| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mammabee
95 Posts |
|
|
Peanutsr
171 Posts |
 Posted - 01/09/2010 : 11:55:35
|
These aren't new fields Mamma. They have been there since Papa was in elementary school.
Danny is just trying to get something for nothing. |
 |
|
|
touchemall
145 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2010 : 21:35:31
|
| explain something for nothing. |
|
|
|
ec1
40 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 09:41:57
|
| It appears whoever takes on this project is going to invest significant capital to make the facility playable, regardless of the sport--is that somthing for nothing...don't think so.. |
|
|
|
Peanutsr
171 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 10:40:44
|
The fields he wants to take over rent free for twenty years were bought and paid for by the taxpayers. $800,000 over twenty years is nothing compared to the revenues he will be able to generate while being able to limit and/or charge the public (who paid for the fields in the first place)for access.
While I have nothing against his desire to build and develop his baseball academy, I don't think the public land, paid for by the taxpayers, should be used to further his ambitions. Especially since his enterprise will then have the ability to exclude the very people who paid for the parks in the first place.
|
|
|
|
panther
38 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 12:11:14
|
Man the 6-4-3 guys must really have some buddies in high places in Marietta. What exactly does the county get out of the deal? Would anybody that lives in that area be able to afford to play at the park then? I guess the scholarships they are talking about would be for the really great pitchers in the area.
Touchemall has hit the nail on the head on this one!!! |
|
|
|
3sondad
220 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 13:10:39
|
| $800,000 ... that is the same as nothing, right??? ;-) |
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 13:23:36
|
It does not look like he is trying to get something for nothing, or at least investing $800,000 in work on the field (grading, sodding, etc) in my book is not "Nothing".
It makes sense that 6-4-3 is trying to secure facilities for their teams to play. There are two options:
1) build your own facility, which requires finding land, getting permits, and doing construction from the ground up.
or
2) find an existing park that can be rented or partnered with to use the facilities based on putting in improvements.
It looks like Danny has possibly found option 2, which is much faster of an option.
Is it really any different than what the Cherokee Reds Organization, Sandy Plains Organization, etc do? |
|
|
|
AllStar
762 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 16:03:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peanutsr
The fields he wants to take over rent free for twenty years were bought and paid for by the taxpayers. $800,000 over twenty years is nothing compared to the revenues he will be able to generate while being able to limit and/or charge the public (who paid for the fields in the first place)for access.
While I have nothing against his desire to build and develop his baseball academy, I don't think the public land, paid for by the taxpayers, should be used to further his ambitions. Especially since his enterprise will then have the ability to exclude the very people who paid for the parks in the first place.
What are you suggesting they do with the fields?
One of my son's teams practiced there a few times. It's got a lot of potential, but needs a lot of work. I would assume that he will be constrained from "excluding" people the same way that Sandy Plains and Oregon Park are. If someone rehabs it and puts it to use, they should get some benefit. |
|
|
|
BREAMKING
323 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 16:39:57
|
| Any level of skill can play at sandy plains does 643 have a Recreation league also. I thought county parks should be for every level of skilled player. Seems they should build a park it has worked out good for east Cobb. Where is the academy located at currently? |
|
|
|
Peanutsr
171 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 17:12:37
|
While $800,000 in improvements sounds like a lot of money, when spread over 20 years it is 40,000 per year. One tryout for one age group for 6-4-3 rakes in five grand. Couple that with clinics and the 800 grand is realy not a lot of money in comparison with what he will be bringing in.
Sandy Plains runs a travel program out of a public park that, if I am not mistaken, also has a rec league. This is the same as most county parks that support a rec. league. When not in use by the rec. program the fields are available for the public to use.
6-4-3 will have the ability to lock the fields and deny access to the public as well as charge the public for use of the facilities.
Useing facilities based on improvements mentioned in your option 2 is one thing, taking over facilities with the ability to deny access or charge the public to use public property is another.
|
Edited by - Peanutsr on 01/10/2010 21:02:30 |
|
|
|
meatball
29 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 19:28:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alter-Ego
...Is it really any different than what the Cherokee Reds Organization, Sandy Plains Organization, etc do?
Hum...theres someone from the Cherokee Reds or Saindy Plains operating a for profit business I did not realize that.
I don't know that $800,000 over 20 years is something for nothing either though. If it were just $40,000 dollars a year for 20 years that would be pretty reasonable rent but something tells me they will spend the full $800,000 a little quicker than that. |
|
|
|
ec1
40 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 20:59:26
|
Those fields in current condition are serving nobody---period. Let the city spend money the money to fix them up--never happen and with all the other priorities. Good for 643 or the YMCA who wants to invest in the future.More fields, more tournaments, more opportunity for everyone in East Cobb and Metro area. Originally posted by Peanutsr[/i]
The fields he wants to take over rent free for twenty years were bought and paid for by the taxpayers. $800,000 over twenty years is nothing compared to the revenues he will be able to generate while being able to limit and/or charge the public (who paid for the fields in the first place)for access.
While I have nothing against his desire to build and develop his baseball academy, I don't think the public land, paid for by the taxpayers, should be used to further his ambitions. Especially since his enterprise will then have the ability to exclude the very people who paid for the parks in the first place.
[/quote] |
|
|
|
Mike Corbin
523 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 21:36:06
|
| The City of Marietta actually sent out a request for lease proposals in June. Only the YMCA and 6-4-3 responded. It doesn't sound like there is much that goes on there now. If they had a viable league playing there they wouldn't be looking to lease out the facility. Good luck to 6-4-3 on this. It is always nice to have other alternatives in town. |
|
|
|
Peanutsr
171 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 21:41:32
|
Actually those fields in current condition are serving somebody.
The citizens of Marietta who paid for them can use them.
6-4-3 uses them currently, and the team my son played on last year played a tournament there in which we paid a gate fee.I believe that triple Crown and Nations baseball have both used these fields for tournaments. So don't pretend that without 6-4-3 that this park is just wasteland.
And to ALLSTAR, my take on the article is that 6-4-3 will have control over the fields and sole discretion over use and fees that can be charged.
Again, I have no issue with Pralgo wanting to build his baseball academy. Let him gather some investors, buy, and develop some property and build it, like ECB.
Allowing a business entity (and make no mistake, this is a business entity) to take over a public park with the ability to exclude the public from or charge for the use of that property, is wrong.quote:
Originally posted by ec1
Those fields in current condition are serving nobody---period. Let the city spend money the money to fix them up--never happen and with all the other priorities. Good for 643 or the YMCA who wants to invest in the future.More fields, more tournaments, more opportunity for everyone in East Cobb and Metro area. Originally posted by Peanutsr[/i]
The fields he wants to take over rent free for twenty years were bought and paid for by the taxpayers. $800,000 over twenty years is nothing compared to the revenues he will be able to generate while being able to limit and/or charge the public (who paid for the fields in the first place)for access.
While I have nothing against his desire to build and develop his baseball academy, I don't think the public land, paid for by the taxpayers, should be used to further his ambitions. Especially since his enterprise will then have the ability to exclude the very people who paid for the parks in the first place.
[/quote] |
Edited by - Peanutsr on 01/10/2010 21:54:01 |
|
|
|
BREAMKING
323 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 23:13:26
|
| I think I agree with Peanut. I just do not understand them giving the land for a 20 yr. lease for nothing. I guess that property has a zero dollar value. I hope they remember what land is worth in cobb county when I get my tax bill this year. |
|
|
|
touchemall
145 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2010 : 23:44:45
|
| So if you were on the Board to approve or disapprove, you would rather see that piece of land fall into further disrepair than have someone come in and fix it up and use? Nobody knows what 643's plans are or how much community involvement there may be once and if it gets approved. That whole area is in need of revitalization near that park. Oh and don't think your local parks are any different. They sign usage contracts in the spring and fall with the Park and Rec dept. which give them first rights to the use of their fields over other "tax payers." Same thing as the exclusion you are so worried about. |
|
|
|
Mike Corbin
523 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 00:34:23
|
Is there a current baseball/softball league using the park right now? I only ask because I have no idea if they do or not. The article only says that they put it out publicly to see if they could possibly lease out the complex.
IMO, it doesn't seem that there is since the City of Marietta saw fit to see if they could get some money out of the park.
|
Edited by - Mike Corbin on 01/11/2010 09:05:33 |
|
|
|
gasbag
281 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 08:58:29
|
In these difficult economic times, municipalities are struggling to balance their budgets / citizens needs as well. I like the idea of leasing public property to private entities but only if it benefits the public ( profit ? ) or serves the public's greater need somehow. I wonder if the process was just an open bid / proposal or if the City stated some base number ? I wasn't involved so I don't know.
Seems to me if the City cannot properly maintain the facility, then it probably does not get used to the extent it was intended for. If the lease rate is high enough to cover the City's costs ( cost of land, any associated financing costs, etc. ) plus a profit, I'd say lease it....if however, they are losing money on the lease venture ( taxpayer's taking it in the shorts yet again ! ), then I'd say either consider selling it outright for profit ( with restrictions for use....make sure it stays a ballfield ! ) or just sit tight and maintain the status quo. I think selling it outright would relieve the City of a lot of legal questions....but I am not a lawyer ! If they sold it outright, it would remove any conflict the City has with public / private issues. Perhaps they could even offer some type of financing terms etc. to help make it work for it's intended use. |
|
|
|
AllStar
762 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 09:21:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Corbin
Is there a current baseball/softball league using the park right now? I only ask because I have no idea if they do or not. The article only says that they put it out publicly to see if they could possibly lease out the complex.
IMO, it doesn't seem that there is since the City of Marietta saw fit to see if they could get some money out of the park.
Considering the current state of the facility, I am very surprised that anybody actually hosted a tournament and charged a gate fee. It's certainly not up to the quality of fields that Triple Crown uses. I've never seen anyone on it except for my son's team.
It's got tremendous potential. |
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 09:46:37
|
meatball,
My reference to the Cherokee Reds and Sandy Plains Organizations using public fiends was only to say that there are many organizations that have agreements with City/County Parks and Rec's for field priority. They get priority of field use at these parks over the people living in close proximity the the parks.
I don't believe that either organization is working for a profit margin.
We can't forget, though, that if 6-4-3 takes over that park and does make a profit from use of it, they will to pay taxes on those profits. Thereby becoming taxpayers. Having a tenant at that facility will be a lot better for the park, and the surrounding area as a whole. They are more likey to put in things that make people want to come there, not exclude them.
Let's look at one example, say they put in a playground so that, during games there, siblings of players would have somewhere to play, which encourages people to hang out at the park more during tournaments. Having this playground, though, has residual effects on the families surrounding the park because they can come use the playground all year long when tournaments are not going on.
I just get tired of the "Government is good, Capitalism is bad." discussions. |
|
|
|
Peanutsr
171 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 09:52:33
|
Let's not be naive.
What 6-4-3 plans on doing ,in no way shape or form resembles a typical rec league at a typical county park. And if I were a gambling man I would bet that Danny isn't doing this out of some altruistic desire to help the public in this "depressed area".
If I were on the board I would vote to sale the property outright as opposed to providing a business entity a rent free lease for twenty years. If that was not feasable then I would charge 6-4-3 some kind of yearly rent with stipulationss that when not being used the public should have access.
What is to stop Danny from building a few warehouses on the property and using it as a distribution point for his Carpet and flooring company?
What's the difference?quote:
Originally posted by touchemall
So if you were on the Board to approve or disapprove, you would rather see that piece of land fall into further disrepair than have someone come in and fix it up and use? Nobody knows what 643's plans are or how much community involvement there may be once and if it gets approved. That whole area is in need of revitalization near that park. Oh and don't think your local parks are any different. They sign usage contracts in the spring and fall with the Park and Rec dept. which give them first rights to the use of their fields over other "tax payers." Same thing as the exclusion you are so worried about.
|
Edited by - Peanutsr on 01/11/2010 10:14:12 |
|
|
|
stock
5 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 09:52:43
|
| Putting 800k into those fields sounds great. but it will only benefit 643 academy and those that pay there. |
|
|
|
Peanutsr
171 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 10:04:49
|
The city will not be gatting any money out of the park.
All concessions and usage fees will go directly to the 6-4-3 organization.
Also, in this quote from the article :
"A benefit of leasing the facility is to reduce maintenance costs while still making sure that viable recreation programs are available to the public. Having a regular on-site presence would also help reduce vandalism, Buss said."
it is not very clear as to wether the city will still have a fiscal responsibility for some of the maintenance. I would also question the viable recreation programs available to the public statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Corbin
Is there a current baseball/softball league using the park right now? I only ask because I have no idea if they do or not. The article only says that they put it out publicly to see if they could possibly lease out the complex.
IMO, it doesn't seem that there is since the City of Marietta saw fit to see if they could get some money out of the park.
|
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 10:44:15
|
I think those are all fine questions to ask and having inclusions in the deal that require certain things be added to the park for public use is very understandable. I think all those things can easily be worked out and included in a deal.
Zoning and required permits would keep Danny from putting up buildings on that property for his own business. |
|
|
|
BREAMKING
323 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2010 : 10:49:30
|
I would probably disapprove knowing the little that I do. I would probably offer to sell it to them though for market value. I just always assumed this organization was for profit. I could be wrong I have no idea how they operate. For me it is the leasing out of public land for zero dollar value. The usage thing is not really the deal breaker for me. There are a lot of businesses that would like a lease for 20 yrs. on seven acres for free. I hope the mdj does another article telling us what happens and who voted for what so I can make my vote accordingly.
I went by this park about seven months ago coming back from better baseball just to show a buddy of mine. We both come to the conclusion with just some hard work and a little money the park could become playable again pretty fast. I do not think it would take 800k to fix it. I think for 6-4-3 this is a heck of a deal. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
new fields for marietta
