• The Rochesterian in Your Inbox:

    Join 622 other subscribers

Carrier DomeThe City of Syracuse can’t afford to fix water mains that break all the time, but Syracuse University would like taxpayers to help pay for a $495 million, 44,000-seat retractable roof stadium.

Never mind that SU has an endowment of nearly $1 billion. Never mind that SU doesn’t pay property taxes, though it agreed to fork over at least some cash to its cash-strapped host.  Never mind that the basketball team alone brings in about $25 million in revenue and will get more from the ACC TV contract. Never mind that there’s no plan to reuse the iconic Carrier Dome. Never mind that stadiums are not true economic development.

E.J. McMahon of the Empire Center calls the idea of a new SU stadium a “fantasy” and unfair to taxpayers. He also notes the Carrier Dome is a big success:

The dome, and SU’s Division I teams, draw tens of thousands regularly, even on wintry nights.

“But it hasn’t fixed Syracuse’s problems,” he said, “which is kind of proof in itself.”

The mayor wisely didn’t agree to a plan hatched by the governor and county executive to award $200 million in state money to the project. She is forming a task force to look into the issue.

 

Links of the Day:

 

– A Rochester case will test shaken baby science used in courts.

– A state audit of a Rochester charter school found favoritism in awarding contracts.

– Given my experiences over the last two weeks, this column about sexism directed at women reporters resonated.

 

10 Responses to Seriously, SU?

  1. The sexism article was most interesting. I would have thought the theater of ideas and frank discussion far more interesting than crude and sophomoric rejoinders and photoshop pranks. Let the debates roll, let this kind of sexist treatment fade away with the morning mist. Sad in our day and age.

  2. January 25, 2014 at 2:05 pm Jennifer responds:

    How is this article “sexist?”

    • January 25, 2014 at 2:08 pm Rachel Barnhart responds:

      I posted a link to article about sexism against female reporters. (See third link of the day.) The column describes online hate directed at reporters who write things people don’t want to hear.

  3. January 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm Chris Haller responds:

    I am somewhat clueless on how the article is sexist except the article takes a critical stand on a subject that is heart of the love affair that the US has with male dominated sports. I am a firm believer that the US is far too sports dominated – sports will not provide jobs for millions of Americans, sports will not help the US maintain it’s position in the world, sports will not feed the hungry and the list goes on.

    Excellent universities focused on academics, economic incentives to grow long term industries, programs to help inner city kids get better education would be money better spent than on a new stadium. It is scary that it is easier to get money floated for a new stadium that isn’t necessary than it is to provide affordable college education for both the young and the out of work. I would like to see free SUNY schools than a new sports stadium in any town – this would provide the brain power and business opportunities in the future to be able to afford a luxury like a new stadium for a very rich private university. Bravo Rachel – I think you hit the nail on the head…

  4. January 25, 2014 at 5:14 pm Jim Mayer responds:

    The article you posted reminded me of the following article from TPM: Let’s Be Real: Online Harassment Isn’t ‘Virtual’ For Women. I thought it was relevent to both your, and Mayor Warren’s, experiences.

    • January 26, 2014 at 6:44 pm Rachel Barnhart responds:

      Thank you.

      My experience pales in comparison to the online vitriol directed at the mayor. But it has been upsetting. If you can’t or won’t discuss the actual reporting, you tear down the messenger in often crude ways.

  5. January 26, 2014 at 9:02 am Don Van Hall responds:

    Eliminating sexism starts at the source. Hiding it won’t make it o away, but seeing it makes you wish it would.

  6. January 26, 2014 at 2:03 pm Orielly responds:

    People branded the Tea Party as racist, when ONE person shows up to a rally with a racist sign, where the public is invited. That is all the race baiters needed. One sign .. brand the movement racist.

    Same is true with sexist comments after an article written by a woman ..they’re all sexist….really? So what? There are racists and sexists out there… no kidding?

    There are also 13yr old boys that say and do lots of stupid things as they grow up. IT by no means sums up society.

    But it does give THE WILLING all they need to play the victim card. Those who put themselves in the public eye should expect it, right or wrong, and move on.

    But, like the race baiters, some will also use it to try and solicit sympathy and promote and publicize their brand, by the fact that they are a victim of some crude people’s comments, as they strive to report truth and justice.

    It comes with the territory and always will as long as comments are allowed..there will be good and the bad.

    Can’t stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

    —–

    ON SU and the Dome… people forget we bought the DOME and virtually gave it to SU (a private school) originally. My guess is that if we say this time its your buy SU, the current DOME will end up being just fine.

    Having been to the DOME, that is just like Govt. buying a restaurant a building. Both are places that bring people in for the organization that is running it as a venue, to make profit.

    No Government anywhere in the USA should be in the “restaurant or stadium funding” business. It should be illegal and end this city by city, state by state competition for professional teams.

    And we sure as heck shouldn’t do it for a Private school that pays no tax on its profits, or does not accepts NYS students over out of state applicants. OR one that charges 65K a year to go there.

    And finally the UR with 6B in the bank in endowments and 3B in annual revenue generated largely from area residents, and they just got a 135M expressway exit. Meanwhile the City is 40M in the whole. Seems like a similar scenario right here in the ROC.

    Wegmans pays for road and infrastructure improvements around their businesses.

  7. Just like the City of Rochester shelling out money to Collegetown and I think even Wegman’s got road improvements for a new grocery store. Those in control help out their rich campaign donors.

  8. Sexist? I would describe to it more as bullying. Bullying only works if one lets it. When I grew up, we were taught that “sticks and bones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you.” Over the years, the PC crowd began to enable the bullies by reacting to their tactics by responding and making a big deal of their efforts to intimidate. In your scenario with city hall, you were being bullied for your questions. DON’T ENABLE THE BULLIES. If you believe you were right to ask those questions, than you should NOT feel victimized by their bulling. You should feel proud for asking the questions that NEEDED to be asked. On the other hand, if you feel you WERE being overly aggressive in your questions, than you should apologize, learn from the experience, and move on. Integrity is the key here. Always take the high road. If you do, you can never be victimized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *