MONDAY ON NBC, it's an all new two hour return of the American Gladiators with new Gladiators and new events. Then on ten at ten, imagine going through an expensive medical treatment and having the money from a fundraiser just disappear. Could this happen to you? Mike McKnight investigates what questions you should ask before handing your money over to someone who promises a surefire investment. "Show Me My Money", Monday at ten only on 6 News.
The Weather Authority
Currents
Doppler Radar
7-Day
Find a Local Business with Local Lookup
 
WOWT.com on Demand
  • 6 On Your Cell
  • RSS Feeds
  • Desktop Alert
  • Text Alerts
  • Daily E-News
  • What’s on 6
  • MarketPlace
  • Restaurants
  • Auto Map
  • Business Connections
  • Financial Advice
  • Legal Advice
  • New Home Listings
  • Your Home, Your Investment
  • Entertainment
  • Recipes
  • Education
  • Jobs
  • The Wedding Planner
  • Martha's Tip of the Day
  • Advertise With WOWT
  • Chamber Of Commerce Backs Stadium Plan Save Email Print
    Cites ConAgra campus and Qwest Center as similar investments
    Posted: 6:11 PM Mar 26, 2008
    Last Updated: 8:39 PM Mar 26, 2008
    Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

    A | A | A

    In a state and city known for high taxes, some question why we should spend millions on a new baseball stadium. The Omaha Chamber of Commerce says the project would benefit the economy and add to the tax base.

    The downtown stadium project would cost about $140 million. Around $60 million of that would come from public money like a hotel tax and rental car tax.

    So why not just take that money and instead of a stadium, put it toward our taxes or something else? Supporters of the project say you have to spend money to make money.

    While shopping at Village Pointe, the downtown stadium is probably not on many minds, but spending is.

    "It's awfully expensive to build a new stadium, you know Rosenblatt seems to meet the needs," says Patty Shaw of Omaha.

    Angela Krieger of Omaha sees the new stadium as a hit for Omaha's future. "I think it's an obligation that we take on and I think after a public discussion of its merits that as a community we should be willing to take on a certain burden of investment in our future and that's how I look on it."

    David Brown with the Omaha Chamber of Commerce agrees, saying a development like the stadium keeps Omaha thriving. "It enhances our economy, it gives us better jobs, it attracts more people and as you attract more people you've got to have jobs for those people too, so we're continuing this great circle of reinvestment in the community."

    Brown says just look around Omaha for proof it works. The ConAgra campus revitalized a rundown area, there's the riverfront developments and then there's the Qwest Center.

    "There is a genuine benefit to the public of seeing redevelopment happen and more taxes generated in these redeveloped areas."

    Taxes which Brown says benefits us all into the future. "This is all about growth, if you continue growing your community, ultimately you're going to have less impact on your pocketbook because there's going to be more people and more businesses that can pay for the services we all want here."

    There were other questions surrounding the stadium issue on Tuesday. MECA, the board which manages the Qwest Center, had issues with the city over a list of requirements that needed to be met to allow the city to build the stadium on Qwest Center parking lots C and E.

    The mayor's spokesperson tells Channel 6 News they received an updated list from MECA Wednesday afternoon and they hope to comment on it Thursday.

    Email  del.icio.us   Google   Yahoo  digg
    More Stories
    Shooting Investigation

    Kristin's Crash Course in Mobile Threats

    Teens Need to Get the Text Message

    Case Underscores ID Theft Threat

    The Pool Haul

    Pooling Resources

    Coming Home

    Platte Funding Approved

    Post Your Comments
    First Name:
    Location:
    Enter Comments: characters left
    Email (optional):
    Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
    Read Comments
    Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
    Posted by: Alternative to Tim on Mar 31, 2008 at 04:20 PM
    I wish that Tim M's simplistic views could be true! he admonishes us all to "find a candidate that you can be excited about and be a part of that campaign". It should be that simple! I voted for the lesser of the evils, but Fahey was elected instead. Tim M also feels justified in slandering Sout'O as "not the prettiest of neighborhoods". It's unfortunate that his definition of "pretty" doesn't leave any room for the true beauty of tradition. I am certainly grateful for historic landmark preservationist efforts around our great country, who have kept the likes of Tim M from destroying every landmark that some folks might not consider "pretty". I fully intend to vote "anybody but Fahey" in next years election, but I also consider the cost of a recall election to be money VERY WELL SPENT to avoid another year of Fahey blunders before we can finally oust someone who consistently fails to truly represent his constituents.

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08 PM
    Oh...So no we're saying that it doesn't happen? That all those cars you see parked on the lawns of South O during the College World Series...That's just happening out of the goodness of homeowners hearts? Nobody is making a dime out of that? If you really believe that...Well, then all I can say is bless your heart. And if you think being in favor of something means that makes one biased. Then yes, I am biased about a brand new stadium downtown. And I agree with you, it is a "VISIONARY PLAN". Mike Fahey has a great visionary plan. Building a stadium downtown, getting it out of South Omaha, planning for the future of the city, letting the zoo expand. Its a great idea. And you say "NO PUBLIC SUPPORT". Um, I think the fact that I'm typing this means he has some public support. So you really need to stop lecturing about coercion and lies until you stop making untrue statements, no?

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM
    You see. This is the problem. You say they are lies. And the thousands of people who don't fall in line and agree that they are lines...Well, all these people have somehow been brainwashed and tricked by the mayor's elaborate deception. This great evil plan of Mike Fahey's where he puts his entire political future on the line in the hopes of building a baseball stadium downtown because it will be close to a bar that he happens to be a part owner of. You see, I just don't think our mayor is that desperate and MONEY & PROFIT (as you say in big capital letters). If his plan was to make himself filthy rich from being mayor, I would think he would take a less obvious track then building a controversial baseball stadium. Bottom line for me: I hate going to Rosenblatt in South O for the World Series. Its not the prettiest of neighborhoods. You're either parking on a dirt hill, in somebody's front lawn or on some side street and walking two miles. Rosenblatt ain't worth saving.

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 31, 2008 at 11:36 AM
    Oh, anonymous, now you're being silly. What makes me so unsavvy in politics? The part where I think its unrealistic to hold election after election until we get a decent turnout? Or the part where I don't jump in and say let's just all vote "none of the above" as if this were a Richard Pryor movie? I guess it is more politically savvy to sit and gripe about how nobody exciting is running for office, instead of getting involved, finding a candidate that you can be excited about and being a part of that campaign, or even deciding to run for office yourself if you feel nobody worthwhile is willing to do it. I mean, I always knew griping and moaning on a message board was easy...But now its even politically savvy! Who knew?!

    Posted by: Josh Location: Omaha on Mar 31, 2008 at 10:25 AM
    Did anyone read two seperate articles in last week's USA Today? The first was related to Wriggley Field and how the Mayor of Chicago is opposed to replacing it because it is a LANDMARK of the city. The second was an article related to numerous city around the country who are also considering replacing staduims and how they are relucant to do spend the money because as expert explained the city would never recoup their investmet because tax supported staduims are loss leaders for the communities. He went on to say especially in times or recessions is the wrong time to build staduims, the money used for staduims should be put into repairing the city infrastructure. Does this sound familiar? As for our Mayor's claim of not having our taxes rise under his watch, the is a simple explanation our home evaluations have gone up but that will not be the case this year and maybe for a couple of years. The clouds of tax increases are coming.

    Posted by: To Tim M Location: Omaha on Mar 31, 2008 at 09:06 AM
    A lot of ordinary South Omaha folks making $20 per car on parking, yeh, I am going to tell you, your so full of it! Straight up to your eyeballs! And I love how you make a a rhetoric statement as a ARGUEMENT point as well. If you were making $20 a day selling lemonade and all of a sudden your street closed down, would you miss the $20? Sure, you would, what a DUH!. And what question did you ask? About folks like you being inbiased? If you even knew what that word meant, you would know that your ARE biased, just like I am. And your argument that the Chamber supports all those businesses, please! With what, tax deductible charitable donations? The taxpayer should get off so easy! Your WHOLE argument is that the stadium should go downtown with NO PUBLIC SUPPORT, NO FINANCIAL BACKING (Creighton and Royals have to sign those pesky contracts) and presently no place to put it. Sounds like a VISIONARY PLAN by a man who can only influence opinion with coercion and lies, doesn't it?

    Posted by: To Tim M Location: Omaha on Mar 31, 2008 at 08:44 AM
    The ordinary taxpayers who want this stadium obviously believe the lies told to them about financing and economic growth. The fieldofschemes.com is a very interesting website about what the mayor & co. are trying to do to this community. We will lose money, there is no doubt of this. The problem is Fahey & Co. which the chamber of commerce was a part of do not care that the economy is at a critical point in this city. We cannot do this at THIS TIME. Maybe all those in favor should pay for this stadium with their stimulus checks from the FED. I do not believe that FAHEY ever thought the common taxpayer important enough to ever keep the PROMISES he made to them...This is and has always been about MONEY & PROFIT for a few. I also believe FAHEY absolutely would like to DESTROY the SUCCESS of the QWEST. LASTLY what about the risk of flooding & soil contamination. Omaha TAXPAYERS would be liable for any of the VULNERABLE population were to get sick or die. Mayor should protect all!!!

    Posted by: john Location: omaha on Mar 31, 2008 at 06:39 AM
    I'm sure the extra 25 cents on your bill will make you stay home . NOT!!! give me a break every ding dong and their brother will still continue to go out and spend

    Posted by: Anonymous on Mar 31, 2008 at 06:36 AM
    I'm sorry tim its obvious your not politically savy. The system mike is talking about would be refered to as Roberts Rules of Order, and I agree with mike 100%.

    Posted by: bill Location: omaha on Mar 31, 2008 at 06:32 AM
    To puzzeled- The Chamber of Commerce has nothing to do with the citizens of omaha. It deals with business, and bringing it into the area. So they do not care what you or your neighbors think. They are out to listen to the needs and wants of the business community. Hence the name Chamber of Commerce.

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 30, 2008 at 03:44 PM
    By the way, I agree that the Chamber of Commerce should be paying part of the bill to build a new stadium. I mean, afterall, the Chamber of Commerce had to help pay for the Qwest Center, the Omaha Zoo, Rosenblatt Stadium and every other venture that brings money into the city of Omaha. What? You mean they didn't have to pay for all that other stuff? Well, nevermind then.

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 30, 2008 at 03:35 PM
    Thank you for totally proving my point. Instead of answering my question about explaining away the ordinary taxpaying Omahans who favor the new stadium, you go on some long-winded rant about the fine South Omaha folks charging $20 for somebody to park on their lawn. Are you trying to tell me that it doesn't happen? And are you trying to tell me these people wouldn't miss that extra income if the College World Series moves downtown? Because you'd be lying.

    Posted by: Mike Location: Omaha on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM
    Nope, ain't suggesting any such thing but something needs to be done to improve the QUALITY of the candidates, which would in turn bring out the voters. Remember how many folks showed up to see Obama at the Civic? Don't even like the man, myself BUT he did bring in an enthusiastic crowd, didn't he? Exciting candidates who share the belief of the people and can promote HEALTHY debate in their community for the GOOD of the city are what is needed not the same cookie-cutter we've been using to decide which candidate isn't the worst for the City to deal with during election time. We need real visionaries who can excite and move the people not have to lie or coerce anyone to get their way. Sadly, that hasn't happened around here for quite some time. And that needs to change.

    Posted by: To Tim M Location: Omaha on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:44 AM
    Again with the lawn jokes... The DPNA made more money than any taxpayer per car on grass... Outdated info or you just like slamming that old line into the ground? Everyone from here to Indianapolis knows you're spewing mis-information and taking another swipe at dividing the Omaha community even further by insulting the fine South Omaha folks who have gone out of their way to accommodate the inconvenient changes to their schedules for the yearly influx of visitors to their neighborhoods. DPNA volunteers go around and pick up garbage after each event without your kind help. Most of the South Omaha residents are proud of their particiapation but you like using derogatory remarks highlighting the possible greed of a few in order to influence public opinion, eh? It's truely an indication of the desperate nature of your weak arguments. Try something ORIGINAL like explaining why the Chamber isn't even paying their fair share if they believe that hype they presented to the public?

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 29, 2008 at 11:49 PM
    Wait a minute, Mike. This isn't making any sense. Please tell me you are kidding. If we get 30% turnout at an election. That election doesn't count and we should try again? We're just going to hold election after election until we get a big huge turnout? All those elections will be nice and cheap. What do we do in the meantime? Make the elected officials to stay in office longer until we get an election with a higher turnout? That could takes months...Or years! Ha, actually that could lead to the beloved Ernie Chambers being in office forever...All his supporters would have to do is refuse to vote and there would never be a turnout high enough to elect his replacement. You still in favor of your plan?

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 29, 2008 at 09:08 PM
    LOL. No, I don't work for the chamber of commerce and I am not trying to "morf" anything. I dont remember saying that I thought the Chamber of Commerce was unbiased. Of course they are biased, if they think they are going to make money, then they would be foolish to keep quiet and just pray that the deal goes through. But since we talking about unanswered questions...Nobody answered this one: What bias do I and other people supporting the stadium possibly have? We have no financial bias. We don't have front lawns in downtown Omaha that we can charge people $30 to park on. So you can explain away all the financial bigshots who support the stadium. But you can't explain away the thousands of ordinary taxpaying Omahans who favor the stadium.

    Posted by: Mike Location: Omaha on Mar 29, 2008 at 08:20 PM
    Tim M - It was called 'lack of viable candidates'. Neither one was worth voting for in the last election so we didn't. Don't give me the 'Well then you should have voted for the most qualified or whoever would have not hurt the city as much as the other' argument either. You're not blaming me for their character flaws because they did get into office. The recall just proves our point how bad the current political infrastructure is. There should be another option on the election ballets called NONE OF THE ABOVE and if NONE OF THE ABOVE wins then the election has to be held over with two different candidates. Or if the total number of voter turnout is below 30%, than another election is warranted due to lack of public interest. The current two party system is failing to produce viable candidates and I agree with Senator Hagel, it might be time to introduce a new party. It is definitely time for candidates who have the best interests of the voter and not personal agendas in mind.

    Posted by: To TIm@1:33PM Location: Omaha on Mar 29, 2008 at 05:57 PM
    Hmm.. It seems that when the tide of debate isn't going your way, you tend to change the subject. The original topic was that the Chamber isn't unbiased (Yeh, with members of the STADIUM COMMITTEE serving on the board)and I added that in order for them to be considered unbiased, they should be paying some the expense, being that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose in this endeavor. You morf it into something entirely different by insinuating that I want to change the fairness of all taxes per citizen, what possible connection do the two have in common? I'm talking about restructuring the debt so that the C.o.C. assumes the majority (not all) of the public burden for the mayor's pet project and you don't want to pay any school tax, where is point/counter-point there? No logic is apparent unless you happen to belong to the Chamber...

    Posted by: Tim M on Mar 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
    So what if the voter turnout was the lowest in 30 years? The only people you can blame for that are the people who didn't vote. Besides, that's like saying, "Well people didn't care enough to vote in the regular election. But once they realize they might be somehow impacted, we should go ahead and hold another special election to give those people another chance"

    Posted by: TLR Location: Omaha on Mar 29, 2008 at 10:49 AM
    The mayor wants this to become a town of the rich period. All the poor to leave. thats his way of thinking.

    Posted by: Lori Location: omaha on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46 PM
    Fahey may have been reelected a few years ago, but it was the lowest voter turnout in 30 years. The TRUTH of the matter is, Fahey would have been defeated in the last election if the state GOP had stood behind Dave Friend like they promised. Instead, there were three months' worth of slick, Hollywood style ads for Fahey, and Friend had to wait until two days before the election to run his sorry, produced-in-the-basement ads. This was AFTER the state GOP promised Friend all kinds of support. There was NONE. The state GOP has been totally mum on this recall effort, so no one better try to pin this on the Republicans. I know quite a few DEMOCRATS who want to recall Fahey. What I would LIKE to know, is that back in October, I asked the Douglas County Election commissioner what it would take to recall Fahey and I was told an affadavit and 12,487 signatures on a petition. Why now, when the recall is in full swing, do they need DOUBLE that amount? That is a GOOD QUESTION.

    Posted by: To Ben Location: Omaha on Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34 PM
    You stated "Mayor Fahey is the greatest Mayor this city has had. If you dont like the way he governs ...leave!" No thanks, but thank you for your genuine concern. I think I'll stick around a while and vote against Fahey in the next election (be it a recall election this year or a general election next year). If you can't stand the idea of our elected officials being held accountable for their actions, then maybe you should leave.

    Posted by: RM Location: Omaha on Mar 28, 2008 at 02:23 PM
    In response to Ben at some point high taxes prouably will force me to leave to retire in a more tax friendly area we will be paying for the Qwest center because it will not generate enough on its own plus the new ball park.

    Posted by: Tim on Mar 28, 2008 at 01:33 PM
    Okay fine. We'll go along with your way of thinking. The business should have to pay all the taxes for the new stadium since they will get all the benefit from it. And citizens who have no intention of using the new stadium should be exempt from taxes. I'll go along with that...provided the same thing can be done for every other tax. Since I have no children, I shouldn't have to pay the portion of my taxes that goes to fund education. Or anything dealing with funding for playgrounds, after school programs and the like. Yeah, we'll make it so people only have to pay taxes on services that they will directly benefit from. We'll see how well that goes over.

    Posted by: To Tim Location: Omaha on Mar 28, 2008 at 11:25 AM
    Quit it, dude! I can't stop laughing! You claim that the Chamber is doing their fair share to pay for this by passing proposed restaurant & service taxes directly on to the consumer! And at what possible risk to the C.o.C. members? Compared to the lowly taxpayer, who is truthfully risking the most in this endeavor (because they get double whammied by the property tax increase and the new restaurant/service taxes), the Chamber has none and as such can't be deemed as anything but biased in their opinion. Is Kiewit going to be impacted by any of this? Nope, but they stand to make a lot of money, so why shouldn't they chip in? Same with HDR, our mayor's personal business guru's, they aren't being impacted by the same taxes, they should have to contribute as well. CWS of Omaha, INC should chip in just because of Mr. Diesing's bias and dishonesty. If this was truely a community project, the taxpayers wouldn't be left holding the bag while everyone else benefits at their expense.

    Posted by: Mickey Location: Midtown on Mar 28, 2008 at 11:04 AM
    Yes, they are correct, you have to spend money to make money. But the truth is we (as in the lowly taxpayer) have to spend OUR money so they (Chamber of Commerce and local businesses) can make their money. No where does the average taxpayer see a DIME of this revenue benefit them. It isn't driving down our taxes, improving city services or helping to fund $50 dollars a month in federally mandated sewer upgrades. The city only gets $3 million a year for the CWS and the mayor's visionary plan will raise taxes when $2.5 Million in Keno revenues is diverted from the county. How can we have all this debt after increasing our tax base by stomping Elkhorn out of existance and having our home values estimated absurdly high (current homes sell for about 20-30% below assessment values, if sold at all and homeowners are eating the losses). The businesses that will benefit the most (IE. Kiewit, HDR, CWS of Omaha, INC, etc) from this venture should be responsible for paying for most of it.

    Posted by: Puzzled Location: Omaha on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:10 AM
    When I called the Omaha Chamber of Commerce I was told comments against their plan are only accepted at the stadium website. Interesting thing about the stadium websites is negative comments are not accepted there as well. This has all been FAHEY's & CO. way of silencing the voter, not allowing us a vote. My question to the Chamber of Commerce is why do you not care about the people who are depended on to pay this bill? Do they own property there as well? I personnally will be watching to see who all of these SECRET donors would have been, because they are responsible for this mess as well. I find that it is time for the ROYALS to go, we voted NO to a new stadium to help them win a game, Creighton's attitude that I have read on the web made me find a doctor elsewhere, I personnally do not want to be treated according to my address and net worth. Fahey is an alumni of Creighton. This has been about egoes and naming rights. This FAHEY FOLLY has divided this city and IT MUST STOP NOW!!!

    Posted by: Tim on Mar 28, 2008 at 02:00 AM
    But when you think about it, the Chamber of Commerce *is* going to have to put some money into it...If they add the new taxes on restaurants and so forth, many businesses in the Chamber of Commerce will be impacted by that tax. Granted, they don't have the pay the tax themselves...But their customers will and that extra tax might just make people decide to stay home instead of eating out sometimes. Then you have financial impact to the businesses. And yet they are supporting the stadium despite that risk.

    Posted by: Kent on Mar 27, 2008 at 11:22 PM
    Tim, why would I say you're unbiased? You stated your bias very clearly.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2008 at 11:20 PM
    Ben, there are many more people in this city than the mayor. If you don't like the way we handle the mayor, leave.

    Posted by: Bill Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 09:20 PM
    I think Ben should leave with Fahey.

    Posted by: M on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:50 PM
    To Ben: What right do you have to post a comment telling people to leave? Those who oppose the stadium could also tell you to leave and go somewhere with all the bells and whistles you want

    Posted by: To Tim Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 06:59 PM
    Nope, now your conversing just like me, just sitting on the other side of the proverbial fence. You say Yah and I say Nay. We were discussing the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement if I recall correctly and that is most definitely a biased bunch in this deal. If you want the stadium, go to the Chamber and ask them to put up $40 Million of the public portion, think that'll fly? Like I said, if it's coming out of their pocket, do you think they would be all for this? Past track record indicates a clear and resounding NO or they would have VOLUNTEERED to help Fahey out of this mess before it got ugly. They don't mind making the $$$ off the NO-DO area development so they shouldn't be opposed to paying some of the tremendous expense, if they truely believe that sell job they presented yesterday to the public, right?

    Posted by: To Ben Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 06:37 PM
    Sorry, based on years of service the greatest mayor of all time goes to.... Johnny Rosenblatt! Surprised?! You should be... As far as leaving, nope, a recall is much easier and cheaper in the long run.... Surprised?!

    Posted by: Ben on Mar 27, 2008 at 04:43 PM
    I think Mayor Fahey is the greatest Mayor this city has had. If you dont like the way he governs ...leave!

    Posted by: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2008 at 04:07 PM
    The city cannot even stay consistent with what they want MECA to approve, let alone how much it will end up costing. Spend money to make money. That sounds like the wording in a recent email scam I got, trying to fleece me for $39.95 to buy the answer to kicking back and making easy money on the internet. I don't mind spending money to make money, as long as I don't have to spend a dollar to make fifty cents. Unfortunately Fahey has been looking even less honest than that email scam here recently. Also, like the email scam, I don't want to be the one "spending money" so rich folks can "make money" and get even richer. By the way, tell me again just how much money the Royals have firmly committed to spend for their lease in the new stadium, as an investment in what they plan to make? Royals play for 5 months, CWS lasts less than 2 weeks. Shouldn't this enter into who "spends" money and who "makes" money?

    Posted by: Tim on Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56 PM
    Hmmmm...Then what about me? I am not a business owner. I live in Omaha and own my own home. I have nothing to financially gain by a baseball stadium downtown. But I am all for the new baseball stadium...I think it'll be great! Or are you now going to say that I am also somehow unbiased?

    Posted by: RM Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56 PM
    For all you who are in support of a new stadium send your money now to MAYOR Fahey in care of the new stadium. When he has all the money he needs because of your generous donations then he should build it and you all can come.

    Posted by: LD Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 01:49 PM
    Surprise, surprise, surprise. It's not that I'm opposed to a new stadium, but the way the mayor has gone about getting one. Do we really need more taxes put upon us? I think not! Besides, the CWS is only in town for just 2 1/2 weeks and Creighton has a perfectly good baseball stadium on their own campus. The only time I've seen them use Rosenblatt is when the UNL team comes to town (unless they make it to the CWS). Rosenblatt may be old, but the debt the mayor is trying to pass on to the citizens of Omaha when there are other more important issues to be taken care of is crazy. The mayor should have been up front with the citizens of Omaha from the get go. The question becomes, do we really need (or have to have) a new stadium? This is the same mayor who didn't like the hotel that the previous mayor had going into the Qwest project, so he got his own hotel plan that has even less rooms than those orginally planned.

    Posted by: The Truth Location: Everywhere on Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29 PM
    A baseball field does not generate growth. There will be no new event in Omaha, it will simply be in a diferent location. If the Qwest that operates year round did not generate enough growth in propsed area, how will a 10 day event? Creighton is pulling the string and the taxpayers of Omaha are buying thier magic beans. I hope Creighton enjoys their new baseball field. If it is handled like the Qwest no one else will.

    Posted by: pat Location: omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 01:21 PM
    alot of the people that is for building a new stadium either dont pay property taxes or they live in Iowa. So they are all for building a new stadium.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2008 at 01:05 PM
    Its good to see that the chamber is speaking up for what is right to continue to grow omaha. the silent majority needs to raise its voices.

    Posted by: To TIM Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM
    Yepper, asking the ONLY folks with NOTHING to lose but everything to gain in this venture for their opinion is truely unbiased? And you still aren't any closer to reality than when this all started. Try and prove you have made ANY gains in public support for the mayor with all your complaining. In a few short weeks when we vote to recall, we will see how confident you are then that the aptly named NO-DO stadium is going to be built. You don't think we'd get rid of the mayor and leave his pet project on the table, do you?

    Posted by: Mickey Location: Midtown on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM
    MM - Good job bringing up what the Festerson said back in 2003 (and that wasn't that long ago). I remember that interview well and he did state that the city was in no position to build another stadium because we couldn't provide basic services to our city period. What a wise and truthful man he was, why isn't he running for office? I'd vote for anyone who tells it like it truely is and not blowing the standard smokescreen up our shorts that has become status-quo in this city. I wouldn't pay attention to 'J's silly rhetoric either, he's simply a part of the mayor's current smokescreen, right 'J'?

    Posted by: To DDB Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM
    I agree there IS a lot of City waste in spending tax dollars here in Omaha, and what do we have to show for it? Maybe we should have a citywide AUDIT (bet the mere mention scares a lot of folks, doesn't it)? I would like to know how the extra money from the property re-evaluations taxes was spent and WHY the bonds to pay for the Qwest failed to produce. Where did the money go if we are facing $800 million in bond driven debt?

    Posted by: To SD Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM
    'Spend your EXTRA money on kleenex'. What extra money? You MUST be rich which explains the 50,000 foot view of life youseem to share with the mayor. Can't see all this debt surrounding the common taxpayer at the 2-3 foot level? Yeh, thought so. If you were at OUR level, you wouldn't be making cavalier statements like investing in OUR city for the future, hell, we are just trying to make ends meet and survive NOW. And if we want to invest in OUR future, it's going to for something we can AFFORD without a non-vote approved tax levy increase and it's going to be for something WE all want, not for the Mayor's favorite project. It makes more sense to pay off some of our heavy tax burden NOW so we can afford to entertain a new stadium later AFTER we take care of the infrastructure issues that are currently plagueing OUR city. But things like maintaining or improving our City services aren't important to you, which proves you are NOT for the common taxpayer but against them.

    Posted by: TLR Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43 AM
    I think the first ten years of ConAgra coming here they where tax free. Also, doesn't the ex CEO live here out of the city limits.HA

    Posted by: Anonymous Location: omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM
    With all of these great investments, why do our taxes keep going up?? What am I missing here??...and sinces we don't support the "forward" way of thinking, lets just add a $10.00 tax per ticket to pay for the new stadium etc. Then I really don't have to pay unless I decide to use it...I assume you are in favor of that...

    Posted by: BC Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM
    I just don't understand spending this kind of money for an event that only last's 10 days out of a year. Sure it will bring money into the Omaha community, but will it put money into the working class pockets. I think that the majority of the Omaha population really could care less about the CWS.

    Posted by: TLR Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM
    Yes ConAgra came and ran the Butternut Coffee business out and Duncan Hines and many others out. I know people who made 11.00 and 12.00 an hour at these places. ConAgra when it came offer them same people 7.00 8.00 an hour for the same types of jobs. So there are always a sacrifice for change that benefit some and hurt others. This staduim is not needed. Who really does benefit not the people. Those at the end of the big money.

    Posted by: Bill Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 10:18 AM
    SD thank you for your "wise" observations. Many people are not opposed to a new stadium. They are opposed about the sneaky way the Mayor and is henchmen have gone about it. If I am going to pay for something, through higher taxes, I want to know what I am getting for my money. The economic future of the city is not good right now. The city needs to save up for luxuries of this type and then buy them when they have the money. I hate seeing my finances being sucked out of me till I can no longer afford to live within my budget.

    Posted by: Tim on Mar 27, 2008 at 09:28 AM
    Awesome news!! Keep in mind, this is the respected Omaha Chamber of Commerce. (Or are we to believe that they are on the Mayor's secret payroll as well). We are that much closer to a stadium downtown and the end of crumbling Rosenblatt!!

    Posted by: To "What" Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 09:00 AM
    You said Conagra only pays $1 in property taxes, maybe before you kame claims against on of our best big businesses you should check your facts. This is directly from the Douglas County Assessor's website...looks like you were wrong!?!? Tax Information for 2007 Property Value: Assessor's Valuation: $14,149,000.00 Tax Levy: 2.05403 Tax Amount: $278,849.90

    Posted by: J on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:45 AM
    MM - you seem to know everything that has to do with this project, maybe you should run to mayor? What On - What exactly is an informicial? Did you mean infomercial? And to whoever said the Fahey recall is a big deal - why don't they pay for the special election then? And also, why have I not heard that there is a HUGE support for this? Oh right, isn't he up for re-election soon anyways; so the recall petition is a waste of time... It's not about morals or him taking advantage of us taxpayers, it is about someone who is not thinking clearly.

    Posted by: Liz Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:22 AM
    Of course the Chamber will back this--it is a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to them. We, the taxpayer, receive only $3 million in taxes from the CWS each year, while businesses pocket $40 million. They want us to pay to make them even richer. Everyone needs to go to www.fieldofschemes.com for an economic analysis of stadiums recently built in the U.S. The taxpayer always loses!

    Posted by: SD Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 06:47 AM
    Thanks to the two or three people who posted positive comments on this topic. Everyone is so friggin' worried about THEIR taxes going up. Let me tell you this. No matter the city, county or state you live in, taxes are going to go up for some reason or another, without doubt. That is the American way. There are three things for certain in life. Taxes, higher taxes and death. So, to all the nay sayers, why not invest in future entertainment and publicity for our city for future generations. People, you're going to pay up, no matter what you're paying for. And to all opposed who were also likely opposed to the Qwest, stay out of these venues. Don't come if you don't support the "forward" way of thinking. Spend your extra money on some Kleenex. An extra few cents for one night of entertainment will not make you or break you. Get over yourselves.

    Posted by: DDB Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:36 AM
    The issue should not be the raising of taxes. I think the project would benefit Omaha but instead of raising taxes the elected officials should find the funds needed by spending current tax revenues more efficiently. Everyone cries about raising taxes but everyone's focus should be on eliminating wasteful programs that suck up the tax dollars. Tax dollars being wasted are what is making Nebraska taxes so high. eliminate the waste and you would be surprised by the revenue windfall. It really is no different from you home budget, it all comes down to management.

    Posted by: MM Location: Omaha on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:01 AM
    $300mil will raise our taxes in 2013 for the Qwest. The site is a small fraction of the land compared to the current site Rosenblatt sits on. The original plan was to extend across 13th to incorporate a green area this area is even bigger than what the new plan will be using. Where is the green space & where is the space to expand in the future, there will be little parking for the press & what about the handicapped, what if we lose the CWS before its paid for? None of the prep work is in the plan, nor infrastructure, the cost will surely be over double the estimate not considering our economic crisis changing by the day. If this was such a good investment why is it not completely privately funded as Pete Festerson said in 2003 would have to be because we lacked the ability to provide basic city services? The plan will DEFINITELY impact the SUCCESS of the Qwest. Jobs created will be temporary & seasonal at best. Progress will come without this. This is too much of a RISK at this time!!

    Posted by: Tee Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 11:53 PM
    Interesting that they mentioned the Qwest Center as a success story in investment. It is a profit run success thanks only to MECA, but the financing for that entire project will be raising our property taxes here shortly because of the $300 Million loan that the revenue bonds failed to cover as we were promised (only the interest was covered). Want to take a bet that we eat at least $60 Million in this fiasco as well? If the Chamber of Commerce is so jazzed about this, let them pay our share, it seems only fair since they believe in it so much. If the money was leaving their wallet (remember they said they would be making big $$ if this deal does happen), would they be so liberal with their overzealous endorsements? The taxpayer's past experience with the mayor's creative financing packages always leaves them asking, 'How did that tax hike get approved without my consent'? It's called BONDS!

    Posted by: Laura Location: omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM
    How is this news? I thought the Chamber gave their blessing two weeks ago? Plus, is it any surprise? Let's see what the NCAA has to say next month, with Fahey under recall threat and the fact the Mayor and CWS-Omaha have LIED through their teeth about what the NCAA wants. Methinks the NCAA will not appreciate having King Fahey put words in their mouth...

    Posted by: Dave Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 10:31 PM
    Ok so everyone who is thinking this is the greates idea in the world. What if the NCAA only agrees to keep it here until say 2015..then what will you be saying? What if the Royals leave? OOps the stadium will be empty all the time then. Oh but wait! The Bluejays will still play in the new stadium they have always wanted and probably pay next to nothing to use! This will come back to bite the taxpayers in the rear,and Fahey wont care because he will be gone...laughing all the way to the bank.

    Posted by: MA Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 10:22 PM
    No big deal, they already gave their approval last week. This was just a dog and poney show so what did you expect? The national economy is tanking and they want us to take a gamble that Mr. Buffet already said no thanks to. Let's see, Mr. Buffet's conservative opinion of saving our money and riding out the recession vs Omaha Chamber of Commerce's proposal that we put it all into a stadium we don't even like for a wide variety of reasons. I gotta go with the oracle of Omaha. And where is this reinvestment in the community mentioned? I have yet to see any investment much less reinvestment in my neighborhood. And this growth thing? We can't even provide the basic services to the present community and we want to welcome more folks we can't handle? You have to have a solid base to grow from and our current infrastructure isn't even close to providing it. Best take our tax money, pay down some of our massive debt and improve our city services. That would be the prudent thing to do.

    Posted by: Can't Wait Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 09:34 PM
    The New Stadium is the only option to benefit the city. Putting expensive bandages on Rosenblatt is not! Looking forward to the College World Series in the new Stadium with the clean zone instead of run down party houses accross the street. A real difference for families. Thanks to the ones who came up with the idea for the new stadium. A in my book!

    Posted by: Ken Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 08:43 PM
    Supporters say you have to spend money to make money. Okay. Who's money is spent, and who makes money? History has shown us that the city spends our (taxpayer) money, and someone else makes money. We receive nothing but higher taxes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be paying more taxes to support the "profitable" Qwest center. Someone's making money from it, and we're adding to their profit. I see no indication the new stadium will be any different.

    Posted by: DT Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 08:01 PM
    The chamber of commerce says we have to spend money to make money. WRONG ! Not here, a new stadium will not benefit my family unless my taxes go down.

    Posted by: What on Mar 26, 2008 at 07:10 PM
    That sounds like an informicial - you need to spend money to make money. While I do believe that a new ballpark would be good in the future - I am not convinced that this is the time to do it. When there are this many issues on something and it hasn't even received the "green light" to be built, I think it's time to reconsider the options especially since there is NOT A CONTRACT for a 20 year commitment from the NCAA - there is only a consideration. Oh by the way, isn't ConAgra still only paying $1.00 in property taxes a year? Wish my property taxes were that low

    Posted by: Ozarks Location: Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 07:04 PM
    Than let the chamber raise 100% of the money.

    Posted by: DB on Mar 26, 2008 at 07:00 PM
    Thank you to the Chamber of Commerce for seeing what is in the best interest of the future of Omaha.

    Posted by: Steven Location: So Omaha on Mar 26, 2008 at 06:39 PM
    So if building what people want is what makes a city,WHY do the bigshots keep rejecting Casino's. The answer is that they are afraid they will not get their share of the SKIM as the casino people Know how to run a business. I am further surprised that the city bigwhig's cannot cut a deal on a lousy 140 million deal!! That is chump change in comparison to the SEWER FIASCO that if any deal needed federal PORK earmarks for that would be it so where is Lee Terry and our 2 senators when we need them! The NCAA have got to be laughing at the bumbling fools that probably cannot agree on which toilet paper to use in the Palace of NODO!!!

    Desktop Weather
  • Video: Hour-by-Hour Forecast Updates
  • AP Online Network
    Health News
  • Family Health
  • Health Check
  • Kids Corner
  • Channel 6 News Features






  • Heartland's Most Wanted
  • Product Recalls

  • Media Partners