Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

From a site called the Contributor, though I found it on reddit.

Chicago's Choice: Closing 50 Schools But Spending $100 Million on Basketball Arena
http://thecontributor.com/chicago%E2%80%99s-choice-closing-50-schools-spending-100-million-basketball-arena-0

It has a pretty unbalanced take on the issue and a thinly veiled uber-liberal tilt. Which, concerning my politics, makes it super left. It hardly gives a counter point for the arena being built as an economic stimulus.

Not to spark politics on the board but I know there has been a lot of talk about the new arena and I didn't know how Chicago BE fans/DePaul fans felt about the school aspect of it all.

Here's to hoping everyone stays objective...

I'd say flaming, not damning. It's not so simple as had DePaul pulled the $70 million off the table any of the schools would have stayed open. The article doesn't imply that's the issue, but that's what the comparison boils down to. It's harder to sound bad when you say someone takes millions away.

DePaul's involvement has left an interesting door open for people to attack the entire project as a hand out to a private school. It looks more like a win-win deal to me (DePaul & city). You could argue the city should not be doing the project, at all, to begin with, but adding DePaul to the existing project isn't an issue on that front. You only have a fair criticism regarding DePaul's involvement if you know how it changed the project, but we don't know enough for a quality judgment there.

The schools are being closed because the city is corrupt and run like ****. It has nothing to do with DePaul and the new Arena, 2/3 of which will be paid for by the school and naming rights.

If the city was run better and the corruption wasn't so insane they wouldn't have to close all those schools.

I am usually on the "right" side of politics so why is Chicago funding a private university? Seems pretty wrong to me.

DudeAnon wrote:I am usually on the "right" side of politics so why is Chicago funding a private university? Seems pretty wrong to me.

DePaul is not the only tenet. They will host concerts and other events. DePaul will only be there for a few months as a regular renter. It is part of a movement to revitalize a part of town, where they will build new hotels and restaurants. Every major city does it, thats how it works. Every arena/stadium has been paid for by tax payer money and those are all privately owned teams.

DePaul will also pay for 1/3 of the costs and another 1/3 will come from naming rights. The City pays for the other 1/3. Not bad considering that most arenas are paid for by the city at a larger percentage of the costs.

I am not an expert on the subject but Xavier (a private school) paid for their arena themselves and they rent it out for concerts etc. Personally, I just don't believe private money should mix with public but obviously it does all the time.

Omaha had vote on arena bond issue which sparked downtown renovation. But city just did not have free will to spend money or controls the school system. Good idea but city of Chicago is out of whack with priorities. Here is info on Omaha arena.

In 2000, Omaha voters approved a $216 million bond issue to build a new convention center and arena; the remainder of the $291 million project was provided by private organizations and individuals. The facility design was led by architectural firm DLR Group. Naming rights to the arena were purchased by Qwest. Which sparked building of downtown ballpark, hotel construction, preforming arts center, and Art Film theater.

I think it's a win-win although I could argue that DePaul is paying more than they should.

DudeAnon wrote:I am usually on the "right" side of politics so why is Chicago funding a private university? Seems pretty wrong to me.

They aren't funding DePaul, if anything DePaul is funding the city. The project is not just the arena, a large venue is just something the project wanted. DePaul kicks in $70 million and gets a few things in return... naming rights, primary tenant, the venue is built to be suitable for them. The city will own the arena and charge DePaul rent to use it.

I know I said this just above, but the only way you can criticize DePaul's involvement from a taxpayer perspective is if you know how DePaul changed the project. Given that they're kicking in so much money and based on the city's desire for a casino (thus likely wanting a large venue already), I have a hard time thinking this cost taxpayers money. The project costs tax money, definitely (I believe most or all of it is already collected, though), but DePaul's involvement may not have.

DudeAnon wrote:Personally, I just don't believe private money should mix with public but obviously it does all the time.

That's too harsh a stance, government should be working with private entitles if it's the smart and/or cost effective way to accomplish something. In a sense, if the government doesn't work with private entities, who are they working with? If the government thought bringing DePaul on board was smart for the taxpayer, then it was a proper decision.

yorost wrote:That's too harsh a stance, government should be working with private entitles if it's the smart and/or cost effective way to accomplish something. In a sense, if the government doesn't work with private entities, who are they working with? If the government thought bringing DePaul on board was smart for the taxpayer, then it was a proper decision.

I agree. A big part of why the Indianapolis revitalization was so successful in the late 70s and 80s was because of the private money from Eli Lilly to build world-class facilities. The pacers got a home court to play on instead of the state fairgrounds. The colts came to town because of a brand new arena. Suddenly Indianoplace was relevant beyond the Indy 500. It wouldn't have happened without private money.