Ah, the old "new tax revenues" shell game.

If you want to know what a total con it is, just try to use it to build a new store or home and see how far you get...

Exactly, same old ploy they used to try and build Staples Center. We all see how terrible that development turned out!

Apples & oranges, bottomline. Staples Center gets far more use than a football stadium ever will and cost much less to build.

Apples & oranges, bottomline. Staples Center gets far more use than a football stadium ever will and cost much less to build.

The fact remains, the blueprint for this development is basically the same as Staples Center(& L.A Live)! The city kicked in $58.5 million for Staples Center, I havent heard any complaints about that investment?! As far as Staples getting more uses, that could very well be. However, have u thought of the possibility of having fewer events but generating more revenue(thru other means)?! I would imagine if the numbers wouldnt add up, they(developers) wouldnt be interested in doing it, would u?!

As I had once previously asked, has the City of Los Angeles been able to recover the taxpayers $58.5 milion investment?

What additional revenue generating events are going to be significant enough to pay the debt service of a near $1 billion stadium? Your theory has already been put to the test on many occasions. There will not enough non-NFL events to pay for the annual expenses of such an expensive project. Forget about the Rose Bowl every moving from its confines. There are only so many soccer matches per year. Aside from U2, there aren't many bands which can sellout a stadium. It would be different if AEG is going to assume 100% risk for the project. However that isn't the case.

If the numbers add up, and an NFL stadium is such a wise real estate investment, why doesn't AEG simply use Staples Center as collateral in order to obtain full financing for the project? Doesn't AEG have enough assets to fully cover the funding mechanisms for an NFL stadium project? Why is there any need for a taxpayer contribution?

With all due respect, that is exactly where yur theory is flawed... They're(developers# asking the city to contribute $350 million for the demolition & re-construction of the west wing of the convention center#a city-owned asset), which they would pay back! Please forgive my ignorance, but if the total cost of the investment is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3-1.4 billion then how r we at risk?! Am I missing something here?? Theoretically, if they defaulted on the $350 million wouldnt the stadium & the new west wing of the convention center more than make up for the loss?!

If the stadium developers are asking the city for $350 million to pay for the demolition & mitigation of the west wing portion of the convention center, its a taxpayer contribution. Exactly how will AEG pay back the taxpayers?

Also, to reiterate my previous question, given that AEG specifically wants that site, why can't they pay for the demoltion of the convention center's west wing? LA taxpayers will be at risk once the $350 million in bonds are issued? In this economy, its difficult getting an insurer to underwrite bonds which may be considered risky. If you can provide evidence,that enough convention center activities will insulate the taxpayers from any risk, for the $350 million in public debt instruments, then by all means please provide it.

However, all of this is conjecture. Given this idea is merely that, and with no formal contract to analyze, neither of us knows if AEG's proposed NFL stadium will be a success. What we do have, are historical comparisons of recently constructed NFL stadiums, which have straddled taxpayers with millions of dollars in debt bailouts. That remains a fact.

Yes, it is a taxpayer contibution! But its a taxpayer contribution for a city-owned asset! Let me ask u a hypothetical question, if we had an earthquake in downtown L.A tomorrow that would destroy the convention center(or part of it) who do u think would have to pay for the reconsruction of it??!! We(the taxpayers) would. Hence, i look at it as upgrading(enhancing) a piece of city-owned property that sooner or later we would have to pay to upgrade anyway... Last time i checked, i dont think the west wing of the convention center is being used much at all these days, is it? I agree with u on one thing though, up until now, this is all conjecture...

Yes, it is a taxpayer contibution! But its a taxpayer contribution for a city-owned asset! Let me ask u a hypothetical question, if we had an earthquake in downtown L.A tomorrow that would destroy the convention center(or part of it) who do u think would have to pay for the reconsruction of it??!! We(the taxpayers) would. Hence, i look at it as upgrading(enhancing) a piece of city-owned property that sooner or later we would have to pay to upgrade anyway... Last time i checked, i dont think the west wing of the convention center is being used much at all these days, is it? I agree with u on one thing though, up until now, this is all conjecture...

The First Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles Austin Beutner said,"There will be no public $ for the stadium. AEG would privately finance the $1 billion+ cost of the new stadium, according to a copy of the proposal. The plan includes tearing down a wing of the Los Angeles Convention Center to make room for the arena and building an extension and parking facilities adjacent to the main convention center. Those improvements would be financed with as much as $350 million in municipal bonds. The estimated $25 million in annual debt service on those bonds would be paid from sources tied to the stadium, such as ticket fees, with Anschutz agreeing to make payments if revenue falls short". The two sides are currently negotiating other funding sources for the bonds, he said."The bottomline is they've guaranteed the payment of principal and interest on the bonds, not a nickel from the city", Beutner said."If the city were coming up with $350 million, it's a completely different proposition. We wouldnt do it"! The Mayor put Austin Beutner, the retired co-founder of New York-based investment bank Evercore Partners, in charge of Los Angeles's economic development efforts last year...

Can I sell you a bridge? I think you should research more on these so called revenue bonds tied to stadium construction projects. I'll bet the house that Anschutz will not agree to pay for any revenue shortfalls pertaining to the stadium and the bond debt service. The same funding mechanisms, and false promises, have been tried many times before. In the end, the taxpayers end up paying for it.

Have u researched more on these so called revenue bonds tied to stadium construction costs?? So you'll bet the house that Anschutz will not agree to pay for any revenue shortfall pertaining to the bond debt service huh?! Really??! "How do u know"??! R u privy to information the rest of us dont know about?? If so, then by all means show us! If its just a hunch or deep-rooted pessimism, i suggest u atleast wait before condemning this project until all the facts r out...

There hasn't been one documented case where an NFL stadium developer, or team owner, agreed to pay for the revenue shortfalls of a publicly owned facility. Just research what happened when Indianapolis asked the Colts owner for an additional contribution to help their stadium authority pay for revenue shortfalls.
AEG will own the stadium. That will be their fiscal obligation. I can't see Phil Anschutz ever agreeing to pay for the revenue shortfalls needed to pay for convention center's $350 million bond debt. His company pays only $1 per year in ground lease rent for the Home Depot Center at Cal State Dominguez Hills. Perhaps we should wait until something is in writing, before stating what AEG is agreeing to do.

Now theres a novel idea! Perhaps we should wait until something is in writing... By the way, theres a first time for everything, just because it hasnt happened yet doesnt mean it cant happen. Example, there had never been a project like Staples Center & L.A Live before in downtown Los Angeles, but it occured. And if I recall correctly, there was some backlash then about how bad those projects were going to be for the taxpayer, but luckily, it didnt turn out that way.

Now theres a novel idea! Perhaps we should wait until something is in writing... By the way, theres a first time for everything, just because it hasnt happened yet doesnt mean it cant happen. Example, there had never been a project like Staples Center & L.A Live before in downtown Los Angeles, but it occured. And if I recall correctly, there was some backlash then about how bad those projects were going to be for the taxpayer, but luckily, it didnt turn out that way.