Lake Compounce denied state funds to move road

Posted Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Lake Compounce was counting on $3.3 million in state aid before it undertakes a five-year project to add to its Splash Harbor water park, but that money won't be forthcoming this year. The project lost its last chance for funding in 2008 when it was left off the agenda of the State Bond Commission. The money would help address the cost of moving a road to enable the expansion.

Read more from The Hartford Courant.

Related parks

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:40 AM

That's unfortunate. I have a feeling if the road had to be moved to make way for a sports stadium then the money to do it would have been found.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:39 AM

^Your feeling is a bit far-fetched. The state is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit. There is no money to be found, especially not for stadiums or roads moved to build water slides.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:48 AM

^I'd like to think they'd ve interested in helping LC with the roads, but that this is a particularly bad time to ask for government funding for anything not deemed "essential". Now if the Patriots wanted LC as badly as the 49ers want Cali's Great America...(oh wait, bad example, one of those teams can actually play football).

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:29 PM

I don't think it's far-fetched at all. There is nothing in the article that indicates the state is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, but I'll take your word for it. You have to admit that when monies are needed for sports stadiums, it's amazing what becomes available. Six Flags Over Texas has been asking the state to redo the old turnpike exits off of I-30 for years and the state did nothing. Now of course we have a new Cowboys stadium going up close to the park and voila, all the exits are getting redone, and they will be finished just in time for the opening of the new stadium.

Last edited by Jeffrey Seifert, Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:29 PM
+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:31 PM

I love sports as much as amusement parks so I'm not biased here... I will admit that governments move quickly for sports venues but not amusement parks. If the Boston Red Sox happened to play in Bristol and wanted a new stadium, seeing how fast the government reacted would make your head spin.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:32 PM

There's nothing in the article, but come on, nearly every state is hurting right now. When consumer spending goes down, so does the income from sales tax. Search Google news and you'll find plenty of articles just today about the state's deficit.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:45 PM

But property taxes continue to increase.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:56 PM

When home values go down, so does the property tax revenue. Furthermore, depending on the state, property tax may not even go to the state level. My income tax goes only to local governments (city, school and library districts) and the county.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:05 PM

Yup, my home value dropped and I was able to qualify to have my property tax reassed downward. I'll do it again this year.

+0
Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:13 PM

I very much appreciate and agree with the sentiment that governments are generally much too eager to find money for professional sports teams in comparison to other public works programs, but it's just not applicable here. Especially not in Connecticut of all places, and especially doubly very not in the current economy.

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 7:01 AM

Remember, though, that sports venues are mostly used for other events. In a good NBA season, for example, your home team might only play 50 home games, and yet the arena will be used upwards of 200 nights a year.

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 9:48 AM

Football stadiums are the big waste. Used eight times a season if they don't make the play-offs, and at best, for a few concerts in the summer.

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 10:41 AM

janfrederick said:
I was able to qualify to have my property tax reassed

Given that, I must assume it was at one time assed? ;)

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 11:13 AM

Jeff said:
Football stadiums are the big waste. Used eight times a season if they don't make the play-offs, and at best, for a few concerts in the summer.

That seems to be a Cleveland-based issue more than it is in most places. Usually a stadium is used for more than just the NFL.

Pro football stadiums would be used a bare minimum of ten times - 2 pre-season games and 8 regular season. The current crop of stadiums hold between 60,000 and 80,000 people. (Browns stadium holds 73,200 for example)

That's 600,000 to 800,000 people on NFL games alone.

Add just 5 sell-out events during the year and you're over a million people at most facilities.

Stadiums take up a fraction of the space of amusement parks. (again, using your backyard example of Browns Stadium...just 31 acres for the entire site)

I know where you stand on the issue and I get where you're coming from (and even agree to a degree), but statistically there are much worse wastes of space out there...probably including most amusement parks.

I'm using a people-to-space ratio, not a time-to-space ratio. But I think that feels more valid.

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 12:20 PM

I don't care about the space... I care about the money, especially the public component in a city where schools are falling down.

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 12:28 PM

I see. I read that earlier post as 'waste of space' - I don't know why I did either.

I wonder what the financial impact of a stadium is in terms of getting that money back for communities that choose to fund the stadium?

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Friday, December 12, 2008 12:50 PM
+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 2:53 PM

At least in our case, our venues were largely funded by sin tax, on smokes and alcohol. I guess that's not terrible, but it's still arbitrary and I'm not sure how you can justify it in a city with crumbling school buildings. That, and we have the world's worst football team, every year.

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 2:58 PM

Hey, at least we're not the Lions. ::chortles::

+0
Friday, December 12, 2008 3:06 PM

Jeff said:
That, and we have the world's worst football team, every year.

I take offense to that. You do NOT have the worst football team, WE do. And 0-16 is going to etch it in stone for all time.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...