Actually, I have my own selfish reasons for seeing this charter commission put on the ballot. I think the voters will reject it. That's not a bad thing at all. I'm surprised that KJ voted against this, though. First, the Council rejected the idea of placing this on the November ballot, which was KJ's best chance of seeing these changes take effect in his lifetime. When that got rejected, I was sure he'd favor the second-best chance of seeing these changes take effect. It makes me wonder what is up his sleeve. Is he now going to keep trying? Will he bring this before the Council on a monthly basis until they finally wear down and vote 5-4 to put it on some ballot? He only needs to make a deal with one more Council member.

What happened to the regional approach? What happened to 1/3-1/3-1/3?

Ben, that sounds great and all, but all-too frequently, TIFs don't produce the revenues those that push for them say they will. Latest example of this is in Louisville. What kind of mechanism would you propose for these situations? http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120120/BUSINESS/301210044/kfc-yum-center-louisville-arena?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

Wouldn't it make sense to ask local taxpayers what they want? I cannot deny that redevelopment has, in many cases, been very helpful. The relatively new businesses on R Street are, I believe, a case in point. R Street was pretty bleak 20 years ago, but between Shoki, Burgers and Brew, and other very nice places, I like to go there now. So you hold it out as an example of what redevelopment CAN do. Follow the model of other cities. Put it up for a vote; a 1 cent sales tax increase, within the city, and very narrowly define the kind of redevelopment the revenues will fund. Have a commission that approves or rejects projects, and hold that commission accountable. Put something like that towards the voters. If they reject it, then, fine, redevelopment will end. And if they accept it, then maybe we fund railyard projects (in general; not just the ESC). Honestly, I think that answer is 100 times better than leasing out our parking in order to build an ESC. I'd like to hear the arguments against something like this, though.

Excellent response. I've never understood how the Maloofs would be willing to simply give up the $10-$15 per car they currently charge for parking each of the 1 million or so cars that park at PBP right now. No doubt this will be reflected in the term sheets -- one way or another, they'll want to recover that $10M+ in parking revenues they'll lose when they move downtown. I think we're headed for an Indianapolis-type situation, where we'll pay the Kings to play in this new ESC, instead of them paying us.