billbradley3
Bill Bradley
billbradley3

It's not that they didn't need a veteran center. It's that they gave up way more than Montreal did for Vanek.

Dallas Stars fans should be psyched. Jim Nill ran the draft for YEARS in Detroit. I imagine he'll employ similar scouting standards in Dallas. Kenny Holland has lost his mind (cf. the insane Legwand trade).

It's easy to pick fight photos: The blood against the ice, broken teeth, sweaters pulled over some alcoholic Canadian's head. But was there anything better than those Avs/Wings tilts in the 90s? Scotty even got into it. Holmstrom had to hold him off the ice. (Side note: Look at all the legends in this shot: Fedorov,

I'm not ignoring it. You're missing the point. I know exactly what the DDA is and exactly where that money comes from. I just don't think that stadiums are an engine of economic development — and many studies agree — so doling out at least $12.8 million annually (for 30 years!) towards the construction of a new hockey

I talked to over a dozen people for this article — lawmakers, activists, developers — and not one person mentioned REIT. They did mention leasing at a premium rate to sports owners. And they mentioned the equity stake model, like Orlando made a brief push for. But not REIT, which sounds like a totally logical and fair

You're missing the point here. I don't disagree with you from a planning and development perspective. And I don't disagree with you from an incentive angle either—all subsidies aren't bad! But if the city is going to invest $284.5 million they should have some equity stake, no? This is the equivalent of literally

The rest of the piece explores exactly that, with a focus on the Sonics leaving Seattle. It's linked up top.

Yes, I've spent a lot of time in the Cass Corridor. There's no denying that from a strict planning standpoint, it makes sense. It'll eventually be along the M1. It can help be the bridge between Downtown, Midtown, and Brush Park. But why should taxpayers foot the bill and see ZERO in return? It's not like they're

That's a fair question. You could argue that a boost in development might increase the taxbase and, as an extension, the city's general fund. Which might then increase the DPS budget. But that's a bit too optimistic and/or Yglesias-y for my tastes.

And besides, let's say it does lead to more development and increase

And those "economic impact" numbers are always garbage anyway.

This has been the line of thinking since he bought the Wings in 82. Look what Mr. I has done for Detroit. Mr. I loves Detroit.

I think it's more what Detroit has done for Mr. I. He's a businessman. Sure, there are some jobs and ancillary investment. But all this is doing is benefitting his portfolio: The Fox Theater,

Wrigley is perfectly nice and certainly the anchor of the neighborhood. But there are only 81 home games a year and the occasional playoff series — which never goes past the NLCS anyway — plus a scattering of concerts. Is that really worth a no-strings-attached investment of taxpayer money? It's not a state park.

Besid

I got a ticket — and was arrested on a clerical error for an old summons — for running on paths in Prospect Park that are apparently closed after dark. It was 6:15 pm.

http://nextcity.org/equityfactor/e…

It's not any different. And that's the problem! Nike has its own goddamn legislation—the so-called Nike Bill—that significantly diminishes the sales tax they pay over 30 years, even though they had $25.3 billion in revenue during fiscal year 2013.

This is a HUGE problem for both prospective and current homeowners. Why invest when your tax bill doesn't reflect what you're buying? And, worse, there's really no quick fix in the short term. The city has 11 assessors for nearly 386,000 parcels—that's not cutting it.

Felton is right. This is exactly what Judge Rhodes said during his ruling last week: Selling the paintings is a quick fix, not a long term solution.

What's the difference between myoglobinuria and hematuria?

I'm with you here, Marchman.