Public money to build bridge for Universal guests

[Ultimate17]

Just to be clear on what I'm reading from a few of you: Since Uni is a profitting buisness (at the moment), they should not be recieving government $ to pay for something.
Does your logic also reason that if Uni was in the red, that then the government should pay for something like this bridge? I really think the profit/loss of any company should not enter the arguement. Is the government paying for something on govenrment property? Yes. Will any pedestrian be able to use the structure (not only Cabana Bay visitors)? Yes. Counties and cities put in pedestrian bridges/tunnels to help pedestrians cross busy streets. This makes sense to me. Any of you seen the pedestrian bridge that crosses I4 in lake mary? It cost millions of tax dollars to build and it honestly barely gets used. At least this bridge will get used.

 

[Felipe]

^ Completely agree, Ultimate17.

Dr. Emmet, leaving aside whether or not the city (or whatever applicable government body) makes any money here, they're potentially saving a lot of money from any suits that could come from traffic/pedestrian accidents. From sidewalk to sidewalk, the street area is city/government property. Universal would not be liable, they would be.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But again, its not like the money is coming from the general collection of taxes. It is coming directly from taxes tied specifically to the Universal Orlando Resort via an existing agreement that has benefited the City. I'm not normally alright with public funds going towards a venture benefitting a single private entity, but I think the particulars of this case make for something different and more than acceptable.

 

[Universal-Johnny]

Additional article on Orlando Sentinel: Universal wants bridge and lower taxes.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...iversal-orlando-vote-20130408,0,2071934.story

Looks like they'll be getting a bridge and more..

 

[Miketheboss]

Additional article on Orlando Sentinel: Universal wants bridge and lower taxes.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...iversal-orlando-vote-20130408,0,2071934.story

Looks like they'll be getting a bridge and more..

Universal could have paid for that bridge, period. My parents make good money and I'm not able to get financial so why should a billion dollar company be given that money. If anything, the city should have just paid half. That money could have gone to better places in the area. Whats happened to the times where people rather not take money from the government and man up and pay for it themselves. Even if i needed the money, I wouldnt take it.

 

[JungleSkip]

Universal could have paid for that bridge, period. My parents make good money and I'm not able to get financial so why should a billion dollar company be given that money. If anything, the city should have just paid half. That money could have gone to better places in the area. Whats happened to the times where people rather not take money from the government and man up and pay for it themselves. Even if i needed the money, I wouldnt take it.

Puuuuuhhhhhhllleeeaaaassseeee.

All companies do this. All companies HAVE been doing this for decades.

 

[Miketheboss]

Just because all companies do this doesnt mean its ok. And I meant "people" in general. Everyone that agrees with this government help enjoys putting money in the pockets of the already rich. Because at the end of the day, the money that universal could have spent is just gonna be tucked away into the bosses wallet.


.... and dont say, "no!! its going back to the parks" Your right. Its going back to the parks to make them even richer. The government wasnt created to be throwing money at bussiness.

And i dont have anything against the wealthy, (cause I'm a boss) however, i dont like when they take money from the government.

Maybe now they can pay their employees more because 80% of them always look miserable.

 

[Splatter]

Just because all companies do this doesnt mean its ok. And I meant "people" in general. Everyone that agrees with this government help is just putting more money in the pockets of the rich. Because at the en of the day, the money that universal could have spent is just gonna be tucked away into the bosses pockets.

Well then your gripe would be more in tune with the fact that people pocket the money. Not what is awarded and why.

 

[ReelJustice]

Bridge was just approved by vote of 4-3

 

[Kevin38]

The City collects this money because Universal is there.It is supposed to be used for projects like this one.
Many Cities and States collect revenue to boost tourism and build industry(jobs) this does both.

 

[Shucker]

WHy are you guys saying Universal should pay for i?. It is a city street correct? If anybody should pay for its the hotels that will benefit having their patrons get to Universal safely.

 

[ReelJustice]

It's a moot point now. It was approved. The Slantinel made it political, there was a vote, and it's over now.:horse:

So, how soon will we see footers:mickey2:

 

[shiekra38]

It's a moot point now. It was approved. The Slantinel made it political, there was a vote, and it's over now.:horse:

So, how soon will we see footers:mickey2:

Well it is news I guess..North Korea is boring anyways
It will be nice having a fancy bridge by the new hotel, I think it's going to be good for Universal and they will be avoiding an issue with unaware tourists crossing busy roads

 

[Universal-Johnny]

Yup, it's official. This update on WESH TV also mentions a price tag of $4.5 million for the bridge. Universal could have pitched in.

http://www.wesh.com/themeparks/othe.../19676760/-/wvblym/-/index.html?absolute=true

 

[Splatter]

Yup, it's official. This update on WESH TV also mentions a price tag of $4.5 million for the bridge. Universal could have pitched in.

http://www.wesh.com/themeparks/othe.../19676760/-/wvblym/-/index.html?absolute=true

Universal does pitch in. That is the point. They are a huge employer and income for the State of FL, specifically Orlando.

4.5 million is small potatoes for city projects. Especially with a City the size or Orlando.

Disney did not pitch in for the highway traffic stress and expansions in 1970s did they?

 

[maxairmike]

So the end result is Universal's taxes that already go into a special fund for improvements in the area are being used for improvements in the area concerning public lands. There's an issue with this why?

If you want to say that its because this takes away millions from the local governments...you'd be technically right, but practically wrong. This increases the current CRA debt service by a few hundred thousand a year, knocking the excess available to the City/County down from $5.5 million every year, to about $4.9 million. This is excess money, it should not be included in budget creation in the first place, as it is not originally intended for general use by the City/County. I believe that Universal and other businesses (though mostly Universal) allowed the City/County to allocate the excess funds in the CRA to their general balances in the first place once the value and amount of taxes coming in skyrocketed.

 

[natespf]

WHy are you guys saying Universal should pay for i?. It is a city street correct? If anybody should pay for its the hotels that will benefit having their patrons get to Universal safely.

Well the street was built by Universal on their land, with the intended purposes for Universal guests, employees, and services. The benefiting hotels would be on Universal land as well.

 

[Universal-Johnny]

So the end result is Universal's taxes that already go into a special fund for improvements in the area are being used for improvements in the area concerning public lands. There's an issue with this why?

If you want to say that its because this takes away millions from the local governments...you'd be technically right, but practically wrong. This increases the current CRA debt service by a few hundred thousand a year, knocking the excess available to the City/County down from $5.5 million every year, to about $4.9 million. This is excess money, it should not be included in budget creation in the first place, as it is not originally intended for general use by the City/County. I believe that Universal and other businesses (though mostly Universal) allowed the City/County to allocate the excess funds in the CRA to their general balances in the first place once the value and amount of taxes coming in skyrocketed.

You have a strong argument. I would agree that Universal probably already payed for the bridge in taxes. But if that were 100 percent true, why would the vote be a close call (4-3)? Roughly half of the Orange County board of commissioners voted against it - and that includes the Mayor. I would think that more of the Orange County commissioners would be onboard with using taxes to pay for the bridge if that was as fair as you claim it is.

 

[Splatter]

Because rarely any decision is made easily in politics. You have people with different interest focuses and priorities just like you do right here in this discussion board;the point remains that the majority ruled in favor for whatever their reasons. To pick apart their minds on those who were and those who weren't is individual would be arbitrary.

 

[Felipe]

So the end result is Universal's taxes that already go into a special fund for improvements in the area are being used for improvements in the area concerning public lands. There's an issue with this why?

If you want to say that its because this takes away millions from the local governments...you'd be technically right, but practically wrong. This increases the current CRA debt service by a few hundred thousand a year, knocking the excess available to the City/County down from $5.5 million every year, to about $4.9 million. This is excess money, it should not be included in budget creation in the first place, as it is not originally intended for general use by the City/County. I believe that Universal and other businesses (though mostly Universal) allowed the City/County to allocate the excess funds in the CRA to their general balances in the first place once the value and amount of taxes coming in skyrocketed.

Excellent points, Mike!

One of the purposes of taxes is public infrastructure. This bridge goes from one side of the street (public property) to another side of the street (public property), and it is for the overall betterment of the city and the public. Yes, it is located in the general area of UOR, but not going from Universal property to Universal property, so I think this is perfectly justified. I would feel the same if something like this happened at Disney or wherever. As long as it happens within public property, it's fine in my eyes. Should the money be spent elsewhere instead of here? That's another debate... (Which I still believe Universal has a fair argument to win - refer to Mike's post above).

You have a strong argument. I would agree that Universal probably already payed for the bridge in taxes. But if that were 100 percent true, why would the vote be a close call (4-3)? Roughly half of the Orange County board of commissioners voted against it - and that includes the Mayor. I would think that more of the Orange County commissioners would be onboard with using taxes to pay for the bridge if that was as fair as you claim it is.

Fairness and rationality has nothing to do with how they vote. They each have their own opinions and agendas, and whether this might be a justified use of the money, they might fail or refuse to see it this way.