operative phrase in trying to reason with those who have no sense of reason.
Skip
February 17th, 2013
1:48 pm
The Thrashers left? How many noticed?
indigo
February 17th, 2013
1:50 pm
Aesop, md
Here are some facts about global warming.
Our course, you will probably say The National Geographic Society is just a liberal, socialist, Marxist anti-American publication.
Right?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 17th, 2013
1:55 pm
In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade. This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives. The bottom line is that the recent global temperature standstill is a real event. David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 17 January 2013
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 17th, 2013
1:57 pm
Global Warming Fast Facts
National Geographic News
Updated June 14, 2007<—————————–
Got anything recent I can tear up, indie?
Hillbilly D
February 17th, 2013
1:58 pm
md @ 1:41
True, football outdraws hockey but football has 8 regular season dates at home and hockey has 41. So, granted football has a bigger impact but it might not be as pronounced as you’d think, at first glance. Eight dates at 60,000 per would be 480,000 spectators and 41 dates at 10,000 per would be 410,000. Those are just off the top of my head guesstimates but I think you’ll see where I’m coming from.
Pre-season would probably be close to a wash and post-season would depend entirely on the teams. The Thrashers had a little post season play and the Falcons have done well, lately. However, in hockey you have games in both cities, every round, whereas in football, you may have all the games or none of the games, depending on your seed.
Anyway, I don’t think public money should go for private businesses, sports teams or not.
indigo
February 17th, 2013
2:46 pm
Aesop – 1:55 – 1:57
Here’s a tip: Your fundamentalist parents, teachers and pastor are NOT qualified to teach you what real science is.
Neither is The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
And, I don’t think the National Geographic has changed their position in the last six years
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/opinion/letters/scientific-truth-isnt-decided-by-majority-vote_2013-02-06.html
Shine
February 17th, 2013
3:06 pm
It would be easier to accept a new stadium like the others got if they too had multiple Super Bowl championships. How many is it the Falcoons have won? Let Blank pay for his own stadium.
fair and balanced
February 17th, 2013
3:22 pm
Falcons can pack up and leave tomorrow for all I care. With Dome almost paid for and in need of minimal repairs (which should be in reserves if properly managed) Atlanta has a lot
to offer in savings to another football team paying higher shares elsewhere,
md
February 17th, 2013
3:28 pm
From “fast facts”:
“The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century’s last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies.”
Notice the reference to “400 years”, why not 4 million years? 4 billion years?
And then notice the terminology used in the next sentence……”possibly”.
They use those terms for a reason…….and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what those terms mean……they mean they are not sure if one needs help.
Which is why I said the debate is about possibilities, NOT probabilities…….only an arrogant human will think they know the unknowable……
md
February 17th, 2013
3:29 pm
“Anyway, I don’t think public money should go for private businesses, sports teams or not.”
Does that include using tax incentives to lure industry to the various States?
md
February 17th, 2013
3:37 pm
Ever wonder how the allies got their fuel during the invasion of the Continent?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9lBqPVuoE&feature=uploademail
Hillbilly D
February 17th, 2013
3:46 pm
Does that include using tax incentives to lure industry to the various States?
Yes it does.
md
February 17th, 2013
3:48 pm
Well then, we disagree. I’d prefer to forgo a few tax dollars up front in exchange for the jobs and future taxes generated from those jobs……
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:23 pm
Enter your comments here
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:29 pm
Poor MarkV and indigo–Can’t think for themselves, so are reduced to putting up links which don’t even agree with them.
But, while we’re throwing partisan websites up, here’s one from FOX news which shows how the IPCC computer models have all overstated the temperature gains in the past 20 years.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/?test=latestnews#ixzz2JKHwlQ9W
From the article: ““The IPCC’s claim is that they are 90 percent sure that humans have ‘contributed to’ the observed warming. Hell, even I would agree with that innocuous statement.”
But he says it does indicate that greenhouse gases are having less of an affect on climate than the IPCC thought.
“It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals,” he said.
Strange how these Libs can’t handle dissent very well. Maybe not as “diverse” and “tolerant” as they portray themselves to be………..
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:33 pm
Don’t think we’ve played any Bee Gees lately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89fCiZs_Lc
indigo
February 17th, 2013
4:34 pm
Bruno – 4:29
You might want to consider the source before posting somehting here.
And, exactly HOW do links I put up here no agree with me?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/12/14/three-months-after-humiliating-retraction-fox-g/158137
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:36 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4qrEOCNr3g
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:43 pm
And, exactly HOW do links I put up here no agree with me?
The name of the link you put up at 2:46 is entitled “Scientific truth isn’t decided by majority vote”.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:44 pm
This song came out about the time I was sneaking into bars for the first time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHSQbftDD8I
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
4:48 pm
For indigo and MarkV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVjITlgqlHo
Dusty
February 17th, 2013
4:54 pm
Well, climate change isn’t exactly what interests me. When my feet get cold, I’m inclined to read a little more. Baby, it’s cold outside la la la etc.
As to a new stadium, hold on folks. Don’t do one thing that might disturb our BRAVES. They might want something new besides players. You can ship the Falcons to Timbuktu as far as I am concerned but they can get brain damage any place. Not that I want them to get that. No! They have so much fun knocking each down for millions. Don’t wish to stop their enjoyment either.
Has anyone seen JOSEF? I have a book, new to me.. I wanted to ask his opinion. He’s probably read it.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
4:54 pm
Someone the other day had the best description of Global Warming: what happens between ice ages.
md
Being a non prog/lib, I try to be consistent with my positions, so I too am against government being used to fund private enterprise, even to procure jobs. These companies that are so shallow as to auction off their future locations, usually stay awhile and then move on for the next offer. I watched as Cooper Tires, bled Albany, GA dry, and then packed up and moved to MS, when a better offer came along, after begging Albany to bargain against Mississippi. I know bargaining is the way to bring home the jobs, it just goes against my principals.
It is kinda like having one cable provider, who will give new customers all these great deals, but existing customers can just go straight to heck, because they aren’t eligible for the deal. If I had a business that was getting hammered with taxes, and you offered my competitor to move in and gave them a tax incentive, I would go ballistic.
Halftrack
February 17th, 2013
5:04 pm
The Falcons want fans from all over GA. not just in Atlanta. They avoid traffic gridlock, etc.- if a new stadium should be built in the suburbs. When the stadium is convenient to usher fans to other merchants such as eating, motels, hotels,entertainment, and especially parking, etc.everyone benefits. More tax money is generated for the city. Atlanta grows.
md
February 17th, 2013
5:05 pm
And I’d still take that gamble every day of the week for jobs.
What are we giving up, taxes we won’t get anyhow?
That is what confounds me, if the company never comes to Ga, we never get the tax revenue to begin with, so what is it hurting to tell them to come here and not pay taxes for a given period of time?
It’s the same with the offshore profits…..if it never comes home we get 0%. Let it come home at 0% and we at least have it in our system, and it will get taxed rolling around the system……
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
5:07 pm
Baltimore, St Louis, and Cleveland all lost NFL teams. All now have better teams than those that moved. Atlanta would be in the same boat, large football crazed town in region known to love football, which is part of a vast media market. Couple of years without and some NFL team would start trying to put their strong arm out to extort their present city, and use Atlanta as a threat. Atlanta would load up a truck with incentives and bring them home, and we would be back where we started, but maybe a little wiser, hah!
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
5:10 pm
Here’s a Forbes article entitled “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism”
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
From the article: “NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”
indigo
February 17th, 2013
5:17 pm
Bruno
I never said scientific truth was decided by a majority vote. Scientific truth is decided by properly using the Scientific Method.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
5:19 pm
And that pesky water vapor problem keeps muddying the waters. From the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html
“The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this “positive feedback” also has been greatly exaggerated.”
Water vapor, clouds and dust, oh my!! Water vapor, clouds and dust, oh my!!
josef
February 17th, 2013
5:19 pm
DUSTY
Getalife told me you were asking about me…Yes ma’am? How may I be of service?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
February 17th, 2013
5:19 pm
If global warming was completely discredited and the “scientific consensus” agreed, progtards would find some other vehicle with which to bash free-market capitalism.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
5:20 pm
md
To me it is much akin to negotiating with hostages. Once you start buying employers where do you start. If some of the big companies were smart, they would start demanding concessions with threats of moving. How many concessions would Georgia give, if Coca Cola said they were planning to move to TX?
I am with you on the offshore money, but I see that as a one time exemption. No other company is likely to just run over seas just to avoid taxes, there has to a business advantage to being there beside tax avoidance. Maybe I am wrong, I just don’t see that as the same situation, as incentives to relocate a business.
md
February 17th, 2013
5:22 pm
“Baltimore, St Louis, and Cleveland all lost NFL teams. All now have better teams than those that moved.”
Yet LA, the #2 media market in the country has been without a team for 17 years and has been trying desperately to lure another team for years……..
It’s still a business, and will go where the money is, or stay where an owner is willing to take the losses if there are any.
Bruno
February 17th, 2013
5:23 pm
I never said scientific truth was decided by a majority vote.
That’s what you do every time you refer to the “97%” of climatologists” who validate their own conclusions.
Scientific truth is decided by properly using the Scientific Method.
Which in this case, hasn’t happened yet. Until all of the pertinent variables are accounted for, and until the predictions generated by the current computer models match the observed predictions more closely, then nothing is settled.
indigo
February 17th, 2013
5:25 pm
Bruno – 5:10
That download is authored by James Taylor of The Heartland Institute, a mostly Big Business funded group.
I think I’ll take The National Geographic’s views over theirs.
indigo
February 17th, 2013
5:28 pm
Bruno – 5:19
And, the author of this download is a physicist, NOT an atmospheric scientist.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
5:29 pm
LBB
Environmentalism is all about control with the progs/libs. The environmental movement is an easier way to control capitalism, individualism, and free markets than it is to change public support enough to vote restrictions in. When public opinion consistently runs against their position they try and use other sources, like the courts, the UN, or environmentalism. They try to keep us all pulling that entitlement wagon and it is dangerous, for people to think for themselves and break free.
MarkV
February 17th, 2013
5:34 pm
Dusty @ 4:54 pm
“Well, climate change isn’t exactly what interests me.”
Dusty,
Perhaps it should. I am not saying that you should delve into the pseudo-scientific debate on this blog, but you have children, and they have or may have children, don’t they? Should not you take a stand?
Let me tell you a hypothetical case, but one that has a clear bearing on the global warming issue. Let’s imagine that one day the astronomers will announced a discovery of a new object, a comet, or an news asteroid, something like that. They and the astrophysicists start making measurements, and after a while they will reveal some shocking news. The preliminary calculations show the object might collide with the Earth in a few years. Although not so big to extinguish life on Earth, it would cause enormous damage, such a destruction of countries continent. They cannot pinpoint yet the exact site of impact.
There are some skeptics, however, including a few prominent scientists from other fields. They question the data, they question the methods. They claim that the calculations are not as good as claimed.
What to do, people ask the scientists. They provide some alternatives, such as sending a space vehicle to rendezvous with the object and try to deflect it from the course, or use space-positioned lasers to destroy it. Any such alternative would require almost immediate start of the work.
The deniers rise again. There is uncertainty in the calculations, they show. The proposed methods would consume enormous resources, which could be used for other purposes if the collision does not happen. After many discussions, and discovery of various errors and mistakes and even misdeeds on the side of some, the conclusion supported by an overwhelming majority the specialists is that there will be indeed such an impact.
What will be your choice? Not about the kind of action – let’s leave that to the professionals. But will you support the action recommended by an overwhelming consensus of specialists, or the deniers?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
5:36 pm
LA is too Urbane for blue collar football. They never supported the Rams and I doubt with the entitlement society they run, they could afford to build a Taj Mahal stadium that would please one of these fickle NFL owners.
indigo
February 17th, 2013
5:38 pm
Bruno – 5:23
From the 2:46 link
“but one more thing Harmon doesn’t note is that 97% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences understand human activity to be warming the earth significantly.
I’m at a loss to understand why you and others totally reject what 97% of these scientists believe.
And, they are presenting their findings, NOT voting.
md
February 17th, 2013
5:38 pm
And as with HD, I just don’t agree. I’d prefer to give up some corp tax in exchange for the jobs as those jobs will always be a source of tax revenue. Lose the corp and the jobs ALL the tax revenue goes away.
But I also don’t think corps should pay any tax, as it’s just factored into the cost of the good or service and we pay it.
indigo
February 17th, 2013
5:40 pm
Bruno
Study this and come in out of the dark ages.
http://www.nasonline.org/
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
5:42 pm
Perhaps it should. I am not saying that you should delve into the pseudo-scientific debate on this blog, but you have children, and they have or may have children, don’t they? Should not you take a stand?
MarkV: You are so worried about something that “might” happen that would adversely affect Dusty’s children, yet you mock Dusty for being so concerned about the national debt, which will severely affect her children. You have misplaced priorities, IMO.
Her children will be so impoverished, they might rejoice if Dusty’s house became beachfront property.
Hillbilly D
February 17th, 2013
5:44 pm
In my opinion, industries locate wherever is best for them to locate. They pretty well know where they are going before they ever let it be known they are moving. They just find a couple/three localities to “negotiate” with, to get themselves some free money. It’s a sucker’s game and these local and state governments fall for it, over and over.
When you help one business, you’re de facto hurting their competitors, be they in the same industry or an industry that’s in competition with them.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 17th, 2013
5:48 pm
md
We agree, just drop corporate taxes other than property, they are just passed on as you point out.
getalife
February 17th, 2013
5:48 pm
Money over our planet is ignorant and greedy..
The first thing we should cut is big oil welfare but our congress can’t even cut that low hanging fruit.