rocky

The previous post about The Ballpark at Arlington (NOT Ameriquest
field) made me wonder about something and I have a question for
Arlington citizens. My facts might be a little off but as I recall,
when Arlington agreed to pay for the Ballpark, didn't Hicks say that he
was going to develop all of the land around the stadium to be like
Wrigley Field? There was suppose to be restaurants and office parks
with lots of walking traffic and I thought I heard a few years ago that
he only did 10% of what he said he was going to do. The taxes that the
area generated from out of towners was suppose to offset the tax hit
that Arlington citizens paid out of pocket. Outside of that and
keeping the Rangers in Arlington, I'm not sure what else the tax payers
were suppose to get out of the deal.

So my question to Arlington residents is do you feel like that tax
money was well spent and Hicks upheld his end of the deal? And if not,
then did you vote to go down the same path with Jerry Jones and the
Cowboys or vote against it and what were your reasons?


Rocky <--Arlington native in Dallas

*mavs*

Not from Arlington, but that wasnt on paper and I don't think Hicks owned
them at the time the stadium deal went down. So promises that arent on paper
in the contract really mean nothing because it all comes down to capitalism.
Is it economically feesable to put restraunts around the ball park in
arlington when barely anyone goes to the games throughout the year? Not
really!

With that said... Arlington voters seem to not care about their tax dollars
going to outrageous stadiums for millionaires.. and more so don't seem to
care about emminent domain... oh well!