Eventually is pretty vague. I'm proposing that the Dome can be made up to par with most stadiums for under 250 mil. I've just read that our homes sales have plummeted to the lowest rates since '03. I don't know what to say about your asserting that the issues I've outlined aren't problems in need of addressing. You can bring in the ghosts of JFK and MLK to lead us, but they'll still need money to implement their plans.

I guess we could keep ignoring the fact Tom Benson has said he does not want a renovated Superdome. We could just ingore that and let the Saints leave. Blanco already tried the renovation route, and Benson slammed it back in her face. We have until 2010 to come up with a deal for a new stadium, that's it. It doesn't really matter what you want, or what you say is viable or anything else, cause the person's opinion who does matter, Tom Benson, has stated he wants a new stadium. Now, you can tell him to shove it and watch the Saints leave, or you can accept the fact it is gonna take a new stadium for him to stay.

I guess we can ignore the fact that the league is against the Saints leaving such a supportive market (as they were with the Vikes), and stymied Benson's bolting to SA. Benson can sell, or accept a renovated Dome.

We can also promise him we'll start getting financing together for a new dome, beginning 2010. That's fine. I'm not the type to run out and get things for the sake of it, and I've seen not one tangible reason for a new dome in this thread, other than Benson wants one.

You'll have to convince voters statewide that Benson is the only opinion that matters, not just myself. You'd best get crackin. I'll be in Foxboro.

That's easy, you ignored suite revenue, and you ignored the fact that teams with new stadiums are getting the Superbowls. I could find a lot of things that aren't evidence if I ignore them. That's not how it works though. Also, 2010 is different than 2005. The league, or Tagliabue, forced Benson back cause of the black eye they would have gotten if the Saints left right after Katrina. That won't be the case in 3 more years. The league can't force Tom Benson to sell, and they can't force him to accept a renovated Superdome. That is, again, ignoring the fact. The best the league can do is step in and offer some assistance toward building a new stadium, but they can't force Tom Benson to do anything, it's his team. As a matter of fact, the way he caved after Katrina in coming back, I would think they gave him a kinda "Tom, be quiet and go along with this now, and if you don't get a new stadium we won't oppose you moving." One minute he went from being afraid for his life in Baton Rouge and firing anyone that was pro coming back to New Orleans, then the next he never wanted to leave? Seriously? Sorry I don;t buy it.

But if all you have heard is Benson wants a new stadium, then good, cause that's all that needs to be heard. Either we keep the Saints here by providing a new stadium, or we watch them go to Louisiana cause we though " the league was gonna keep them from moving." I ain't buying that.

Since you edited, I will do the same. I don't think it wil be hard to convince voters to pony up for a winning team. It was that crap that was being put on the field previously that turned people off. I mean, that's why the discussion is here right, cause SOMEONE feels we need to get cracking on a new stadiuma nd take Tom's threat seriously. I could see how it would be easy to call his bluff from Foxboro though. It would be like telling poor Africans to stop the blood diamond trade themsevles from here in the United States. The farther away you are the bolder you can tell others to be.

First of all, I edited to make my thoughts appear more concise, and to correct typos. Not to hide anything.

2: I have clearly conceded that the proposal has a better chance of passing while the Saints field a winning team

3: I know what the Saints mean to this region, and so does the league. I've lived here 25 years, and have no interest in the Saints leaving. The Saints are as much a part of this city as the FQ, or potholes. Losing the Saints would be devastating to the psyche of our citizens, and only Benson's abject greed and ego could bring that about.

4.The league has to permit moves by I believe at least a 2/3 vote. Benson can't just sneak off like Irsay, unless he shows NO isn't a viable market. That can't happen, unless fans abandon the Saints. They can't force him to sell, but you'd best believe they can force him to stay. What you think Tag's agenda was by convincing Benson to stay, and what he publicly stated, are two separate issues.

5. We've been through the issue of building many more suites. Our business climate simply can't absorb much more, due to all the reasons I've previously outlined. This is the reality of our worsening economy. We aren't creating more businesses and rich folks out of thin air.
Actually, they're fleeing.

6. Again.. The league usually awards SB to new stadiums. Yet again, NO is one of the top 3 destinations, and this isn't just my opinion. This is the owners, press, players and fans speaking. NO was passed over due to our uncertain ammenities here, hotels rebuilding, crime, Dome renovations, the proliferation of new stadiums, and the league wanting to see if we could yet handle lesser events so soon. A nicely renovated Dome will keep up us in the loop.


7. This is a discussion forum. Adults should be able to question the rationales of others. I'm done with this issue.

We'll start at 4, since 1-3 were statements.

4) 2/3 of the owners will not vote against Benson if he can show he can increase revenue in a different market with a new stadium. Know why? Revenue sharing. As long as the rich have to share with the poor, anything that makes the poor rich is viable. As far as Tags agenda, well, let's see: He could go our being recognized for all he accomplished on the league, or retire as the guy who let the Saints leave New Orleans during the worst natural disaster in US history. Seems pretty clear what his agenda was, protecting his legacy.

5) Haven't we sold out the existing suites? So who's to say we couldn't sell out suites in a new stadium? You can't build a stadium overnight, so who knows what growth will have happened by that time. Plus, it's not up to the city to sell out the suites, it's up to Benson to sell out the suites. So he controls his own revenue on that, pretty much ending the "I am losing money cause of the lack of suites" argument, and preventing him from allowing an inferior product to be on the field again.

6) You know the last time New Orleans hosted a superbowl? 2002. 5 years ago. We weren't even in the running for another one any time soon, and the Superbowl is booked now through 2011. We won't be seeing one anytime soon without a new stadium.

7) You can question whatever you like, cause as you said, this is a forum. But just cause it's a forum, doesn't mean someone has to see it your way.

Everybody keeps focusing on the economy of today, it's going to take time to either renovate the Dome or build a new stadium, the economy can't get no worst, so by the time anything is done, the economy will be strong enough to support it. Trump is in the process of building a hugh Trump Towers type building on Poydras st. with condominiums, upscale restaurants, and corporate business offices. With the world looking in on the recovery of New Orleans it's going to be very hard to go about doing business like before, you think somebody like Trump is going to invest that type of money in a project in a dying city, I don't think so. New Orleans will recover and be much stronger than before I believe that with my heart, I have to because it's my home. And as far as a new stadium goes, I would rather see them renovate the Dome, but if a new stadium is going to keep the Saints in New Orleans, than so be it because I can't imagine a New Orleans without the Saints. I wish there was somewhere else the Saints could temporarily play and build a new stadium on the present Dome site, but that's just wishful thinking. The river is the only viable site I can see making any sense, the Iberville Project site would cause to many logistical problems even though it's the perfect location for a downtown stadium, besides I hear that New Orleans Housing Authority is sending memos out to families that lived in housing projects before the hurricane that they have a certain amount of time to move back to the housing developments that are livable before they stop the current housing voucher program that they are living on, and the Iberville is the first site on the list because it was the lest damaged. So before they can even think about building a stadium on the Iberville site, there's a lot of political red tape they'll have to cut through and I don't think that's an avenue they want to travel.

No one said the city will die. No one wishes it, either. I questioned where the new businesses will come from to fill 50- 70 more suites, and outlined why business shuns NO. I didn't base my view merely on the current (and worsening) economy, but this city's track record of attracting investment throughout her entire history. NO's economy is basically agriculture, oil, chemical, tourism, and the port. All volatile markets.

Luring residents from other parts of the city to Trump Tower is much easier than getting business and upscale residents to settle here from other states. My view may have seemed pessimistic on the surface, but shouldn't be discarded any more than those proclaiming NO will make some stunning metamorphosis into a grand utopia.

NO will have a much work to do on many core issues. The negative climate here is crushing. Progress will take a hell of a lot longer than the time it takes to build a new Dome, in order to convince others that we deserve to be mentioned along with Houston, Dallas or Atl as a hospitable place for business. It's a shame that one of the oldest cities in the nation has accomplished the least.

I responded in the hopes that you understand why I said what I did, not to convince others to agree.