Bond Issue - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 10, 2004

Bond Issue

Date: Sep 10, 2004

Anon, what a marvelous idea! I hope that others of a like mind who get this email/letter respond in kind. A well-written letter to the HA by a local alum might be called for, as well.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Anon, what a marvelous idea! I hope that others of a like mind who get this email/letter respond in kind. A well-written letter to the HA by a local alum might be called for, as well."

I'd say that even if you didn't receive such a letter a well-written response is in order. Anybody got his email address? How about posting it? The Alumni Association evidently is unaware of how many unhappy campers there are around here,

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Postman
"I'd say that even if you didn't receive such a letter a well-written response is in order. Anybody got his email address? How about posting it? The Alumni Association evidently is unaware of how many unhappy campers there are around here,"

Are you talking about Bob Pierce's email address? It's Bob.Pierce@usm.edu

I'm sure he'd love to hear from us all!

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Anon
" Response: I cannot support the bond issue because of the extreme damage Shelby Thames has done to USM academically. I think we need to repair USM academically before we start on the football program. "

I have no problem, in general, with the response drafted by Anon. However, in the interest of accuracy, I must point out that the bond issue has very little to do with football. As an alternative, may I suggest that anyone who uses Anon's response as a template, modify the final sentence: "I think we need to repair USM academically before we start on the athletic program."

The bond proposal is intended to enhance the facilities that are used for the less visible sports programs such as women's softball, tennis, soccer, track, etc. There are also plans to improve access for handicapped people in Bennett auditorium. (Tokenism at its best.)

Most interesting to me is SFT's conspicuous lack of visibility regarding this matter. WDAM news showed him at the campaign to kick off support for the bond issue, but the president did not get a "speaking part." Obviously, somebody has recognized that his public, prominent support is actually a liability. How weird is that? A tacit acknowledgement that the university president is a detriment in the public perception, the voters' perceptions.

The blur between "Hattiesburg" and "the community" is also interesting. The bond issue will be voted on only by Hattiesburg residents; however, it is being sold as a benefit to the entire community. The chair of the committee in support of the bond issue will not be able to vote on the matter; he doesn't live in Hattiesburg. Like many of the other visible supporters, he has decided to live outside of the city for which he now advocates support. I can understand why some of the folks who live in less fashionable east Hattiesburg might be skeptical about all the supposed benefits Southern Miss renders to the community. Maybe they believe that most of those benefits flow to affluent power brokers, many of whom now reside in Petal or Lamar County.

I have not yet decided how I will vote. I am struggling to decide based on issues instead of affiliation. More honestly, I should say, issues in addition to affiliation.

Date: Sep 11, 2004

I no not reside in Hattiesburg. But I do pass through there. If the bond issue passes I will do everything possible to arrange my motel lodging elsewhere (either North or South of Hattiesburg). Taxing non- residents for the benefit of USM athletics is to my liking. I can't do anything about the outcome of your bond issue, but I can choose whether or not to pay that lodging tax. The same will be true for restaurant stops. I work hard for my money and have no intention of spending it on USM athletics. The handicapped access improvements to Bennett Auditorium I enthusiastically support. But why in the name of God's green earth would USM resort to a bond issue to do something like that? ram is right: tokenism at its best.

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Postman
" The Alumni Association evidently is unaware of how many unhappy campers there are around here,"

Oh, they are aware. But it won't hurt to remind them that this is not just going to go away.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" The blur between "Hattiesburg" and "the community" is also interesting. The bond issue will be voted on only by Hattiesburg residents; however, it is being sold as a benefit to the entire community. ...folks who live in less fashionable east Hattiesburg might be skeptical about all the supposed benefits Southern Miss renders to the community. "

Nope. The community gets benefits like this one. The American says today that the Hattiesburg High School Tigers will play Meridian in Roberts Stadium later this month. The last sentence even quotes the bond proponents' slogan about a "win-win" situation.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040914/localsports/1234166.html

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Dumb as The Rock
"The American says today that the Hattiesburg High School Tigers will play Meridian in Roberts Stadium later this month.

Sure. The stadium will accommodate high school games as it is now. Are more than 42,000 expected for high school games? Expanding the facilities for high school games is not what I would call a community benefit. There are better places to put our money. Build a new stadium for the high school if necessary. Why USM?

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Hattiesburg High has an excellent stadium and a recently upgraded natural playing surface.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

It sounds like unnecessarily scheduling the Hattiesburg High vs. Meredian game in M.M. Roberts stadium, and then saying the stadium serves a community function, might have been part of a ploy to get yes votes for the bond issue.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Their ploys are so transparent. They really do take us for Idots.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

Another example of blind hatred. You hate Thames, which I understand. But, seeking to harm or hold back any facet of growth at the University is conterproductive.

Don't you realize that a campaign by the faculty, or even by the kook fringe will only harm your cause. A vast majority of the Alumni in the Hattiesburg area support this plan. Alienate a few thousand more alumni. That's exactly what you need to do.

Thames horrible ideas for the University can only be rivaled by the ideas here.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Another example of blind hatred. You hate Thames, which I understand. But, seeking to harm or hold back any facet of growth at the University is conterproductive. "

This is a good point, Seeker. However, a lot of us feel -- with plenty of reason -- that SFT might view the proceeds of a bond issue as just another pot of "soft money" with which he may hire people off the org chart & give them exorbitant salaries.

But I do agree that faculty & others should tread lightly around the bond issue, since it might well be a point where potential supporters of the cause (getting rid of Thames) could be alienated.

I'm glad it won't be on the ballot where I live, because it would be a tough decision...

Date: Sep 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Another example of blind hatred."

Seeker, what I hate is someone lifting my hard earned bucks from my pocketbook when I pass through Hattiesburg and need lodging or food. Tax if you will, but tax those who will be using those facilities. Don't tax me. I strongly believe in taxes - for roads, services, education, and for helping the disadvantated who can not help themselves. Athletic facilities come under none of those categories. I'd say that those that want tap the pocketbooks innocent passerbys are rather selfish. Taxing travelers from Maine to Texas when they pass through Hattiesburg would be just as reasonable as having those same persons having a monkey in the car to pass out a tin cup at the corner of Hwy 49 & Hardy Street and require Hattiesburg citizens to contribute to my cause for which they would receive no benefit.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

To Frequent Driver

I feel you pain and want to help you with your tax burden. I have taken the time to list a few cities that you should avoid as well.:

New Orleans - a portion of the local tourism tax is used to help fund Superdome renovations.

Charlotte, NC - resently local tourism tax plan was passed to renovate the local basketball arena, and upgrades to Erickson Stadium.

Nashville, TN - a portion of the local tourism tax plan goes to help bail out "The Colisum" where the Titans play football.

Memphis, TN - a portion of the local hotel/motel tax is being funnled into building the new FedEx Forum.

Tampa, FL - When Raymond James stadium built, a portion of the food and beverage tax for Hillsboro and surrounding counties is being used to retire the debt.

I hope I have helped you save a nickel or two in your travels.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"To Frequent Driver I feel you pain and want to help you with your tax burden. I have taken the time to list a few cities that you should avoid as well.: New Orleans - a portion of the local tourism tax is used to help fund Superdome renovations. Charlotte, NC - resently local tourism tax plan was passed to renovate the local basketball arena, and upgrades to Erickson Stadium. Nashville, TN - a portion of the local tourism tax plan goes to help bail out "The Colisum" where the Titans play football. Memphis, TN - a portion of the local hotel/motel tax is being funnled into building the new FedEx Forum. Tampa, FL - When Raymond James stadium built, a portion of the food and beverage tax for Hillsboro and surrounding counties is being used to retire the debt. I hope I have helped you save a nickel or two in your travels."

Thanks Seeker! You seem to have information readily available at your fingertips. I notice that none of the facilities you mention, however, are at institutions of higher education. Their respective state legislatures provide support for universities. But putting that aside, I try to avoid the large cities you mention in any case. I much prefer the small mom and pop restaurants en route which give a flavor of the countryside. And, by the way, it's not me who has the tax burden. There are many traverlers out there who can't even afford to stop in a fast food restaurant to eat, and who must nap in their vechicle at rest stops and elsewhere because they can't afford even one night in a motel. I never cease to be amazed that those who ask for money, for which the giver receives no benefit, are usually those that have money. I wonder why the authorities that be saw fit to combine athletic improvements with community benefits. I am sure that, in their hearts, everyone reading this message board knows the answer to that question.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Thames horrible ideas for the University can only be rivaled by the ideas here."

Yet you keep coming back to us, Seeker. Welcome home again!

Date: Sep 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" But I do agree that faculty & others should tread lightly around the bond issue, since it might well be a point where potential supporters of the cause (getting rid of Thames) could be alienated. "

It seems to me that folks on this board ARE treading lightly. I am not sure why Seeker thinks there might be a "campaign by the faculty, or even by the kook fringe," unless by "kook fringe" he is referring to Ken Fairley's "No Not Now" Campaign, or whatever it's called. (I understand the point that Fairley, et al, are trying to make, but it has little to do with my own ambivalence.)

As I read back over this thread, I see where several posters have remarked on the attempted manipulation apparent in the scheduling of the Hattiesburg v. Meridian game at M.M. Roberts. I see where Frequent Driver says he or she won't stay in Hattiesburg hotels if the bond passes. I see -- in Bondage's post -- an implied common mis-understanding that the bond issue somehow relates to the expansion of Roberts Stadium. But I don't see anyone calling for organized opposition to the bond issue. For the life of me, I can't figure what "ideas here" rival "Thames['s] horrible ideas for the University."

It has been my experience that very few people appreciate unsolicited advice. (I have not checked, but "unsolicited advice" might be the definition of "meddling.") This bond issue is going to be on the ballot here in Hattiesburg. It's not a vote for Petal, Oak Grove, Canebrake, or the USM Alumni Association. That is the reason a group of concerned citizens have organized to try and convince us voters that the success of the bond proposal is -- all together now -- a Win-Win situation for Hattiesburg and USM. As a voter, I am just not sure I buy it.

I am pretty sure USM would benefit from the bond passage. The only down side I see would be potential misuse by SFT: (1) like Invictus said, is this "just another pot of 'soft money'" for him to siphon from, or (2) would this be a "victory" for him to add to his "parade" of successes when next his contract is up for renewal?

The big WIN for Hattiesburg is not so obvious to me. Yes, I understand that all of the hotel and restaurant owners make big bucks off of USM. Yes I understand that, as students and faculty move to town, that MIGHT make property values go up. Yes, I understand that the new facilities built with bond money MIGHT be used by other organizations in the area.

BUT--- I don't own a restaurant or hotel. I don't have any particular animosity toward or affection for them. I just transact business with them: they provide food, I provide money. If they make enough, they stay in business. Good for them. If they don't, I can still cook for myself.

BUT --- USM does not positively affect property values where I live. In the last fifteen years, I have watched as an influx of students has turned an "owner occupied" neighborhood into one that is predominated by rental property.

BUT --- USM has not historically made facilities available to the community. The AD refused to let the HHS Band host a band contest a few years back because he was afraid the marchers might mess up Faulkner Field. (I think that is still the name of the field at M.M. Roberts Stadium.) Of course, Giannini and others are now talking like it will be an open door for Hattiesburg organizations if the bond passes. Surely, even Seeker can appreciate the possibility that voters might be skeptical about promises made in circumstances like these.

Believe it or not, I will probably vote for the bond issue. I just think it smells to high heaven to have "white flyers" from Canebrake and Petal telling me how much Hattiesburg will benefit by my vote.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

Still being a legal resident of Hattiesburg, and having always lived in Hattiesburg I can see the benefit that the University brings to the city as a whole. Being in business and economics I know the direct dollars that USM brings to Hattiesburg. Without USM, Hattiesburg is Laurel South.

I plan to vote for the bond issue, for the simple reason is that it will move Southern Miss forward. My personnel dislike for Thames won't cloud my view that this is good for the University and the City.

What many, including the Rev, don't realize is that the proposal being made by Dupree is illegal under MS State Law and will never pass the City Council. Cities can't use a tourism tax incentive for general fund allocations as Dupree wants. So the $60 mil is a smoke screen, it can't happen under state law. Simple as that closed case.

P.S. - Frequent Driver, don't go to Troy, AL either. Two years ago they gave Troy $10 million to renovate their baseball and basketball facilities and part of the money went to the fund for their new football stadium. It's being paid back by a consumer tax as well.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Still being a legal resident of Hattiesburg, and having always lived in Hattiesburg I can see the benefit that the University brings to the city as a whole. Being in business and economics I know the direct dollars that USM brings to Hattiesburg. Without USM, Hattiesburg is Laurel South.

I plan to vote for the bond issue, for the simple reason is that it will move Southern Miss forward. My personnel dislike for Thames won't cloud my view that this is good for the University and the City.
"

So, you are not "Seeker" who went to Richmond? You don't seem to have his/her writing problem. So you're going to vote by absentee ballot?

I'd like to point out, that "move Southern Miss forward" is a cliche that constantly comes out of the Dome, one that administrators use to justify just about everything they do. The words themselves mean next to nothing. One can "more forward" and slam right into a brick wall, if you're not looking where you're going. Or a cess pool, or quick sand. "Forward" is not a good direction if you don't actually know where you are going.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

Seeker

You seem to have a curious and unusually high level of detailed knowledge of matters related to the bond issue, knowledge far beyond that held by students or by persons on the steet. You indicated previously that your family has been in Hattiesburg ever since USM opened its doors. It sounds like you've heard the matter discussed by knowledgable people. I don't wish to be unfair, but I can't help but wonder if there isn't some sort of vested interest. Me thinks you protest too much.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" I'd like to point out, that "move Southern Miss forward" is a cliche that constantly comes out of the Dome, one that administrators use to justify just about everything they do. The words themselves mean next to nothing. One can "more forward" and slam right into a brick wall, if you're not looking where you're going. Or a cess pool, or quick sand. "Forward" is not a good direction if you don't actually know where you are going. "

And worse than slamming into the brick wall or one of the other pitfalls that Foot Soldier describes is that the one "going forward" brings the entire university with him when in error. This is the reason for shared governance. Decisions may take longer when you have to convince, compromise, and even cajole...but they're better decisions in the end.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Polyonymous
"
And worse than slamming into the brick wall or one of the other pitfalls that Foot Soldier describes is that the one "going forward" brings the entire university with him when in error. This is the reason for shared governance. Decisions may take longer when you have to convince, compromise, and even cajole...but they're better decisions in the end.
"

After all the Dylan references, I cannot resist a music reference of my own.

"Believing I had supernatural powers, I slammed into a brick wall..."

Date: Sep 16, 2004

Original posts by Seeker in BOLD:

"Being in business and economics I know the direct dollars that USM brings to Hattiesburg.

I'm not an expert in business and economics, but I agree with you anyway, Seeker. Does that mean that Hattiesburg is obligated to unthinkingly acquiesce in any and every project alleged to benefit USM. I can understand why some resident voters might prefer that their efforts, money, support go to benefit the arts or academics, or whatever. That does not seem to be an option. It appears that USM athletics whistles and Hattiesburg is expected to dance.

Without USM, Hattiesburg is Laurel South.

And life just wouldn't be worth living in Laurel South. I'd rather move to Richmond.

My personnel (yep, this is the real Seeker) dislike for Thames won't cloud my view that this is good for the University and the City.

Thanks for expressing it as a "view." So many would declare it as "fact" as if such a declaration made it so.

What many, including the Rev, don't realize is that the proposal being made by Dupree is illegal under MS State Law and will never pass the City Council. Cities can't use a tourism tax incentive for general fund allocations as Dupree wants. So the $60 mil is a smoke screen, it can't happen under state law.

I don't know whether your understanding of the law is correct or not. Like earlier posters have mentioned, you seem to have a wealth of information available. "My view" is that you are either a excellent researcher, or you are just a shill for someone -- passing on at face value all that they tell you. I find it remarkable, that prior to my interpretation of your "kook fringe" comment, no one on this thread had mentioned Mayor Dupree's $60 million alternative bond proposal. If it is indeed a "smoke screen," why would you bring it up, except to serve as something that you can later knock down?

Simple as that closed case.

Politics is never "simple" and matters rarely "closed" upon initial failure. The specific avenue to accomplish the Fairley/Dupree objectives may be closed (I'll take your word for it) but that does not block other avenues. I naively believe that the mayor may be investigating other means of achieving his political goals. My guess is that Dupree wants to curry favor with both (a) the affluent voters who will most likely enjoy direct benefit as USM prospers; and, (b) the less affluent voters who will (at best) enjoy only indirect benefit from USM and who would like to see some of that political capital expended to benefit them in trivial ways such as road and sewer repair.

As I said earlier, my ambivalence about the USM bond issue in not informed by the Dupree/Fairley proposal; if it -- or some variation --eventually makes it to the ballot, I will consider it at that time. I have enough trouble seriously considering this one, on its own merit, without getting blinded by anybody's smoke screen.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

Why argue with Seeker?

Date: Sep 16, 2004

RE: Bond Issue

Date: Sep 16, 2004

When the bond issue first surfaced many weeks ago, I thought I read that the Hattiesburg restuaranteers were opposed to it. It would most certainly reduce their "competitive pricing" postion. By not much, perhaps, but a menu item at $3.95 is often perceived by the consumer to be significantly greater than the same menu item at $4.00 Similarly, a motel sign beside the highway advertising a room at $59.00 per night is often perceived by the consumer as significantly greater than the same room at $60.00 per night.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Thrifty Shopper
a menu item at $3.95 is often perceived by the consumer to be significantly greater than the same menu item at $4.00 Similarly, a motel sign beside the highway advertising a room at $59.00 per night is often perceived by the consumer as significantly greater than the same room at $60.00 per night.

The two words "greater" should read "less."

Date: Sep 16, 2004

Just to answer a few questions:

One was my research ability. Why thank you for noticing, I do take great pride in my research work. You can all thank Dr. Bill Smith over in the CBED for that, his Marketing Research class is one of the most challenging classes given at USM. I am currently a marketing research conslutant, living in Richmond. I have not changed my MS DL (as if I had to, with no voter ID in MS, why should I) and have not registered to vote in VA. So, I have already cast my ballot by absentee. I don't plan to live in Richmond too long, when my wife and I begin our family we will move back to H'burg.

I know quite a bit about the bond issue, bucause I have asked questions about it, the the Admin and AD have done a very poor job of selling the proposal, beause even many of you don't realize what it will pay for. MM Roberts and Reed Green will get their improvements if the bond issue passes or not. The sports that will benefit from the Bond Issue are the Title IX sports. I assume a group as educated as you know what Title IX is, so I won't elaborate. The facilites that are to be built with bond issue money are as follows:

Tennis Complex
Field House for the Marshall Bell Track Complex
Softball Stadium and Dressing Rooms
Soccar Dressing Rooms
Baseball Complex expansion

The Stadium and Colisum will be built with the suite sales, which are 85% complete.

Many of you feel that I or my family are somehow connected to the University in some way than just being alumni. Again you are mistaken. The first generation of my family to attend USM were school teachers, as was my mother. My father is a semi retired business man in H'burg who was in insuracnce and investments.

What puzzles you guys about me is that I don't care for Thames, but I won't join with you arm and arm and march lock-stepped in whatever misguided direction you want to trod.

And, finally Thrifty Shopper, have you ever seen an ad anywhere that advertises the product with all taxes included? Please that arguement is weak and you know it. I just got back from a Business trip to New Orleans, my bill says my room was $149 for the night, plus standard tax, plus a tourism tax of $9. Do you think they advertise that, come on. If you want to vote against this plan, just say I don't like what it supports, and be done with it. Stop making weak excuses that anyone can see through.