The Concord Monitor has the story here: ["Quarry Dogs planning to leave town"].
Of course, is it really that shocking? The underlying point is this: At $830 per home game, that's basically $20k per year just for the field use. And that is a ridiculous amount of money to be charging. I can't believe that this is what it costs to use the field but if it is, it is something that should be looked at. It is one thing to say that such-and-such costs a bit of money. But, balance that out with the fact that the Q-Dogs were an inexpensive evening of fun for local residents. That is a priceless thing. Granted, some can make the case that because the Q-Dogs are owned by a for-profit group, it shouldn't get a break on the cost of doing business.
Hmm. Let's think about that one for a sec. Take the money it would take to keep the Q-Dogs in Concord, as a safe, non-alcoholic location for games to take our children, and compare it to the millions spent on a parking garage that no one is using, never mind paying to use. Which is the better value? Compare the cost to some of the money the city is wasting in other departments and it is safe to say that the public would get more bang for its buck subsidizing the Quarry Dogs games with a discounted field fee than a lot of other things in town.
Of course, is it really that shocking? The underlying point is this: At $830 per home game, that's basically $20k per year just for the field use. And that is a ridiculous amount of money to be charging. I can't believe that this is what it costs to use the field but if it is, it is something that should be looked at. It is one thing to say that such-and-such costs a bit of money. But, balance that out with the fact that the Q-Dogs were an inexpensive evening of fun for local residents. That is a priceless thing. Granted, some can make the case that because the Q-Dogs are owned by a for-profit group, it shouldn't get a break on the cost of doing business.
Hmm. Let's think about that one for a sec. Take the money it would take to keep the Q-Dogs in Concord, as a safe, non-alcoholic location for games to take our children, and compare it to the millions spent on a parking garage that no one is using, never mind paying to use. Which is the better value? Compare the cost to some of the money the city is wasting in other departments and it is safe to say that the public would get more bang for its buck subsidizing the Quarry Dogs games with a discounted field fee than a lot of other things in town.
4 comments:
If you don't agree with what the City has always done then why were you so happy to continue the same type thing with a Mayor Bouley?
Anon834: Thank you for reading. I don't think your point has much relevance though.
The fees for the fields were put together by City Manager Tom Aspell and approved by the council ealier this year. Both Bouley and Rogers supported making Aspell the city manager and I believe they both supported increasing the fees for field use.
So, I doubt if Rogers had won that the Q-Dogs would be able to stay in Concord.
What happens after Bouley actually becomes the mayor will be another thing entirely. Maybe he will do a good job; maybe he won't. We'll see. Maybe some residents will get ticky enough with this decision to do something. Maybe all the parties can get together and figure out a way to keep the Q-Dogs in Concord. Although, that seems unlikley from reading the article. While the city seemed to be a bit flexible on the issue of the fees, the selling of alcohol issue may have been a kicker. But, all this really has nothing to do with the mayoral race or its outcome.
Like I wrote previously, there was a distinct difference between the mayoral candidates: One, the supposed champion of "open government," actually instigated a police investigation against a resident of our community over a public document she didn't think he should have. The other didn't. One candidate, again, the supposed champion of open government, has been trying to thwart and keep closed an investigation into activity into the cable media access center, many of whom are her friends. The choice was distinct and clear: Bouley was the better and more open and honest choice.
Feel free to make a counter point if you like.
Alcohol was never an issue. They only wanted it for a taste of the town under a white tent. Wine, cheese etc... and only if it was not a problem.
fyi9:05: Thank you for reading and thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Tim Sullivan's column in the Concord Monitor gave the impression that alcohol would be sold on a regular basis:
"But the city of Concord wanted to increase rent by as much as $400 per game, and Wadsworth couldn't get any money from the concessions or permission to increase revenue in other areas, such as selling alcohol and charging for fireworks shows. Once again, new owners would not mean new life for the Q-Dogs."
Frankly, that brings in money and maybe if it was in a roped in area, it might be OK. But, it is nice to go to a sporting event and not be bombarded by alcohol advertising or pressures to drink ... even if some of us like to do that.
That being said, many of us are disappointed in this decision. I wish we knew ahead of time to see if we could do something to rectify the situation.
Post a Comment