OT: Rockcats to Hartford?

[freescooter]

The JI doesn't seem to like the idea...

http://www.journalinquirer.com/opin...cle_7b4e2922-ebf1-11e3-b938-001a4bcf887a.html

Here's the thing with thing with Chris Powell and the JI. If you told Chris that the government was going to spend 5 cents and the end result would be world peace, an end to hunger and homelessness topped off by a cure for cancer, Chris would write an editorial about why we shouldn't spend the nickle. He doesn't believe in government spending for any purpose. I once heard him speak about why it would be better for the a town looking to expand a school to pay tuition for its students to go to private schools than to spend the money on the expansion.

My own view is that if Hartford looks at this as part of a broad effort to create an entertainment culture that includes baseball, hockey, UConn basketball, as well as the various theater and performing arts venues like TheatreWorks, Hartford Stage, Infinity Music Hall, the Science Center and of course, the Bushnell, maybe it works. Of course they won't view it in such a continuum.

If anyone wants to know why this occurred, I refer you to any of the P5 threads. New Owners decided to see if they could hold up someone for a few extra bucks, despite the success of the Rock Cats in New Britain. they are the anti-Chris Powell. If they think they might make an extra nickle by moving from their home of 30 years, they won't even sweat it.

final note on the comment that New Britain "stole them from Bristol." it was a different era entirely and Bristol wasn't particularly upset to see them go. They had other plans for Muzzy Field.

 

[Palatine]

In 1900 Hartford was the richest city in America.

In the middle of the century, Hartford Democrats wanted control of the city, so they designated one of the wealthiest (and Republican) parts of the city as a site for the new Hartford High School. They tore down most of the Nook Farm. Luckily nether Twain's or Stowe's houses were destroyed. But the ploy worked and Hartford has been Democrat and getting poorer ever since.

 

[Waquoit]

The Pride/Hellcats are the same team. The CBA folded in 2009/10.

The Hellions were in the MISL which folded in 1992.

The Colonials didn't play in Hartford, and the league folded in 2010.

The Sea Wolves played in Hartford and Arena football still exists.

The Wolf Pack are doing just fine.

So to prove his point that minor league sports don't succeed in Hartford he picked:

3 teams from leagues that folded, (one of which didn't even play in Hartford)
1 team in Hartford doing relatively well,
and 1 team that left Hartford in a league that is still operating.

None of that shows why a MLB affiliated franchise can't succeed in Hartford.

That wasn't my point at all. I hope the team does well and I think it can. I was agreeing with the poster who feels it's not a given. And your points are just plain wrong. I didn't cherry pick, I listed all the minor league teams I could remember. Except for the Wolf Pack, all those teams were failures, independent of the league they were in. And as much as I love to go to Wolf Pack gamea, the fan support is disappointing, not "just fine". There's no other way to put it, they rank 22nd in a 30 team league. And to somehow discount the Hartford Colonials as being from Hartford because they weren't downtown but 3 miles away is silly.

 

[SubbaBub]

I can't tell if the Mayor is a brilliant young brilliant person who is going to run the world or if she is a total idiot who is in way over her head and the city is going to collapse on top of her.

Second one, daughter of former mayor. Not that there's anything wrong with that, except when there is.

 

[jdrinboston]

My own view is that if Hartford looks at this as part of a broad effort to create an entertainment culture that includes baseball, hockey, UConn basketball, as well as the various the lawyer and performing arts venues like the lawreWorks, Hartford Stage, Infinity Music Hall, the Science Center and of course, the Bushnell, maybe it works. Of course they won't view it in such a continuum.

I'm Rock Cats fan and former season ticket holder and I'm still trying to figure out where I come down on this, but while the outlay by the city is expensive, there is something to consider. The city basically owns all of those parking lots, save for the one small lot that they are purchasing from Rennselear Hartford to complete the ballpark. Those lots have been virtually undeveloped my entire lifetime. Because they are isolated from the rest of the city, they've been seen as a sort of Bermuda triangle by developers.

But suddenly with a ballpark there, all sorts of opportunities there for development. For example, as an apartment developer, imagine being able to put up a mid or hi-rise type building with loft-like apartments that look into the ballpark? The ground floor of the building can have a sports bar or restaurant that caters to baseball fans as well as some of the new residents moving into the neighborhood. With a ballpark, there is the potential for the city to not only gain new tax revenue from new development, there is also the opportunity for increased money by selling those lots to developers for a higher price than what they are worth now.

People talk about the money that was spent on the Civic Center/XL Center within the vaccum of that building. But nobody seems to consider the construction that occurred around the building in the ensuing 15 years. CityPlace 1 &2, 1 Commercial, The "Stilts" Building, Goodwin Square, 242 Trumbull, 100 Pearl St. How much revenue do those buildings generate for the city that was there prior to 1975? Can you honestly say the Civic Center was unconnected to these developments? Why couldn't the same type of spin off happen here?

Finally, I'm somewhat baffled at what is in this for the Rock Cats, with the exception of a larger, nicer stadium, which I admit is significant. They are going to pay almost 5 times the rent of NB, contribute 10 percent toward construction, and share half of the naming rights and stadium advertising revenue with the city. To my knowledge, the city is offering them no guarantees of revenue - unlike the potential Patriots or Whalers deal. So aside from the city assuming the risk of the bonding, it looks like the team is assuming the risk to their business operation. Not to mention, they have risked alienating a significant chunk of their fan base. I've never seen a sports franchise owner agree to such terms.

 

[BlueMAB]

Ironic that you would only include parts of my post while saying you aren't cherry picking teams. I didn't accuse you of cherry picking.
Those teams all had different issues preventing them from succeeding.

Arguing that the Colonials is a good comparison when they were in a league that lasted 2 years is moronic.

Using an indoor soccer team to compare to one of the most successful minor league baseball programs in the area is moronic.

Using a CBA team that played in the armory to compare to a baseball team in a brand new stadium is moronic.

We agree this isn't a given. But other than death, nothing is.

 

[DoctorWho85]

I still don't know how I feel about the Rock Cats moving to Hartford. I have such found memories of New Britain Stadium that it's sad for me to see this happen. But on the other hand, like I've said previously, I think this gives UConn an avenue to get UConn baseball into a larger stadium and hopefully more butts in the seats. The only reason I don't go to games up in Storrs is because my work schedule would make me miss half the game by time I got there.

My hope is that Hartford doesn't squander this opportunity and really develops the area like what's going on at the Rent with the outlet mall. I'll still go to games regardlessly, but it would be nice to make it a complete night out and not just a day at the game.

 

[Waquoit]

Ironic that you would only include parts of my post while saying you aren't cherry picking teams.

I copied your post in it's entirety. What is it with some of you guys? You make me feel like Dean Wormer, I'm beginning to think you're all on drugs.

 

[zls44]

The idea that Hartford is too dangerous to visit is just veiled racism. The park will be in the safest part of the city according to statistics. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ct/hartford/crime/

This hasn't stopped Erin Stewart from taking veiled passive-aggressive shots at Hartford by talking about how safe it is in NB, how family-friendly it is in NB...as if Hartford can't be, mayor?

 

[Palatine]

Back in the day we used to call New Britain "New Britski." Anyone still use that name?

 

[BlueDogs]

Here's the thing with thing with Chris Powell and the JI. If you told Chris that the government was going to spend 5 cents and the end result would be world peace, an end to hunger and homelessness topped off by a cure for cancer, Chris would write an editorial about why we shouldn't spend the nickle. He doesn't believe in government spending for any purpose. I once heard him speak about why it would be better for the a town looking to expand a school to pay tuition for its students to go to private schools than to spend the money on the expansion.

My own view is that if Hartford looks at this as part of a broad effort to create an entertainment culture that includes baseball, hockey, UConn basketball, as well as the various the lawer and performing arts venues like the lawreWorks, Hartford Stage, Infinity Music Hall, the Science Center and of course, the Bushnell, maybe it works. Of course they won't view it in such a continuum.

If anyone wants to know why this occurred, I refer you to any of the P5 threads. New Owners decided to see if they could hold up someone for a few extra bucks, despite the success of the Rock Cats in New Britain. they are the anti-Chris Powell. If they think they might make an extra nickle by moving from their home of 30 years, they won't even sweat it.

final note on the comment that New Britain "stole them from Bristol." it was a different era entirely and Bristol wasn't particularly upset to see them go. They had other plans for Muzzy Field.

Chris Powell is the last voice of reason in the CT news press. He's the only guy offering a view point other than the constant stream of left leaning garbage constantly being spewed out for consumption by the great populace of brainwashed zombies living off the government teet..

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Powell seems oblivious to the intricacies how northeastern cities differ from those in other parts of the country. He is correct that infrastructure alone does not solve anything. You need people with money to locate where you are building the infrastructure. His other premise regarding social policy is woefully obtuse. What he described is the case in most every American city. His citing of West Hartford is proof of his ignorance. The same migration has taken place elsewhere, but the destination is still within the city limits because the cities are just geographically larger.

As to Powell's "premise regarding social policy," I had to make sure I wasn't reading something written by Donald Sterling.

 

[freescooter]

Powell seems oblivious to the intricacies how northeastern cities differ from those in other parts of the country. He is correct that infrastructure alone does not solve anything. You need people with money to locate where you are building the infrastructure. His other premise regarding social policy is woefully obtuse. What he described is the case in most every American city. His citing of West Hartford is proof of his ignorance. The same migration has taken place elsewhere, but the destination is still within the city limits because the cities are just geographically larger.

This is absolutely true. If Hartford were in any place but New England, it would encompas not only West Hartford but Bloomfield, Wethersfield, probably Farmington and Avon and Rocky Hill. And East Hartford would be its twin across the river with South Winsor, Manchester, Glastonbury as "neighborhoods." In other parts of the country its amazing what cities do. Denver was one of the investors in a major downtown redevelopment project there. Didn't just give grants or build new infrastrcuture. The city was an actual investor, they get a return or suffer a loss just like all the others (they actually made money). Other cities have done things like that, too. People got all weepy about new London taking parts of a neighborhood by eminent domain (it was a slum if you ever where inside most of those buildings, by the way. Some 1000 square foot houses converted to 5-6 family dwellings.). Hell, California cities condemn LEASES in shopping Centers when they want to bring in better tenants to neighborhoods.

 

[BlueMAB]

I copied your post in it's entirety. What is it with some of you guys? You make me feel like Dean Wormer, I'm beginning to think you're all on drugs.

Correct, somehow, the "click to expand" option didn't show in my browser, and it looked like you cherry picked. My mistake.

People got all weepy about new London taking parts of a neighborhood by eminent domain (it was a slum if you ever where inside most of those buildings, by the way. Some 1000 square foot houses converted to 5-6 family dwellings.). Hell, California cities condemn LEASES in shopping Centers when they want to bring in better tenants to neighborhoods.

It's amazing to me how some people willfully and arrogantly disregard the elimination of our rights because they aren't directly affected. Especially when those rights are being taken away by 9 unelected people in a body that literally gave itself the power to be the ultimate arbiter of questions regarding the Constitution.

And 9 years later, other than a park, that land still sits vacant.

 

[UCFBfan]

Beautiful dreamer. " as long as they don't jack up the price of concessions" please compare the current price ( and quality). of concessions in NB vs. Hartford.

huh??? What are you talking about??? What concessions are being offered in Hartford? Is there a Minor League baseball stadium there that I haven't heard of??

 

[freescooter]

It's amazing to me how some people willfully and arrogantly disregard the elimination of our rights because they aren't directly affected. Especially when those rights are being taken away by 9 unelected people in a body that literally gave itself the power to be the ultimate arbiter of questions regarding the Constitution.

And 9 years later, other than a park, that land still sits vacant.

Well, like Marbury v Madison was decided in 1803, not 2003. And the roots of that decision go back to a British case in 1609 which held that Parliment had supreme power. In the colonies, and indeed in Britain there was some ambivalence to that principal and various attempts over time to weaken or overturn it and it was specifically debated at the Constitutional Convention with most of the framers in favor of Judicial review. for example, Hamilton argued for judicial review of the constitutionality of statues in Federalist Papers (1788) and several state constitutions specifically empowered their judiciaries to review state statues. That matters because there was no federal court at the time. But it demonstrates that the underlying principle was already accepted in the former colonies. Notably both the Massachusetts constitution which was greatly influenced by John Adams and the Virginia one written by Jefferson both empowered state courts to review state laws. So the idea of "9 unelected people literally giving themselves the power to ultimate arbiter of questions regarding the Constitution" is true as long as you are ignorant of where and how that decision came to be and the fairly long tradition that led up to it. Indeed, most legal scholars, including many conservatives like John Yoo of torture memo fame, argue that Marbury merely clarified what was a long accepted principal in the American legal system and was clearly intended by the Constitution. The 9 unelected people giving themselves power is brought up from time to time by folks who don't like the court's decisions. You heard it from New Dealers in the 1930s which led to FDR's ill advised court packing plan, and you heard it a lot starting in the 1960s from southern segregationists. You hear it today mostly from the Rush Limbaugh crowd, although after Citizens United some more liberal commentators also pulled it out. Of course it is not correct. But it doesn't stop anyone from bringing it up.

By the way, New London absolutely screwed that whole process up. The "city" is too small, and too "inbred" to actually undertake a project that complex. And they relied on people who were neither understood the process nor the complexities to "lead" the process. And a bunch of Johnny Rowland's cronies to implement it.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Well, like Marbury v Madison was decided in 1803, not 2003. And the roots of that decision go back to a British case in 1609 which held that Parliment had supreme power. In the colonies, and indeed in Britain there was some ambivalence to that principal and various attempts over time to weaken or overturn it and it was specifically debated at the Constitutional Convention with most of the framers in favor of Judicial review. for example, Hamilton argued for judicial review of the constitutionality of statues in Federalist Papers (1788) and several state constitutions specifically empowered their judiciaries to review state statues. Notably both the Massachusetts constitution which was greatly influenced by John Adams and the Virginia one written by Jefferson both empowered state courts to review state laws. So the idea of "9 unelected people literally giving themselves the power to ultimate arbiter of questions regarding the Constitution" is true as long as you are ignorant of where and how that decision came to be and the fairly long tradition that led up to it. Indeed, most legal scholars, including many conservatives like John Yoo of torture memo fame, argue that Marbury merely clarified what was a long accepted principal in the American legal system and was clearly intended by the Constitution. The 9 unelected reople giving themselves power is brought up from time to time by folks who don't like the court's decisions. You heard it from new Dealers in the 1930s which led to FDR's ill advised court packing plan, and you heard it a lot starting in the 1960s from southern segregationists. You hear it today mostly from the Rush Limbaugh crowd, although after Citizens united some more liberal commentators also pulled it out. Of course it is not correct. But it doesn't stop anyone from bringing it up.

By the way, New London absolutely screwed that whole process up. The "city" is too small, and too "inbred" to actually undertake a project that complex. And they relied on people who were neither understood the process nor the complexities to "lead" the process. And a bunch of Johnny Rowland's cronies to implement it.

The Citizens United ruling maybe the most damaging ruling from the US Supreme Court in the last 50 years. Basically kneecaps the democratic elective process by saying those with more money should have more power.

 

[BlueMAB]

Well, like Marbury v Madison was decided in 1803, not 2003. And the roots of that decision go back to a British case in 1609 which held that Parliment had supreme power. In the colonies, and indeed in Britain there was some ambivalence to that principal and various attempts over time to weaken or overturn it and it was specifically debated at the Constitutional Convention with most of the framers in favor of Judicial review. for example, Hamilton argued for judicial review of the constitutionality of statues in Federalist Papers (1788) and several state constitutions specifically empowered their judiciaries to review state statues. That matters because there was no federal court at the time. But it demonstrates that the underlying principle was already accepted in the former colonies. Notably both the Massachusetts constitution which was greatly influenced by John Adams and the Virginia one written by Jefferson both empowered state courts to review state laws. So the idea of "9 unelected people literally giving themselves the power to ultimate arbiter of questions regarding the Constitution" is true as long as you are ignorant of where and how that decision came to be and the fairly long tradition that led up to it. Indeed, most legal scholars, including many conservatives like John Yoo of torture memo fame, argue that Marbury merely clarified what was a long accepted principal in the American legal system and was clearly intended by the Constitution. The 9 unelected people giving themselves power is brought up from time to time by folks who don't like the court's decisions. You heard it from New Dealers in the 1930s which led to FDR's ill advised court packing plan, and you heard it a lot starting in the 1960s from southern segregationists. You hear it today mostly from the Rush Limbaugh crowd, although after Citizens United some more liberal commentators also pulled it out. Of course it is not correct. But it doesn't stop anyone from bringing it up.

By the way, New London absolutely screwed that whole process up. The "city" is too small, and too "inbred" to actually undertake a project that complex. And they relied on people who were neither understood the process nor the complexities to "lead" the process. And a bunch of Johnny Rowland's cronies to implement it.

You often argue that because something happens somewhere else, then it's okay for it to happen elsewhere (judicial review in VA and MA, and California cancelling leases for example).

I wonder if you feel that slavery was okay in some states because it happened others? That's a rhetorical question to prove a point. The supreme court serves a valuable purpose, but the idea that they are infalable has been proven incorrect time and again, and they should not be the final decision on constitutional matters. They decided slavery was constitutional in one decision.

If you're going to argue that the Kelo v. New London decision aligns with the spirit of the principle of eminent domain, you're just plain wrong. Like many of the supreme court decision, they've taken it upon themselves to write or rewrite the law.

 

[Excalibur]

If you're going to argue that the Kelo v. New London decision aligns with the spirit of the principle of eminent domain, you're just plain wrong. Like many of the supreme court decision, they've taken it upon themselves to write or rewrite the law.

Except for the fact that it was consistent with more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent. You may disagree with the decision, but don't pretend that it was something new. So plenty of justices felt that the type of taking at issue in Kelo was in alignment with the spirit of the principle of eminent domain.

 

[BlueMAB]

Except for the fact that it wasn't consistent with more than 100 years of supreme court precedent. They relied on several cases that were fundamentally different.

It was a 5-4 decision that crossed party lines. If it was an easy decision based on over 100 years of precedent, the supreme court wouldn't have even bothered to hear the case.

 

[Excalibur]

Except for the fact that it wasn't consistent with more than 100 years of supreme court precedent. They relied on several cases that were fundamentally different.

You're right. The previous cases were even more egregious than the taking in Kelo.

 

[Palatine]

Back on topic - here's the consultants presentation for the new ball park. Lots of pretty pictures and lots of info.

http://courantblogs.com/cityline/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mayor-Presentation-02182014-Short.pdf

 

[John]

Back on topic - here's the consultants presentation for the new ball park. Lots of pretty pictures and lots of info.

http://courantblogs.com/cityline/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mayor-Presentation-02182014-Short.pdf

I see a bunch of blah, blah, blah. How about blowing up that rat-trap of an arena and building a nice new one. That would get my juices flowing.

 

[Palatine]

I see a bunch of blah, blah, blah. How about blowing up that rat-trap of an arena and building a nice new one. That would get my juices flowing.

I thought that was a well thought out presentation with actual case studies and numbers. The comparison between Hartford and similar cities seemed to to give proper context to the document.

If you want a new arena, the success of the ball park would seem key. The ball park study spends time showing trends in seating and amenities. A new arena should follow the same guidelines and be sold in the same way.

 

[coachcap]

Repercussion of announcement to move to Hartford:
In today's N.B. Herald: Adrian Baron, president of the Polonia Business Association of New Britain cancelled the annual Polish Night with the Rockcats due to the move. "Baron is encouraging association members to spend their money in museums, restaurants, festivals, theater events, & retail shops."
The natives are restless. No more Stanley the Dragon & Pierogi the Penguin at the ballpark.