Reply With Quote
She doesn’t have the city council votes to support her resolution.
We are fcked bro...Shes gonna make enemies with the spurs and make things difficult in the future for the spurs in the next few years.
She doesn’t have the city council votes to support her resolution.
per Jeff Garcia:
Conflicting resolutions for Thursday's council meeting...One that wants a delay until a new economic study is done and this morning there is one that allows the city manager to complete negotiations and execute a non-binding term sheet with the Spurs...
I mean, honest question, has an independent economic study been conducted by an unbiased firm (ie not contracted by Spurs to conduct said study)? Admittedly, I am not well versed in the details but on the surface that seems like reasonable due diligence that should be performed. Perhaps it has and she is just trying to stonewall any way she can.
resolution number four we’ve got resolution number five lol
resolution authorizing the city manager to complete negotiations and execute a non-binding term sheet with the San Antonio Spurs holding LLC relating to a downtown arena with substantially similar terms to the proposed draft term sheet Eric Walsh city manager, Ben, Gorzell Junior, chief financial officer and administrative services.
resolution number five tells resolution number four to go itself lol
Last edited by TXstbobcat; 08-18-2025 at 09:39 AM.
And independent estimate needs to be completed, especially with the firm tasked with overseeing such things by the Spurs has a history of misrepresenting numbers in past projects, apparently.
Does anyone know if it's standard practice for the Spurs to retain the consultant on the City's behalf. To me, as the "buyer," I would think the City had the obligation to retain its own consultant as part of its diligence, so this strikes me as the City complaining that the Spurs aren't doing the City's diligence. But I wonder if its different in the municipal government context.
Please show us this history with the actual numbers involved.
Here is a recent article
https://www.ksat.com/news/ksat-inves...antonio-spurs/
There are numbers in the article below. KSAT says the city retained them. (And that CSL was not asked to determine the economic impact/could be because they misrepresent numbers). The question is who? Jones says the analysis is incomplete.
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2020/...tadium-racket/
Could be. I don't know what would change anything aside from just not building the arena and letting the Spurs leave town in seven years or so.
lol, they hired sixth street? a minority owner in the spurs?
So then they can split the item. Agree to the term sheet and do a secondary analysis at the same time. Nothing wrong with that.
Looks like it
Regardless, the City of SA sure look like a bunch of slap idiots right now with the passive-aggressive game of setting contradictory agendas.
Is the city council generally Spurs-leaning on this issue? Clearly the mayor isn't, just wondering how much that matters.
A deal of this size would never fly with only seller-provided due diligence.
I'm impressed by the Spurs ability to transcend people's normal socioeconomic philosophy, causing them to throw them out the window for a "just do whatever it takes" approach. The language people have taken up (" ing ", " ", etc) is also wild considering what we're actually talking about here. Sign of the times.
The language is uncalled for. I’ve never called mayor Jones anything but a one termer. The reality is that there isn’t going to be a better deal than the Spurs kicking in $500M, and the only thing the city is on the hook for is infrastructure improvements, roads, utilities, and such. The City isn’t paying for any of the arena cost, which is why people area little impatient with the mayor. The part that the city is paying for is essentially an expansion of the convention center to include the Alamodome.
This is what I don't get. The funding mechanism is a tax on non-San Antonians. I'm unaware of any proposal to use hotel/rental car taxes to feed the homeless that are now being shelved. But the entire conversation doesn't recognize this and seems as though its a tax on the poorest citizens.
dp
It appears that the Spurs have kicked in another $15MM or so in community investments in the latest version of the term sheet. I don't know if the mayor's approach played any role in this or not, but that's an incremental investment into the city that otherwise may not have happened (or is a bill that public funds no longer need to go towards), so it could be viewed as a "win".
I'm not going to make the claim that the mayor is playing 4D chess or something like that, but if they can squeeze some more money out of SS&E, that may give the mayor cover to go with the flow and vote yes in the end and claim her tactics got a better deal. I don't know much about her, but this wouldn't be a crazy negotiating tactic (and I don't think we are anywhere close to the point of the Spurs being a legit threat to leave).
Ultimately, I'm no longer a resident of San Antonio or even Texas, so I don't have a dog in the fight other than to say I really want the Spurs to stay in SA (even though moving to SEA or LAS would give me the opportunity to see many more games.. I want to the Spurs to forever be the team of my hometown).
I do think it's a bit cavalier to simply say "the only the thing the city is on the hook for is..." since that's still a pretty massive dollar figure. My bet is that an independent economic impact study would be quite complementary to the city's portion of the investments, and I think it is completely reasonable to get one... though I'm shocked it hasn't been done already. Kind of nuts, to be honest... and if they city went to Sixth Street to get a study done, that's kind of shady and probably deserving of some scrutiny.
In the end, it seems like the outline of a pretty good deal is here... the Spurs carrying the bulk of the cost for their arena, with public funds going to supporting infrastructure for while the public theoretically benefits from (beyond just the benefit of entertainment). At this point I think it's largely just a matter of some extra millions at the margins, which is still significant money.
There is an impact on the city to a hotel/rental car tax, it's not just as simple as saying that tourists are footing the bill. However, we are talking about second and third order effects. As with any tax, in theory, the tax burden is shared by each side of the transaction with the share born by each side largely determined by price elasticity curves of supply and demand. So operators of hotels and rental car companies are bearing some of the burden of the tax (which is largely multinational conglomerates anyway, so it, right?) but that also eventually flows to the people who work at these companies (and there are also local independent operators). Beyond that, there is also an impact on tourism that needs to be considered (an industry that San Antonio heavily relies on).
With that said, I think it's still worth it to fund things like this via a hotel and rental car tax, but it's not just as simplistic as saying it's tourists footing the bill and it doesn't impact people who live here.
I would have to think that the tax is 1) incredibly small - as in, measured in dollars and not tens of dollars and 2) would be entirely passed down to the consumer. Even if borne, in some way, by hotels, you'd think they wouldn't be putting out joint-press releases expressing their support (https://news4sanantonio.com/news/loc...r-major-cities). I appreciate the nuance you suggest though, but ultimately, I think the people who would feel the effects of the tax are not residents of the City.
I do think there may be some harm in how the mayor is handling the negotiations - which I say from the perspective of the complete lack of alignment between her and city council. She obviously has a job for her cons uents, and any incremental gain from the Spurs is a win - but this isn't a one-time deal. The City and SSE need each other going forward - so if she is burning goodwill because the City should have, but didn't, get its own EIA study months ago, they may very well not be a good thing. This is a relatively minor point admittedly, but the lack of cohesion between her and council members is .... weird.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions