1997-07-06, By Travis E. Poling
马刺队为新的1.2亿美元球馆发起竞选活动 球队在1月17日资金选举中赢得选民支持面临挑战
圣安东尼奥马刺队(San Antonio Spurs)计划在劳动节后发起一场公关活动，试图克服纳税人对新球馆缺乏支持，他们希望这项活动能最终带来一座新的1.2亿美元球馆。
马刺队官员希望在1月17日的投票中看到一项关于公共资金的提案。
“赞成”票将意味着马刺队将拥有一个新家，圣安东尼奥牲畜展暨牛仔节(San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo)也可能拥有一个新家。
该球队正在依靠新秀蒂姆·邓肯(Tim Duncan)以及一个健康的戴维·罗宾逊(David Robinson)，希望他们在球场上取得胜利，并在投票箱中赢得选民支持。
球队官员也正在努力提高门票销售。
马刺队的广告牌遍布全城，上面写着“现在，我们回来了！立即行动！”，这是他们在1996-1997赛季惨淡表现后的口号。
马刺队组织已经开始进行民意调查，以确定向当地选民推销多功能体育和活动设施的最佳方式。
尽管投票日期已经确定，但球队尚未敲定融资方案、地点和政治支持。
马刺队主席彼得·霍尔特(Peter Holt)表示，球队官员将于本月晚些时候与市、县和体育馆咨询委员会的领导人会面，以在预计的逆袭活动中获得支持和意见。
马刺队表示，他们需要一个新的球馆，才能让球队在圣安东尼奥的运营在经济上可行。他们还想为球队提供一个更适合篮球的场地。
“（投票的）时间将取决于我们打交道的任何市政当局，”霍尔特说，并补充说1月17日的投票是一个目标日期，是从每年四次授权的选举日期中选出的。
官员们将在12月3日之前通知州政府，以设定选举日期。
霍尔特说，马刺队正在研究最近在佛罗里达州坦帕、西雅图和旧金山使用公共资金建设职业体育设施的成功选举案例。
“这些案例中大多数最初的支持率都非常低，”他谈到这些城市中微弱的胜利时说。
德克萨斯州立法机构今年早些时候批准了一项法案，允许圣安东尼奥、达拉斯和休斯敦的选民决定是否使用税收资金建造新的球馆。
霍尔特说，根据与市和县领导人的谈判情况，争取球馆支持的公开宣传活动将在劳动节后开始。
如果马刺队没有伤病困扰，并在投票前的前35到40场比赛中打得很好，投票的时间可能至关重要。霍尔特说，邓肯的加入以及罗宾逊重返赛场很可能是球馆投票的关键因素。
但霍尔特表示，仅仅取得胜利还不足以赢得公众支持。
《圣安东尼奥快报》(San Antonio Express-News)在4月份进行的一项民意调查显示，80%的受访者不会支持使用税收资金为马刺队建造新的球馆。
这项民意调查是在比尔·索恩顿(Bill Thornton)担任市长期间进行的，当时马刺队表现糟糕。此外，马刺队当时还没有在NBA选秀抽签中获得状元签，选中了大学全美最佳球员邓肯。
德克萨斯州哈特-汉克斯(Harte-Hanks)在5月份进行的一项全州民意调查显示了类似的结果，但发现公众强烈支持使用公共资金建设社区设施。
“我们必须让选民相信，这真的是一个社区球馆，”霍尔特谈到他认为将不仅成为马刺队的主场，而且还将用于各种娱乐活动的设施时说。
然而，这场运动的支柱可能是大量公牛、马和猪、乡村音乐明星的演唱会以及圣安东尼奥牲畜展暨牛仔节的所有其他内容。该活动已经延长至16天，每次演出都售罄。
如果在牛仔节举办地弗里曼体育馆(Freeman Coliseum)的场地建造球馆，将提供更大的场地，并为非营利性圣安东尼奥牲畜博览会(San Antonio Livestock Exposition)提供更多收入，用于资助其大学奖学金。
“我们只是希望更多座位，”圣安东尼奥牲畜博览会执行董事基思·马丁(Keith Martin)说。“我们希望它被称为新的体育馆。我们百分之百地支持它，”他说。
马刺队官员在过去一年中一直与该组织进行谈判，讨论了在弗里曼体育馆所在的县政府土地上建设球馆的可能性，但还没有做出任何承诺。
圣安东尼奥体育基金会(San Antonio Sports Foundation)执行董事苏珊·布莱克伍德(Susan Blackwood)说，在圣安东尼奥增加一座球馆也有助于该市争取2007年第36届泛美运动会(Pan American Games)和其他大型体育赛事。
市长霍华德·皮克(Howard Peak)表示，他认为通过请愿的方式将该提案列入投票议程，就能证明公众对球馆的支持。皮克说，他私下建议马刺队走这条路。
皮克说，他正在等待马刺队和其他参与推动球馆建设的各方提交融资方案。
“在合适的条件下，我可能会成为倡导者，”皮克说。
皮克说，这些条件包括大量私人资金、没有酒店住宿税、对设施的某些控制权，以及保证竞争性球馆不会导致该市由税收支持的阿拉莫圆顶体育馆(Alamodome)陷入亏损。
“第一步应该来自私营部门，”皮克说。
贝克萨尔县(Bexar County)法官辛迪·克里尔(Cyndi Krier)说，可以建造球馆，而不用向公众索要太多资金。
“我们需要考虑所有可用的非税收来源，”克里尔说。“在为这个项目融资方面，我们必须有创意。”
她说，向大型公司出售命名权可以帮助支付部分成本。
她说，让公司为球馆中直接惠及公司的一些方面付费也是另一种可能性。
例如，一家唱片公司可以支付球馆声学设备的费用，以便录制更好的演唱会录音。
在去年卸任马刺队主席之前，罗伯特·麦克德莫特(Robert McDermott)告诉《圣安东尼奥快报》，马刺队组织愿意拿出2000万美元的私人资金。
一年后，在新的领导层下，该组织还没有做出任何这样的承诺。
马刺队政府事务和媒体关系副总裁莱奥·戈麦斯(Leo Gomez)说，球队老板还没有决定他们将投入项目的资金数额。
霍尔特也表示，他不想在游戏初期承诺具体的私人资金数额。
投入项目的私人资金数额可能取决于可以筹集的公共资金数额。
公共融资方案包括半美分销售税，与建造价值1.8亿美元的阿拉莫圆顶体育馆使用的税收相同。这种广义的税收将在大约三年内为球馆支付费用。这种税收对阿拉莫圆顶体育馆有效期为五年。
使用汽车租赁税的5%和用户费（门票和停车税）的混合方案意味着更重的债务负担，需要在25到30年内偿还。这些选择今年随着州立立法的出现而变得可用，这将帮助全州各地的城市为体育场馆、博物馆、公园和其他社区设施融资。
“你不需要创建广义税收（如销售税），这些税收是为富人提供补贴，”印第安纳大学城市政策与环境中心主任、新书《大联盟输家：体育的真实成本以及谁在为它买单》(Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who’s Paying for It)的作者马克·罗森特劳布(Mark Rosentraub)说。
罗森特劳布说，任何融资协议都需要保护公众、球迷和马刺队的利益。
皮克说，他担心球馆会对阿拉莫圆顶体育馆产生抑制作用，他说阿拉莫圆顶体育馆目前正处于盈利状态，每年至少举办45场马刺队的比赛，包括季前赛和常规赛，以及各种大型和小型活动。
“每当你在一个市场上有一个新的场地，很可能会发生一些（活动）转移，”阿拉莫圆顶体育馆馆长迈克·艾宾顿(Mike Abbington)说。“我们正在对不同场景下的情况进行仔细研究。肯定会产生一些影响。”
艾宾顿说，如果马刺队搬到新的球馆，45场以上的比赛可能会最终被填补，但可能不会像NBA比赛那样产生那么高的收益。
他说，如果阿拉莫圆顶体育馆不为马刺队的比赛预留场地，将更容易提前数年预订会议和酒店业务，但这对该市来说是一个小小的让步，因为它将错过20,000名饥饿和口渴的马刺队球迷。该市获得食品和饮料特许经营权的40%。
“没有多少活动能与马刺队的比赛质量相媲美，”艾宾顿说。
艾宾顿说，如果该市出现一个替代场地，演唱会、家居和园艺展以及其他活动的竞争将会更加激烈。
“这可能会归结为哪个建筑可以赚到最多的钱？”他说。
更复杂的是，如果县政府将球馆问题列入投票议程，并在县政府拥有的弗里曼体育馆附近的土地上建造球馆，这将使县政府和市政府直接成为竞争对手。
“我们（市政府和县政府）都需要努力确保这种情况不会发生，”克里尔说。“就我而言，县政府不需要负责。”
皮克说，如果建造了球馆，对该市来说，拥有某些控制权将是最有利的。“我们不想在没有控制权的情况下处于不利地位，”皮克说。
他暗示，同步运营阿拉莫圆顶体育馆和球馆会好得多。
体育经济学家罗森特劳布说，阿拉莫圆顶体育馆和球馆每年都需要200到220个活动之夜才能盈利。
假设球馆举办超过45场马刺队的比赛，这意味着两个圣安东尼奥场馆将与户外场地、奥斯汀的弗兰克·埃尔温中心(Frank Erwin Center)和其他奥斯汀音乐厅竞争，争夺超过350个额外的日期。
点击查看原文：Spurs schedule campaign for new $120 million arena Team sees uphill fight to win voters for Jan. 17 funding election
Spurs schedule campaign for new $120 million arena Team sees uphill fight to win voters for Jan. 17 funding election
The San Antonio Spurs, seeking to overcome a lack of taxpayer support for a new arena, plan to launch a public- relations campaign after Labor Day that they hope leads to a new $120 million facility.
Spurs officials hope to see a measure for public funding on a Jan. 17 ballot.
A “yes” vote would mean a new home for the Spurs and possibly the San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo.
The team is banking on rookie Tim Duncan, coupled with a healthy David Robinson, to give them a winning season on the court and generate voter support at the ballot box.
Team officials also are pushing to increase ticket sales.
Spurs billboards all over town already are proclaiming “Now, we’re Back. Act today!” after the dismal 1996- 1997 season.
The Spurs organization already has begun polling to determine the best way to sell the idea of a multiuse sports and event facility to local voters.
While the date of the vote is specific, the team has yet to iron out the details on a financing package, the location and political support.
Team officials will meet with city, county and Coliseum Advisory Board leaders later this month to garner support and input in an expected come- from-behind campaign, according to Spurs Chairman Peter Holt.
The Spurs say they need a new arena to make it financially viable for the team to stay in San Antonio. They also want to provide the team with a venue more suited to basketball.
“The timing (of the vote) will be up to any municipality we deal with,” Holt said, adding that a Jan. 17 vote is a target date chosen from four authorized election dates each year.
Officials would have until Dec. 3 to notify the state to set the election.
Holt said the Spurs are studying recent winning elections that asked to use public money for professional sports facilities in Tampa, Fla., Seattle and San Francisco.
“Most of these started way down in the polls,” he said of the narrow victories in those cities.
The Texas Legislature earlier this year approved a bill that allows San Antonio, Dallas and Houston voters to decide whether to use tax dollars to build new arenas.
Depending on how talks go with city and county leaders, Holt said, the public campaign to get arena support will begin after Labor Day.
The timing of the vote could be important if the Spurs are injury- free and playing well through their first 35 to 40 games before the vote. The addition of Duncan and the likely return of Robinson to the court very well could be the aces in the hole for an arena vote, Holt said.
But Holt said it would take more than just a winning season to win over the public.
A San Antonio Express-News poll in April found that 80 percent of those surveyed would not support using tax dollars to build a new arena for the Spurs.
The poll was taken while Bill Thornton, a strong opponent of using tax money for an arena, was mayor and the Spurs were having a horrible season. In addition, the Spurs had not yet won the rights to college All- American Duncan in the NBA Draft lottery.
A statewide Harte-Hanks Texas Poll in May reported similar results but found strong support for using public money to build community facilities.
“We have to convince the electorate that it is truly a community arena,” Holt said of the facility he believes will not only be the Spurs’ home but also be used for a variety of entertainment events.
The backbone of the campaign, however, could be a lot of bull - and horses and pigs, country stars in concert and everything else that is part of the popular San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo. The event has been extended to 16 days and sells out every show.
If the arena were built on the grounds of the Freeman Coliseum, the home of the rodeo, it would provide a larger venue and more revenue for the nonprofit San Antonio Livestock Exposition to use for its college scholarships.
“Our wish list is simply for more seats,” said Keith Martin, executive director of the San Antonio Livestock Exposition “We would like for it to be called the new coliseum. We’re behind it 100 percent,” he said.
Spurs officials have had talks with the group over the last year about the possibility of locating on the county- owned land where the Freeman Coliseum now stands, but there have been no commitments.
The addition of an arena to San Antonio also could help the city in its bid for the 36-sport Pan American Games in 2007 and other major sports events, said Susan Blackwood, executive director of the San Antonio Sports Foundation.
Mayor Howard Peak said he believes proof of community support for an arena would come through getting the measure on the ballot by petition. Peak said he has casually suggested that route to the Spurs.
Peak said he is awaiting a financing proposal from the Spurs and other parties involved in the arena push.
“Under the right circumstances, I could be an advocate,” Peak said.
Peak says those circumstances include a lot of private financing, no hotel-occupancy taxes, some control over the facility and assurance that a competing arena would not drive the city’s tax-supported Alamodome to operating in the red.
“The first move ought to be from the private sector,” Peak said.
Bexar County Judge Cyndi Krier said an arena can be built without asking the public for too much money.
“We need to look at all the nontax sources available,” Krier said. “We’ve got to be creative where financing this thing is concerned.”
She said the sale of naming rights to a major corporation could help defray costs.
Getting corporations to pay for specific aspects of the facility that would directly benefit the company is another possibility, she said.
For example, a record company could pay for the acoustics in the arena to make for better concert recordings.
Before he stepped down as chairman of the Spurs last year, Robert McDermott told the San Antonio Express-News the Spurs organization would be willing to come up with $20 million in private funds.
A year later, the organization, under new leadership, is not making any such commitment.
Leo Gomez, Spurs vice president of governmental affairs and media elations, said team owners have not decided how much they will kick into the project.
Holt also said he does not want to commit to a specific amount of private funding this early in the game.
How much private money goes into the project may depend on how much public money can be raised.
Among the public financing options are a half-cent sales tax, the same kind used to build the $180 million Alamodome. The broad tax would pay for an arena in about three years. The tax was in effect five years for the Alamodome.
Using a mix of a 5 percent tax on car rentals and user fees (ticket and parking taxes) would mean a heavier debt load financed over 25 to 30 years. Those options became available this year with state legislation that would help cities across the state finance sports venues, museums, parks and other community facilities.
“You don’t need to create broad- based taxes (such as a sales tax) that are subsidies for the rich,” said Mark Rosentraub, director of the Center for Urban Policy and the Environment at Indiana University and the author of the new book “Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who’s Paying for It.”
Rosentraub said any financing deal needs to protect the interest of the public, the fans and the Spurs.
Peak said he is concerned an arena would have a dampening effect on the Alamodome, which he said is now operating in the black with at least 45 Spurs games a year, including pre-season and regular season games, and a variety of large and small events.
“Whenever you have a new venue in the market, there is likely to be some shifting (of events),” said Mike Abbington, director of the Alamodome. “We are doing a careful study of that under different scenarios. There’s going to be some impact.”
Abbington said if the Spurs move to a new arena, the 45 or more lost bookings could be filled eventually but probably not with the same high-dollar value as NBA games.
He said not holding the dome in reserve for Spurs dates would make it easier to book convention and hospitality business years in advance, but that is a small concession for the city, which will miss out on 20,000 hungry and thirsty Spurs fans. The city receives 40 percent of the food and drink concessions.
“There’s not a lot of events that match the quality of a Spurs game,” Abbington said.
The competition for concerts, home and garden shows and other events would heat up with an alternate venue in town, Abbington said.
“It could come down to a choice of which building can they make the most money in?” he said.
To complicate the issue further, if the county puts the arena issue on the ballot and builds it on county-owned land near Freeman Coliseum, it would put the county and the city directly in competition.
“We both (city and county) need to work very hard to see that that doesn’t happen,” Krier said. “The county doesn’t have to run the show as far as I’m concerned.”
Peak said if an arena is built, it would be in the best interest of the city to have some control. “We don’t want to be left at a disadvantage with no control,” Peak said.
He indicated that it would be much better to operate the Alamodome and an arena in tandem.
Sports economist Rosentraub said the Alamodome and the arena each would need 200 to 220 event nights yearly to operate at a profit.
Assuming more than 45 Spurs games in the arena, that would leave two San Antonio facilities competing against outdoor venues, Austin’s Frank Erwin Center and other Austin concert halls for more than 350 additional dates.
By Travis E. Poling, via San Antonio Express-News