Weinberg, G. Ltr re: baseball pPage I of 1
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<Gdwdbq@aol.com>
<jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>
Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:02 PM
VOTE "NO" to the bond issue!
Dear Council Members:
Here are a few reasons, I believe that a bond issue should not be held:
I. The citizens of Dubuque are already paying 1% more in state taxes with the school
bond issue. Garbage and water rates are up, property taxes went up this year, mainly
due to the school system and Iowa's budget crunch. The city council has already stated
that next years taxes will be increasing, and now you are considering another new bond
issue. Think about the elderly people on f'=ed incomes who's medical bills are hard to
meet, let alone their health insurance.
2. If the city is as broke as you have stated, where will this money come from If this
special elect/on were to be held?.
3. The city manager likes to compare cities....let's take Cedar Rapids. The baseball
team has been there for a long time, to help to increase the attendance this year, they
built a new ball park, did it live up to expectations? Answer: No.
4. In the mid 70's, Dubuque had a population of 5000 moro people than it has now, did it
support the "Dubuque Packers"?
Answer: No. As far as drawing people to Dubuque with a new ballpark, how many
people can you name, who ever saw one Packer game awayfrom home? Has the junior
hockey team drawn in Dubuque? Have I seen a hockey game? No, why, because I am
not interested in hockey. The same principle would hold true for a minor league
baseball park.
5. Does Mr. Gartner have a conflict of interest? I cannot answer that however my
thoughts are: Mr. Gartner is the owner of the franchise of the team in question and
chairman of the Iowa vision board. Mr. Gartner has very little to loose but the tax
payers money, which would be $6 million dollars.
6. You granted the owner of the new housing project at the lock and damn a permit, I
assume it wes because it wouldn't cost the Dubuque tax payers any money. Why not
use this same principle in deciding if a bond issue should be held. Where the tax
payers here would be paying for the brunt of this projecL
7. The {wo Dubuque casinos were hurdng before Mesquawki closed. After it closed,
they picked up revenue. What will happen when it reopens, and Cedar Rapids and
Waterloo get a gaming license? You can draw your own picture as to what will happen
to Dubuque's economic and tourism monies when one, mo, or all three of these venues
open.
8. The Riverfront project is not finished yeL Why not wait ~wo years to see If it meets
the projections, before putting up another issue of "if" on it?.
9. To put it simply, If "Mr. X" came to the council saying he would put up an amusement
park, open about 70 days per year with hours about 3-5 daily, sometimes daytime hours,
and sometimes night hours, some weeks not at all, but the property owners would have
to pay this cosL Would you as a citizen buy this offer?.
Thankyou
G. Weinberg
Dubuque
10/30/2003