News Project Marvel

The details of this deal have been out for awhile now, and people are still confused over how the project will be funded. This is exactly why those of us in SA need to get out and vote. The opposition, one thing they are good at is rallying their base to vote for their agenda. We are dealing with government, there will never be a perfect deal, there will be problems, this will most likely go over budget, but one thing is certain this city will falter without the Spurs. If there is one thing id put my tax money to use on is keeping the spurs here and firing Txdot for the endless road construction and detours.
 
wemvp said:
SA metro area is 10 times the population of Laredo. What you "feel" is wrong. There's no objective argument to the population and tax base.

People should know exactly what they are voting for, the cost, and who handles the eventual cost overrun. But they won't. You'll bad mouth any politicians that try to push back on the city getting screwed, call them communist or any myriad of other terms you know nothing about, and proceed to get bent over by billionaires again and again.

Cities could get better deals on these things, and more out of them, if the electorate was educated and motivated to know exactly what they're getting if they vote yes. Yet they never are and continue to vote with fear and emotion.

Remember the late 90s and the whole "new Spurs arena will revitalize the east side with growth and entertainment" bullshit that was sold to us? I was in SA back then. I remember.
Click to expand...
What do you want to know and what hav you done to educate yourself on what’s already publicly available? The general contractor for the project? How it will be phased? How the minimal tax dollars SA would actually pay would be used (hint: it’s for streets).

You’ll never get an accurate sense on costs because that’s impossible for projects of this scope. That’s why the spurs agreed to eat overruns. Again, all of this is at your finger tips with some simple google searching on the project. So, aside from that, what specific deal should the city be holding out for and why would that be a realistic ask to the spurs given the parties bargaining position/power?
 
NotoriousHOP said:
Karlis is really trying to make his name as an investigative reporter on this story and the general dysfunction at City Hall. The message he referenced does not say "if you vote against the arena, you support Greg Abbott". It implies no support for him and is just meant to rile up people who are already against the new arena. But I don't get HOW Abbott and Patrick would get access to existing tourist dollars or tourist dollars raised as part of this process.
Click to expand...
The tweet is mixing up funding mechanisms. It’s not the hotel tax it’s the money from the finance zone that would go to the state not the city of the arena falls thru
 
RC_Drunkford said:
because most fat americans can‘t comprehend the financing. They are still thinking the arena will be built from their hard earned tax money which is not the case.
Click to expand...
The Truth #6 said:
I want the Spurs to stay in San Antonio but I also want the city to get the best deal possible.

As far as I understand, the tourism tax money isn't an issue of either give it to the Spurs for the arena or flush it down the toilet. No, no, no.

Now, I'm not saying a lot, perhaps even most, of San Antonians don't have idiotic opinions, they do, but I'm also saying that this tourism tax money could be used for education and other very vital and underfunded "things" - and with the way the winds are blowing, one shouldn't expect state and federal funds to keep everything afloat. We are in a time of severe economic uncertainty in a city with the worst education in the country.

I think acknowledging that when approaching this decision is an honest way to discuss it. For people who don't live here in SA I can see how this wouldn't affect you, but hey, you aren't the one voting.

Just the ramblings of an armchair endocrinologist...
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
As an FYI, here is the tax code that governs the use of the "tourist tax".


It's a hefty read in a miserable font but here is the main takeaway.

"Sec. 351.101. USE OF TAX REVENUE.

(a) Revenue from the municipal hotel occupancy tax may be used only to promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry"

This is followed by a long list of specific limitations. So, simply stated, it cannot be used for other worthy purposes such as education, feeding the elderly, libraries, etc. Anyone that says otherwise is misinformed or is purposefully spreading false information to convince people to vote no.
 
is the deal also contingent on the spurs getting the land, or more likely, a favorable lease deal? they are also getting deals on concessions, rent from businesses in the buildings they create, possible tax deals.

Basically, the odds of anyhting else being built here is small ,but it's still prime real estate.
 
k.... said:
is the deal also contingent on the spurs getting the land, or more likely, a favorable lease deal? they are also getting deals on concessions, rent from businesses in the buildings they create, possible tax deals.

Basically, the odds of anyhting else being built here is small ,but it's still prime real estate.
Click to expand...
The city will own the arena, while the spurs are responsible for maintaining and operating the arena. Spurs have also guaranteed assisting with private development around the arena.
 
Field of Schemes.
www.fieldofschemes.com

Spurs arena vote faces “uphill battle” as poll shows residents currently oppose using tax dollars

The first polls are in for the November ballot measure to raise hotel and car rental taxes and use part of the proceeds to pay about $150 million toward a new San Antonio Spurs arena, and they're not great for Spurs owner Peter Holt: Bexar County voters who responded to the poll were opposed to...
www.fieldofschemes.com www.fieldofschemes.com

Spurs arena vote faces “uphill battle” as poll shows residents currently oppose using tax dollars​

October 16, 2025 Neil deMause
The first polls are in for the November ballot measure to raise hotel and car rental taxes and use part of the proceeds to pay about $150 million toward a new San Antonio Spurs arena, and they’re not great for Spurs owner Peter Holt: Bexar County voters who responded to the poll were opposed to the plan by a 46-40% margin, with 14% still undecided.

Considering that Holt is in the middle of $2 million in ad spending to convince county voters of why this is a good idea, this has to be a disappointing result. Voters do narrowly approve of Holt’s greater Project Marvel redevelopment project (45-40%, with 13% unsure and 2% no opinion), but that’s technically being funded by the city, not the county, even if the county is looking to help fund the arena parts of it. Also, there are actually two measures on the ballot, one to help fund a new arena, and one to pay for upgrades to the Spurs’ old arena so it can be used by the San Antonio Stock Show, and the new-arena one currently appears to be losing.

Bryan Gervais, director of the University of Texas at San Antonio Center for Public Opinion Research, which conducted the poll, told the San Antonio Express-News, “It’s fair to say that the effort to secure venue tax funding for a new Spurs arena faces an uphill battle.”

The city of San Antonio is also proposing to put in $489 million toward the arena, plus $60 million to buy land for it, which it says it can do without a public vote; however, city officials have said the whole deal will fall apart if the arena ballot measure doesn’t pass on November 4.

What’s a poor sports mogul to do in this situation? Increase his ad spending, probably, to try to drown out the opposition: While the old rule of thumb that stadium and arena campaigns only win when proponents outspend opponents by more than 100:1 doesn’t turn out to always be true, it is true that the bigger the spending gap, the bigger the margin of victory, so place those ad buys! Also, maybe drop some hints that the team might move if people don’t vote for the arena subsidy, any cities handy that you can play footsie with?

In October 2023, Austin-based Spurs Sports & Entertainment (SS&E) executive Brandon James texted [Austin Mayor Kirk] Watson an invitation to a private wine event with legendary coach Gregg Popovich.

James described the gathering as a “very deliberate plan to get the right people in the room.”
Click to expand...
Ex-cellent.


Share this post:
 
The_Second_Coming_of_VY65 said:
What do you want to know and what hav you done to educate yourself on what’s already publicly available? The general contractor for the project? How it will be phased? How the minimal tax dollars SA would actually pay would be used (hint: it’s for streets).

You’ll never get an accurate sense on costs because that’s impossible for projects of this scope. That’s why the spurs agreed to eat overruns. Again, all of this is at your finger tips with some simple google searching on the project. So, aside from that, what specific deal should the city be holding out for and why would that be a realistic ask to the spurs given the parties bargaining position/power?
Click to expand...
It was stated pretty clearly in my post. Also, I have not seen anywhere that Holt agreed to eat the full brunt of cost overruns. That would be shocking, I would expect it to be a joint venture with the city/county and the Spurs with the percentage liable to be negotiated.

All I want is for the full details of the contracts to be negotiated and made public so reporters and academics can put together a palatable explanation of the expected costs, who pays what percentage, and where the city/county money will come from. Then which entity will be responsible for which percentage of cost overruns, and where the city/county funds to cover overruns will come from.

Full transparency and full accountability to the citizens. That should be standard, but it won't be if the city and Spurs are trying to shoehorn a bad deal through with diversion and obfuscation.

The economy is in the shitter right now and getting worse. Costs across the board for families is on the rise and wages are stagnant, the jobs market is in the toilet, and people are nearing being tapped out. Austin just proposed a 20%! property tax increase in a single year and is quickly losing the plot due to their insistence on living high on the hog on covid era subsidies that expired. They're in the red because of reckless spending.

SA should not try to be like Austin. Know who you are. Be responsible fiscally. Put the full transparency of a completed deal on the table for the citizens and let them decide if they want to risk those tax increases in a bad economy with a very uncertain and grim outlook for the future.
 
wemvp said:
It was stated pretty clearly in my post. Also, I have not seen anywhere that Holt agreed to eat the full brunt of cost overruns. That would be shocking, I would expect it to be a joint venture with the city/county and the Spurs with the percentage liable to be negotiated.

All I want is for the full details of the contracts to be negotiated and made public so reporters and academics can put together a palatable explanation of the expected costs, who pays what percentage, and where the city/county money will come from. Then which entity will be responsible for which percentage of cost overruns, and where the city/county funds to cover overruns will come from.

Full transparency and full accountability to the citizens. That should be standard, but it won't be if the city and Spurs are trying to shoehorn a bad deal through with diversion and obfuscation.

The economy is in the shitter right now and getting worse. Costs across the board for families is on the rise and wages are stagnant, the jobs market is in the toilet, and people are nearing being tapped out. Austin just proposed a 20%! property tax increase in a single year and is quickly losing the plot due to their insistence on living high on the hog on covid era subsidies that expired. They're in the red because of reckless spending.

SA should not try to be like Austin. Know who you are. Be responsible fiscally. Put the full transparency of a completed deal on the table for the citizens and let them decide if they want to risk those tax increases in a bad economy with a very uncertain and grim outlook for the future.
Click to expand...
I’ll tax out of towners 365 days of the year, 366 if it’s a leap year.
 
I've no dog in this fight and I hope SA doesn't screw the pooch on this, but I think @wemvp brings up good points. There is no such thing as too much transparency. SS&E always likes to do things in secret (and I'm not talking about roster moves, but more general business dealings), and it's kind of bullshit. I don't think there is anything nefarious going on behind the scenes, but why not just put it all out there?

I do wonder if this deal would have been marketed better (with the same cost structure) as positioning it as the Spurs paying for the entire arena, with the city/county funding the non-arena portions (maybe that is how this is being marketed... I don't get a vote so I'm not following super closely)
 
Apparently the city of Arlington has built multiple stadiums and paid them off early, and the city is making money off its sports teams and everyone is happy.

Meanwhile, in San Antonio...

The last three venue decisions involved extending the roof on an arena and installing pillars that blocked the view to hold it up, building a football stadium with a giant curtain that was too small for football by the time it was built and giving lifetime concession rights to a local car dealer, and building an arena partnering with an entity whose biggest event guarantees you'll never host an all star game.

If San Antonio would stop electing retards and thieves who muddy everything up and force shitty compromises, maybe this thing could work. I don't think the city has made a good decision since the 70s and they've been bleeding it dry since then. With them involved whatever we end up with should be expensive and unsatisfying.
 
Exstatic said:
I’ll tax out of towners 365 days of the year, 366 if it’s a leap year.
Click to expand...
100 percent of the cost incurred by the city, including overruns, will come from adding extra to rental car and hotel costs?

If so, that needs to be made clear in the legal documents and held to it.

It doesn't just effect tourists though. I rent vehicles locally for business every month in DFW and would be enduring increasing operating costs if I lived in SA. There's also the question of what effect, if any, this has on tourism and travel to SA.

To me, this just seems like a very bad time with political turmoil and economic pain to be extravagantly spending on luxury items. Especially when the city was duped once before by this exact same proposal type in the late 90s. But SA needs to make that decision for itself.
 
wemvp said:
100 percent of the cost incurred by the city, including overruns, will come from adding extra to rental car and hotel costs?

If so, that needs to be made clear in the legal documents and held to it.

It doesn't just effect tourists though. I rent vehicles locally for business every month in DFW and would be enduring increasing operating costs if I lived in SA. There's also the question of what effect, if any, this has on tourism and travel to SA.

To me, this just seems like a very bad time with political turmoil and economic pain to be extravagantly spending on luxury items. Especially when the city was duped once before by this exact same proposal type in the late 90s. But SA needs to make that decision for itself.
Click to expand...
You’re trying to use your business expense exception to prove a rule, and it’s just not true. 99% of voters won’t pay a dime out of pocket for this, just like last time.

The rodeo is also behind this, because when the new building goes up, they get the old building signed over to them.
 
Exstatic said:
You’re trying to use your business expense exception to prove a rule, and it’s just not true. 99% of voters won’t pay a dime out of pocket for this, just like last time.

The rodeo is also behind this, because when the new building goes up, they get the old building signed over to them.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to bet you more than 1% of voters rent cars and use hotel rooms in their home city, not just in San Antonio, but in ANY major metro area.

The "only out of towners pay this" line is so comically false that it's kind of offensive that it is even dared to be used. If the intent is only for out of towners to pay the tax, then the measure should include an explicit exemption for locals when they do rent cars or use hotel rooms. If such an exemption is built in, then they should do a better job of marketing that.
 
scott said:
I'm willing to bet you more than 1% of voters rent cars and use hotel rooms in their home city, not just in San Antonio, but in ANY major metro area.

The "only out of towners pay this" line is so comically false that it's kind of offensive that it is even dared to be used. If the intent is only for out of towners to pay the tax, then the measure should include an explicit exemption for locals when they do rent cars or use hotel rooms. If such an exemption is built in, then they should do a better job of marketing that.
Click to expand...
I stayed downtown for my birthday at a fairly new hotel across from La Villita. I am more than willing to spend an extra $0.25 per $100 dollars on my hotel room next time.
 
Last edited:
As an illustration of my point above... Turo self-reported that 44% of their total revenue and 49% of their transactions come from resident renters. I do not know if Turo/AirBnB type stuff is included in this tax... but locals use Rental Cars and Hotels more than people would think.
 
pRoshi said:
I stayed downtown for my birthday at a fairly new hotel across from La Villita. I am more than willing to spend an extra 25cents per $100 dollars on my hotel room next time.
Click to expand...
That's the other thing... if the tax is so inconsequential ($0.25 per $100) then that should also be pointed out. When I stay at hotels (which is pretty frequent, I am not going to make it this year, but I'm usually Bonvoy Titanium and I'm Lifetime Platinum), I pay zero attention to the taxes and fees because it's not like I can do anything about them, nor am I going to stay 100 miles away so I can avoid them.
 
scott said:
That's the other thing... if the tax is so inconsequential ($0.25 per $100) then that should also be pointed out. When I stay at hotels (which is pretty frequent, I am not going to make it this year, but I'm usually Bonvoy Titanium and I'm Lifetime Platinum), I pay zero attention to the taxes and fees because it's not like I can do anything about them, nor am I going to stay 100 miles away so I can avoid them.
Click to expand...
The hotel tax increase is 1%. The car one is 2% I think. All of this has been communicated already. It‘s just that most Americans seem to be slow…
 
RC_Drunkford said:
The hotel tax increase is 1%. The car one is 2% I think. All of this has been communicated already. It‘s just that most Americans seem to be slow…
Click to expand...
The post (and tweet) directly above yours says it's 0.25% (not 1 or 2%)... so which is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top