Falcons Get Their New Stadium

[taz]

Brother the law wouldn't be there unless somebody was being racist in the past. It's not like Georgia GOP would have let such law pass without knowing there had been discrimination.

[HawkItus]

What is this based on? Just because the Falcons say the dome needs $300 million in improvements doesn't make it true. And the thought that Atlantan's who don't want to privately fund a money making scheme for the richest guy in town, is short sighted is just BS. The total lack of details on this is astounding. So the public, as one of the biggest investors in this, gets how much money back from our investment? Where is that defined in this stadium deal? I guarantee the other investors know exactly how they will get re paid. $200 million for 8 games a year. Sounds like a good investment. And lets be real. This isn't an investment by the public. Its a gift.

Did you notice that in this year-long campaign there was almost no public comment from the sole owner and benefactor of this new stadium. The city doesn't know how to negotiate and got steam rolled in this deal. Think about it. How far off the Falcons original pipe dream is the deal? They are kicking in about 10% more than their original offer.

Its taken 10 years to build a 2 mile jogging trail that is supposed to be transit, the streetcar is behind schedule and over budget and they just laid the first track last week. Marta bus service is at it's lowest point in 40 years, the rail service hasn't been expanded in over 20 years. The multimodal transit station was on the drawing board when i was a kid.

Let's just look at the practical parts of this:

1)the falcons will not be playing in the dome after the lease is up

2)the dome without a tenant will lose a million or more a year

3) the 400 million worth of repairs will need to be done regardless

4) without the Falcons we have no chance of getting a super bowl in Atlanta

5) the SEC Championship and other events will begin to abandon an aging dome

over the course of 25 years(the soonest we could attract the falcons back or get another team to atlanta) these cost will far exceed the cost of building a new stadium. Add in inflation and the actual dollar difference would be staggering.

[coachx]

No matter how you slice it its a public giveaway of money to a corporation. I understand some people are good with that because they think it will be good for the city. Maybe it will but i think its unnecessary.

Its not that I'm not excited about any of these changes. I'm on the beltline almost every week since it opened. But these projects are struggling the way many in Atlanta have because of funding problems and mis management. I attended a lot of planning meetings for the beltline in its infancy and while i'm still excited the project is much different. The concept was to connect the city with transit and trails but we won't see any transit on the beltline for at least another 10-15 years, according to their own plan, and whether it comes at all is suspect. In the meantime other cities have managed to design, build and complete light rail in the same time period.

I just find it frustrating that a deal like this can get such swift priority and large amounts of money when so many others that would actually impact the lives of Atlantans much more than a new football stadium languish for years.

It went from 40% government funding to 20% funding overnight.

Reed and the Atlanta City Council cannot afford to let a new stadium be built outside of downtown. The spots and event industry is all Downtown has going for it. Their venues have to keep up with the Jones.

[Bahamut]

Another step towards having the new stadium built on the south site (Northside and MLK):

http://www.11alive.com/rss/article/281786/3/Church-may-give-way-to-new-stadium

[EazyRoc]

Only 20% of the project is funded by government money. 680 AM is reporting the construction part of the job only define minorities as African Americans...........No Dominican Americans, Asians Americans, Jamaican Americans, Latino Americans, etc. On the other hand the design project is open to all minorties. In Atlanta 33% of businesses are owned by whites and 31% are owned by Blacks. There is no disparity issue in Atlanta based on race and owning a business. Jobs should be awarded to the best company.......not to the company with an owner who's skin happens to be a certain color.

Without getting too political, I agree partly with what you're saying.I think it should be open to all minorities. I see why they implement the plan though. Listen, if a white guy is the decision maker and you have 3 equally qualified businesses to choose from, he's probably going to pick the one who's the most like him culturally. Not a racist thing, because other races do the same thing. Look at churches. I would feel more comfortable attending a predominantly black church because the experience would be what I'm used to. So there has to be a counter so that minorities can have a chance. I just don't agree it shoud be limited to black people. Edited March 9, 2013 by EazyRoc

[AHF]

Without getting too political, I agree partly with what you're saying.I think it should be open to all minorities. I see why they implement the plan though. Listen, if a white guy is the decision maker and you have 3 equally qualified businesses to choose from, he's probably going to pick the one who's the most like him culturally. Not a racist thing, because other races do the same thing. Look at churches. I would feel more comfortable attending a predominantly black church because the experience would be what I'm used to. So there has to be a counter so that minorities can have a chance. I just don't agree it shoud be limited to black people.

Here is the simple rule:

Lowest qualified bidder wins. Base it on economics - not politics.

If all 3 offers are equally qualified, then tell them that the offer that goes down lowest from there gets the business and leverage them against each other.

Edited March 9, 2013 by AHF

[HawkItus]

Posted: 9:03 a.m. Thursday, March 7, 2013

Your daily jolt: A new Falcons stadium wins a quiet Capitol victory

[*]

comment(18)

[*]9 56 101 322

Previous Posts

[*]Georgia Senate positioning in House "CR" vote
March 6, 2013 [*]Saxby Chambliss to dine with Obama
March 6, 2013 [*]Brian Kemp condemns new dentistry-pharmacy board as expansion of government
March 6, 2013

By Jim Galloway

On Tuesday, two anti-labor bills sponsored by state Rep. Edward Lindsey, R-Atlanta, arrived in the state Senate and were assigned to committees by Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle.

H.B. 361 took the expected, friendly route and was sent to the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, chaired by Tim Golden, R-Valdosta.

H.B. 362 was delivered unto the hands of the Senate Urban Affairs Committee, chaired by Ron Ramsey, D-Decatur. It is stacked with nine other Democrats – and no Republicans. The bill will never see the light of day.

Many were puzzled. “You will have to ask my good friend, the lieutenant governor, as to his reasons. I was not consulted on this move, but look forward to hearing his reason for assigning the strongest right-to-work legislation in a generation to this committee,” Lindsey told my AJC colleague Aaron Gould Sheinin.

Cagle’s people have remained mum on the topic.

But a reading of H.B. 362 tells you that, whatever his motive, the lieutenant governor just took a bullet for a new $1 billion Falcons stadium – negotiations over which are very close to completion.

Here’s the relevant text from the deep-sixed bill:

[N]0 state agency, authority, department, commission, board, or similar entity that contracts for public works construction [i.e., Georgia World Congress Center Authority] shall, in its bid documents, specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents for a public works construction contract: Require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, subcontractors, or material suppliers to enter into or adhere to prehire agreements, project labor agreements, collective bargaining agreements, or any other agreement with one or more labor organizations on the same or other related construction projects…

When negotiations over the new stadium shifted from the Legislature to Atlanta City Hall, the dynamics changed drastically. Ideological worries over taxpayer-built athletic venues disappeared. Concern over community impact of the new construction ballooned.

The deal that Mayor Kasim Reed will ultimately present to the City Council is likely to contain a great many guarantees to the surrounding community – for minority hiring, job training offers to local residents, and so on.

All would be contractually unenforceable under H.B. 362, said Charlie Flemming, president of the Georgia AFL-CIO.

“If we’re going to do these public projects, I think we should do them with a high-road strategy, where everybody benefits – because Arthur Blank is certainly going to benefit. The city’s going to benefit. Why not allow the community to benefit? Let’s help those folks that live in the community,” Flemming said.

One likely feature of a stadium deal is likely to be apprentice programs for local residents. “Get them into that program so that at the end of that project, they’ll end up not only getting the skills, but they’ll be on the road to having a skill that they’ll be able to take anywhere in the country,” Flemming said.

[coachx]

Here is the simple rule:

Lowest qualified bidder wins. Base it on economics - not politics.

If all 3 offers are equally qualified, then tell them that the offer that goes down lowest from there gets the business and leverage them against each other.

That is a good rule for a landscape project, painting project, or something basic and simple........but not for something as complex as a retractable roof stadium.

Its never that simple. There are other things that are very important:

1. Company history and expierence. Do all 3 companies have expierence building or designing retractable roof stadiums ? It would be a risk trusting a company to build or design their 1st one ever.

2. Quality of insurance: coverage limits, additional insured endorsements, waiver of subrogations, insurance carriers financial strength and their history handling claims.

3. Quality of their bonding company on their bid bond and performance bond.

4. Past claims history and construction defect issues of the builder.

5. Are they E Verified ?

6. Will they use Georgians or workers from other states ?

7. Are they a domestic or international company ?

8. Financial strength of the construction or achitect company.

9. Relationship between architect and builder.......its best if they have worked together before.

10. and now we have to throw in a skin color quota ? Give me a break !

I insure construction companies for a living and do their bid / performance bonds. I know how messy construction defect claims get when something goes wrong. I've seen what happens when a bond company gets involved b/c the builder cannot meet the contract and either dissapears or runs out of funds to finish the job. Most of the construction defect insurance claims don't show up for years after the building is built. If you follow this simplistic rule of "lowest bidder wins" then you often times end up with issues that may cost you more time, money, deadline delays, and legal issues down the road. The cheapest bid is normally the cheapest for a reason. Many cities, municipalities, and business throw out the cheapest bids for good reason.

Furthermore.......the roof is an area where claims are frequent. Its the highest priced commercial insurance in the construction industry for a reason. When dealing with a retractable roof you should be very diligent in who you pay to do the job and be weary of going for the lowest bidder without checking them out with a fine tooth comb.

Edited March 14, 2013 by coachx

[AHF]

That is a good rule for a landscape project, painting project, or something basic and simple........but not for something as complex as a retractable roof stadium.

Its never that simple. There are other things that are very important:

1. Company history and expierence. Do all 3 companies have expierence building or designing retractable roof stadiums ? It would be a risk trusting a company to build or design their 1st one ever.

2. Quality of insurance: coverage limits, additional insured endorsements, waiver of subrogations, insurance carriers financial strength and their history handling claims.

3. Quality of their bonding company on their bid bond and performance bond.

4. Past claims history and construction defect issues of the builder.

5. Are they E Verified ?

6. Will they use Georgians or workers from other states ?

7. Are they a domestic or international company ?

8. Financial strength of the construction or achitect company.

9. Relationship between architect and builder.......its best if they have worked together before.

10. and now we have to throw in a skin color quota ? Give me a break !

I insure construction companies for a living and do their bid / performance bonds. I know how messy construction defect claims get when something goes wrong. I've seen what happens when a bond company gets involved b/c the builder cannot meet the contract and either dissapears or runs out of funds to finish the job. Most of the construction defect insurance claims don't show up for years after the building is built. If you follow this simplistic rule of "lowest bidder wins" then you often times end up with issues that may cost you more time, money, deadline delays, and legal issues down the road. The cheapest bid is normally the cheapest for a reason. Many cities, municipalities, and business throw out the cheapest bids for good reason.

Furthermore.......the roof is an area where claims are frequent. Its the highest priced commercial insurance in the construction industry for a reason. When dealing with a retractable roof you should be very diligent in who you pay to do the job and be weary of going for the lowest bidder without checking them out with a fine tooth comb.

This is all right since the value of services are not an interchangeable commodity. Still, talking about best value for lowest cost should be the discussion and that has nothing to do with race.

[macdaddy]

http://www.prod.myajc.com/news/news/tax-money-in-stadium-plan-goes-beyond-construction/nWrLw/

Week one of the stadium 'deal'.