In reply to alfadriver :
Yes, but in the current enviroment, the rich are largely despised and rich race car owners are frequently the wrong kind of rich.
In reply to alfadriver :
Yes, but in the current enviroment, the rich are largely despised and rich race car owners are frequently the wrong kind of rich.
In reply to alfadriver :
The rich fellas on our side need to step up to the plate. Sadly, they are too busy making cubic dollars.
So, if operating Laguna seca is a money losing proposition (which is my current understanding):
It goes to follow that the county must pay the difference. Which then goes to follow that the citizens of the county pay the county to pay the difference.
If the citizens elect the officials and don't want to keep paying for something...
1. Should the citizens be able to decide to stop funding the track if they don't want to fund it? (And yes, they should first look at not only the track budget but also the tourism bump it gives the entire area, of course)
2. If you were an elected official and were getting pressure from your constituents to stop funding something but you wanted that something to stay, isn't the easiest solution to try to get that thing to stop needing funding in the first place?
I mean, it wouldn't make me happy to see a track go. But I don't know how to justify continuing to sink money into something without demanding change.
_ said:In reply to alfadriver :
The rich fellas on our side need to step up to the plate. Sadly, they are too busy making cubic dollars.
After thinking about it some time, I think it's a good idea to not put people on Side 1 and Side 2. Or "us" vs "them"- I suspect that this issue is a LOT more complex than just people who want homes in that area vs. people who want a race track.
As Robbie has pointed out, the local area does get a lot of business with the track being there- for them to actually think that the track HAS TO MAKE MONEY OR ELSE is probably not what most of them think- as there's more to the local economy than just a bunch of gear heads going around the track.
I sometimes think that some of the motorsports reporting is trying to be that way, and not really spending the time to get deep into understanding the where the opponents of the old managment are coming from. All we saw was a brief "creative accounting" being listed. Given that the local board actively got events for the track, it's pretty clear that they are not really interested in shutting the track down. What I read is that they have unrealistic expectations of events, which may have cause the track to loose some money.
There are a lot of sides to Laguna Seca. Not 2.
I'd like to have seen more detail on the events that the board forced on SCRAMP; how does the board dictate events at the track, is that part of the contract? Who provides the cost estimates and a reasonable determination of what cost should be, and who signs off for the approval?
They're sandbagging the SCRAMP guy if they're doing that.
There's a reason the Long Beach guy made the comment he did, these guys work these kinds of things all the time and know when there's something amiss in the process.
ISC backed out of the prior effort and there's a reason they did, as well. Again, these guys know how to do this, and know when something is amiss. Strengthens SCRAMP guy's argument that the board has their finger on the scale. Why else would ISC back out of the prior effort?
It's time to start looking at who on the board is tied with developers (and the original references pointed out that several were tied to their friends boards, IIRC, including the A&D guy...).
What was provided in the article just adds to my belief this a total sham.
Robbie said:So, if operating Laguna seca is a money losing proposition (which is my current understanding):
It goes to follow that the county must pay the difference. Which then goes to follow that the citizens of the county pay the county to pay the difference.
If the citizens elect the officials and don't want to keep paying for something...
1. Should the citizens be able to decide to stop funding the track if they don't want to fund it? (And yes, they should first look at not only the track budget but also the tourism bump it gives the entire area, of course)
2. If you were an elected official and were getting pressure from your constituents to stop funding something but you wanted that something to stay, isn't the easiest solution to try to get that thing to stop needing funding in the first place?
I mean, it wouldn't make me happy to see a track go. But I don't know how to justify continuing to sink money into something without demanding change.
I agree. Same as municipalities subsidizing golf course's. Why should my tax dollars be used to cheapen entertainment options for other well off people*?
*Well off people - While I realize that is a generalization, at least in this part of the country, no one is driving an '87 Cavalier to the golf courses.
This article along with the referenced "Racer" magazine article give a pretty full accounting for what went on there. Here's the Racer article: https://racer.com/2019/11/19/insight-monterey-county-sham/
You've got to figure if ISC and Chris Pook can't or aren't willing to take on such a historic racetrack, something's fishy...
z31maniac said:
...*Well off people - While I realize that is a generalization, at least in this part of the country, no one is driving an '87 Cavalier to the golf courses.
I'm not sure anybody's driving an '87 Cavalier anymore. Can't remember the last time I saw one on the side of the road...
Now I'm going to go check for '87 Cavaliers in the golf course parking lot here in town. It's possible.
About ISC - they actually backed out after the due diligence period. Something told them it was not a viable track.
From Sportscar365:Sportscar365:
ISC wouldn’t submit a proposal due to “findings following our evaluation and in light of several business factors.”
Also within the Herald report was a note that ISC alleged the track’s longtime manager, the Sports Car Racing Association of the Monterey Peninsula (SCRAMP) was unable to cooperate or assist in the manner needed
no one is driving an '87 Cavalier to the golf courses.
No one is driving an '87 cavalier ever.
Edit- beaten to it.
Can there be such a thing as a communitee owned raceway? Something that is deemed a "park", and has the capacity to be "reserved" by private groups that have the insurance and such for hosting events? And any other time of the day, it's just a public park. Go ahead walk your dog, ride your bike. Whatever. No vehicles allowed, unless reserved for that purpose.
this way the land is useful, and generates income for the county/city/whatever.
Well, this looks exactly like it looked last time we talked about it, except worse because now some of what seemed inevitable has already occurred.
"Assassination of a non-profit" sounds about right. I'm grimly curious for more detail on how that 'didn't go over well' with the board.
Forcing the track into money-losing obligations leading to the current situation sounds like classic 'starve the beast'. Well, the real meaning of it if not so much the textbook definition.
_ said:Can there be such a thing as a communitee owned raceway? Something that is deemed a "park", and has the capacity to be "reserved" by private groups that have the insurance and such for hosting events? And any other time of the day, it's just a public park. Go ahead walk your dog, ride your bike. Whatever. No vehicles allowed, unless reserved for that purpose.
this way the land is useful, and generates income for the county/city/whatever.
I think that’s what Pueblo Motorsport Park in CO is. City-owned.
_ said:Can there be such a thing as a communitee owned raceway? Something that is deemed a "park", and has the capacity to be "reserved" by private groups that have the insurance and such for hosting events? And any other time of the day, it's just a public park. Go ahead walk your dog, ride your bike. Whatever. No vehicles allowed, unless reserved for that purpose.
this way the land is useful, and generates income for the county/city/whatever.
Portland International Raceway is a city park. It makes so much money that it covers all it's own expenses and puts $$$$$ back into the parks fund.
Lot of similarities between LS and Portland, in that they are County (LS) or City owned (PIR). Which means that the tracks are often forced to take on green or eco-friendly activities like bicycles or running events other activities that lose money. And part of the revenue from the tracks goes into general County/City coffers instead of being re-invested in the track. It’s part of the downfall of being local gov’ment owned.
The whole award process was rigged based on the Racer article, particularly if you look at the timing. However, Chris Pook or SCRAMP have to care enough about the opportunity to lawyer-up to contest the award and then face the fact that the County Supervisors would likely be hostile. It’s a no win situation for them given the County fingers in event selection, scheduling and sound regulating.
Finally, one thing that people are missing is that the track contributes significantly to the County revenue base. Without LS, property taxes increase to finance parks and recreation and general fund. So while the award process was rigged, the County really can’t (seriously? secretly?) be setting it up for failure. One hopes anyway!
In reply to dculberson :
Not 100% true. If you look at motorsports, it's an interesting thing.
I have volunteered for COTA and other F1 facilities. I have also voluteered for Scramp. The tracks are all for profit and they make the arrangements for the labor to support the series. ISC did pay but it was minimal. Much much less than actual minimum wage.
If you look at F1 at COTA, there is over 15000 volunteer hours at the event easily.
Motorsports doesn't survive without volunteers.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
You are correct Keith. The race track which includes a dragstrip and motocross trails is all a city park.
Keith Tanner said:Shopping malls will never happen there. Mansions would.
And golf courses, as the peninsula doesn't have nearly enough of them..
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Damn it I should've read the entire thread before quoting you and replying to a previous post you made. As it's clear that you're also in tune to EXACTLY what's likely to happen.
@Todd Butler; I mentioned this in the other post. By California state law the county was under no obligation to compete this. Professional services are exempt from competitive bidding so there is no process to rig. They could have simply given a contract to whomever they pleased.
I am not surprised about SCRAMPs complaint of having losers shoved down there throat but at the end of the day the county does have legitimate complaints about the organization.
Me personally I would never enter into a contract that didn't give me complete control of the facility. I'd want it to be a case of leasing the facility at X price for X months. If truly pressed I would allow the county X number of days for special events but having some politician meddling in the running of events, no thank you. As A & D is an insider perhaps they'll heed his advice.
Once upon a time what is now the Las Vegas Motor Speedway was known as the Speedrome and it was owned by the city. The bureaucracy made things difficult for event promoters, especially smaller groups.
captdownshift said:Keith Tanner said:Shopping malls will never happen there. Mansions would.
And golf courses, as the peninsula doesn't have nearly enough of them..
I dunno about you, but I think Laguna Seca would make a terrible golf course. While it's not far from the coast, it's also a very, very dry area. While you could put one there, it would be super expensive to keep it going, and it would not really compare to the ones close by, which probably need very little support from nature to work quite well. Heck, given the better places up and down the coast, it would also make a pretty poor location to grow grapes.
It's not as if the surrounding hills and mountains have much there encroaching the area- there are just a bunch of dirt roads..
There are so many better places for wine, homes, and golf courses near by, I just can't see that as the core reason.
_ said:In reply to alfadriver :
The rich fellas on our side need to step up to the plate. Sadly, they are too busy making cubic dollars.
You're failing to see where the other side will always win. The other side is land developers. County officials who have projects to award contracts for always have developer friends who donate to their campaigns and contribute to their getting re-election. The race tire distributor isn't going to get spec tires in order to utilize HOV lanes voted into law by the county, so they have nothing to gain by purchasing a councilman, or by running their own campaign. Now a developer on the other hand, they can get zoning approval, a contract to put the roads in paid for by the county for the project that they're the one who needs the roads for, all in exchange for a discounted lot and a few grand into the warchest.
The fact that the county was booking the venue out for events they KNEW lost money for SCRAMP all but confirms this sort of nonsense. LS will be gone by 2030, and likely 2025 and it won't be noise ordinances that will do it in.
M
Finally, one thing that people are missing is that the track contributes significantly to the County revenue base. Without LS, property taxes increase to finance parks and recreation and general fund. So while the award process was rigged, the County really can’t (seriously? secretly?) be setting it up for failure. One hopes anyway!
Great article!
I can't imagine the racetrack is a major source of revenue given the other (extremely valuable) things in the county. Tourism and real estate rule the roost, just like everywhere else in coastal CA.
alfadriver said:captdownshift said:Keith Tanner said:Shopping malls will never happen there. Mansions would.
And golf courses, as the peninsula doesn't have nearly enough of them..
I dunno about you, but I think Laguna Seca would make a terrible golf course. While it's not far from the coast, it's also a very, very dry area. While you could put one there, it would be super expensive to keep it going, and it would not really compare to the ones close by, which probably need very little support from nature to work quite well. Heck, given the better places up and down the coast, it would also make a pretty poor location to grow grapes.
It's not as if the surrounding hills and mountains have much there encroaching the area- there are just a bunch of dirt roads..
There are so many better places for wine, homes, and golf courses near by, I just can't see that as the core reason.
Golf courses have nothing to do with golf. They're a way of creating real estate.
Ski resorts are the same.
Car Week brings thousands of people and millions of dollars to the Monterey Peninsula. The Historics at LS have been a huge part of the week. The weekend before is the Pre-Historics and the closing weekend (Friday through Sunday) is the Historics. All lodging and dining are packed and charge premium prices. I paid $450 for one night at a Ramada Limited 10 years ago during the Historics. I knew a jeweler in Carmel that made 80% of its annual revenue in that one week.
in my opinion, closing LS would have a huge negative impact on Car Week. The week needs the rich historic racers and the fans to have the auction attendance.
I hope the track succeeds. The area doesn't need another golf course (there is one next to the track entrance on Highway 68) and they don't have the water to keep it green.
You'll need to log in to post.
