Gothamist: West SIde Stadium Vote Delayed, Ensuring That This Will Go On FOREVER

S.D.

Sun, 22 May 2005 13:02:02 -0500

Be careful, your answer may ultimately reveal your true colors - the elitism you try to hide, (snip) Well, I'm a lifetime NY'er too from Queens. Am I an "Elitist" because I don't want Corporate Welfare *and* More Screwed up traffic on the Upper West Side? So, following your comment, if I don't want Corporate Welfare Stadium There, does that mean I'm a Cablevision stooge? And if I don't express my opinion in Juuuust the right way, I'm an elitist Snob? Oddly enough, I think supporting the performing arts, museums, parks, zoos, etc. is better endeavor than putting up a Stadium with public funds in a rigged bidding process where they take the lowest Bid. (And the MTA needs Money?!?) Do you imagine that the Performing Art's cost as much as this boondoggle? Know anyone that works for Shea or Yankee Staduium? It's seasonal work, hardly the Jobs that Proponents indicate will be created.

Mystr

Thu, 19 May 2005 16:03:02 -0500

The Jets have just signed a backup-plan lease with NJSEA (with an escape clause should the NYSCC be approved). The import of this is as a repudiation of the Flushing option; if the NYSCC does not get built, the Jets have a place to play for at least another decade, and *will not* look to Queens as an alternative site for a stadium. I am a lifetime NYC resident and a supporter of the NYSCC, which probably puts me in the minority around here on both counts. Should the stadium be blocked, I look fondly towards the inevitable backing-away of Cablevision and all the other bidders, and the perpetual existence of a large hole in the ground for future generations to scoff at. I wonder how the anti-stadium posters on this board feel about the use of city and state funds for the performing arts, museums, parks, zoos, etc., mostly to the benefit of Manhattanites. Why are sports not as deserving of public financial support. Be careful, your answer may ultimately reveal your true colors - the elitism you try to hide, and what you really think of your mostly outer-boro brethren, those "B&T rubes" who are nevertheless (and unfortunately, from your POV) NYC residents and taxpayers. As a native NYer, I thought I was beyond surprise at anything that might happen here. The bizarro, Britney/Kevin-esque marriage of Cablevision and anti-stadium activists has changed that for me. *What are you people thinking?* I understand that many of you "don't watch television" and "don't follow sports", but seriously? Cablevision is one of the most f*cked up companies around. The two main shareholders and father and son, and they can't stand one another! They just dropped a satellite television business (VOOM) in which they lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Cablevision has been bleeding money for years, and manages to lose 120MM per quarter in a hot sector that is making other cable companies rich. Do you honestly believe that Cablevision will honor its committments and build on the railyard site if the Jets bow out? If so, I got a bridge to sell youze...

hijiki

Thu, 19 May 2005 06:13:05 -0500

not upset, matttt, just pointing out your gleaming ignorance, xenophobia and lack of logic. keep up the good work, champ.

S.D.

Wed, 18 May 2005 20:25:19 -0500

"Torture", how you must love your total anonymity. If I had to hazard a guess, Above is your reaction to most people who don't want what you want... It seems all these anti-development and anti-gentification kids are all rich Ivy League / Midwest kids who want to rebel against the beautiful, luxurious neighborhoods and lives their parents provided them with. That's Me! A "rich Ivy League / Midwest kid"! Um, no. Riddle Me this: I'm not an Ivy Leaguer, Make a fair living (Certainly NOT rich), Born in NYC, and Yet I don't want a Stadium in Manhattan. So, Which Odd Stereotype do I fit in?? I remember as a New Jersey kid in the early 90s we used to play games of how many homeless people and prostitutes we could see in Manhattan. and watching Dinkins get his colon reamed on live TV. Does anybody really want to see any of those things again? You're making a big Assumption. Apparently, you think a Stadium will *NOT* have Homeless people and Prostitutes . Hmmf. Ever been within 5 blocks Shea or Yankee stadium at night? If the City Administration Really wanted to, they could sweep up Street prostitution. Of course, then it would go into Hiding and still be there... "and watching Dinkins get his colon reamed on live TV."?? Ok, I give up, Where on earth did that Come from? Tien, I don't think it's worth it. Look up Stadium profitability study on google. Lots to read on either side. Me: I just think it's a Bad idea to put a Stadium in Manhattan. Between Traffic, Corporate Welfare (Would the Jets be locked in for 30-40 years or like the Yankees, threaten to move Unless they get Their Precious Tax Breaks??), Limited Minimum Seasonal Work for Stadium Workers, I think it's just Not worth it.

Tim N.

Wed, 18 May 2005 20:10:22 -0500

The stadium is bullshit. The derelicts will always be with us. Mr. Mayor, take care of Ground Zero first. Then maybe even a yellow-dog Democrat from the Bronx like me might vote for you.

Mattttt

Wed, 18 May 2005 20:00:58 -0500

Nah, it's all true hijiki. If you want to doubt it, you should probably find something better to do than get upset over what random people post on an internet weblog (aka "blog").

hijiki

Wed, 18 May 2005 17:40:24 -0500

i work overlooking the rail yards. i can assure you that this area is not filled with squatters or derelict businesses. my building alone houses hundreds of thriving businesses. aside from dozens of galleries, there's not a lot of street-level retail beyond 10th ave, but that is not a sign of decay by any means. again with the midwestern stereotypes? let's see, mattt's argument is uninformed speculation, personal anecdotes, and silly stereotypes. how convincing.

Kojak

Wed, 18 May 2005 17:23:57 -0500

Hmm visitors yes, but do we really want to attract more Jets fans? ugh. Plus the stadium design looks ugly. Freedom Tower, West Side Stadium . . . Can't we design something that looks good for a change? Like what the Bank of China building did for Hong Kong.

tien

Wed, 18 May 2005 17:13:47 -0500

even if they build housing, i'm sure it would be expensive. while the events don't enrich the quality of the metropolis, in your opinion, they would bring visitors, no?

K

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:38:13 -0500

Why do we need such a huge stadium IN the City? So you're saying THIS is the best use for the land, rather than much needed housing (to cite one example). Besides, a structure of that nature basically sits idle the majority of the time so I really don't see it "making sense". Do we need a Super Bowl IN the City? Do we need a Final Four IN the City? Not in my opinion; these events do very little to enrich the quality of the metropolis.

toyochin

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:28:13 -0500

K, As much as I hate taxpayer-subsidized stadiums and I realize that hosting the Olympics are a guaranteed money loser, the stadium kinda makes sense. See, it's stadium-slash-convention center. The stadium will be able to host conventions that were too big for MSG or Javits. Plus, you get the occasional Super Bowls and Final Fours that can't be hosted anywhere else in the city (and before you say it, no, MSG is not an adequate sized venue for a Final Four). Now whether the convention and sport event revenues justify the discount the Jets are getting, that's another story. But the stadium/convention center itself is not the villain.

Rose

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:22:17 -0500

All this bickering will end when they put so much stuff on this island that it sinks into the water.

K

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:07:05 -0500

And the Olympics aren't about making $? Enjoy your space in Hoboken and let us keep ours. And please tell me how a stadium is a "business" for the City. Besides, there's MSG down the street and the Meadowlands in your neck of the woods. NO NEED FOR THIS MONTROSITY; other than to feed Bloomberg's olympic-sized agenda. If you were at least partly intelligent, you'd realize that the alternative is a plan for the area; just not a stadium.

Mattt

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:06:02 -0500

It seems all these anti-development and anti-gentification kids are all rich Ivy League / Midwest kids who want to rebel against the beautiful, luxurious neighborhoods and lives their parents provided them with. I remember as a New Jersey kid in the early 90s we used to play games of how many homeless people and prostitutes we could see in Manhattan. and watching Dinkins get his colon reamed on live TV. Does anybody really want to see any of those things again?

Mattt

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:04:49 -0500

torture

Wed, 18 May 2005 15:41:54 -0500

congratulations to all the neo-douchebags that are anti-stadium. now you can have the surrounding area preserved for squatters and derelict businesses for eons to come. yeah I guess you're all right - the olympics would be a terrible thing for nyc. let's not forget to keep supporting the dolan family and that pillar of corporate responsibility, cablevision. well done, bravo. idiots!

Kojak

Wed, 18 May 2005 14:54:47 -0500

Ahh I don't care if they build it or not now. I just hope they don't evict the many XXX and strip joints close by when its built.

K

Wed, 18 May 2005 14:47:22 -0500

This is GREAT news!