NLP

City of Kannapolis twitter account tweeted at me this morning that they are in talks with Amtrak about commuter service to Charlotte. If this came to pass (and overcame your aforementioned scheduling and ticket price challenges) I'd absolutely ditch driving to work every morning.

Any thoughts on the Chiquita merger in the context of the new anti-inversion rules the Obama administration is introducing? If enacted will this thwart Chiquita's plans to merge with the European (or rival Brazilian) firm?

    Oldish quote but relevant to my question. Is the bottleneck in both directions of 85 at the turbine interchange under construction temporary or will it always be 3 lanes in both directions briefly at the interchange? Looks like there's room Southbound to just restripe and pave the shoulder for the fourth lane but the Northbound side looks like it'd need additional cement poured.

I think that's very sound thinking, particularly when dealing with Doug Parker who I'm sure everyone knows ad naseum is a proponent of airline industry consolidation. It's interesting at least to me how US Airways post merger with AWE initially attempted to brand itself as a low cost carrier yet seemingly every move Parker has made or advocated would lead/has led to increased costs.

To add to this post, since government projects always go over deadline/budget: https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx Contract #C202522, the 85 widening project. Estimated completion is now mid-March 2014 and it's 2.29% over budget. That doesn't seem like much, but it's a $125M budget. As for finishing 485, the half that runs from 85 to 115 (Contract #C202521) is about 2 months behind schedule and 4% over budget. The east part that syncs up the existing part of 485 (Contract #C202523) is currently on budget and on schedule (knock on wood, jinx doesn't count). Not really a gripe post because as stated previously, the benefits will be amazing.

monsoon, where you at? Don't you want to talk Charlotte Football?

This thread hasn't seen any action in about 7 months so I add: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/...50222.html#none I'm disappointed in this figure, as a lot of people are, since we had such a large number of pledges. HOWEVER, given the absolute horror of an economic situation the country and this region has been facing, I'm not all that surprised. This, though, gives me a lot of encouragement: Since the end of July or so sales had been going at about a 9-10/day clip. To sure to around 50 a day for the last few days is nice indeed. A lot of credit should also be given to the volunteer sales force mentioned in the article. Without them there's a chance football at UNC Charlotte dies.

I saw that article in the O today and was pleased with the ridership numbers. One thing I am wondering about is how revenue has been. Last time I saw a story about ridership along with revenue there was a very large discrepency. Granted some is due to bus transfers and monthly passes, but there was a huge gap in revenue and expected revenue based on the number of people riding.

I actually think the number will be less as Mac's study lowballed donations in particular and possibly game revenue. And it's not a tax, you can choose where you send your child to school. It's a fee as it's described. If the education at Charlotte is so expensive, I want to see the uproar over the funding inequities. I'm so tired of the hypocrisy. The funding gap between Charlotte and the system average is a multiple of the proposed fee. Where is the uproar if Charlotte is so expensive? (It's still cheap compared to other schools in the system and remains a fantastic value regardless of the proposed fee)

Concerning Spangler's remarks, I don't require qualifications. Dubois himself refuted them on "The Mac Attack" show on WFNZ. Not so pleased he went on that particular program, but his words are his words. The segment is probably still archived on wfnz.com if you want to listen for yourself. I highly question the motives for CD Spangler's presence and statements. However I do not at all question the sincerity of Bill Friday's position. He has long crusaded against sports and their increasing costs since his days with the Knight Commission. While I don't agree with him, I respect his position, much like with Mary Schulken at the Observer. I have one question to anyone (including you monsoon but not limited ) who thinks football would drain from academics: How? Legally how would that be accomplished?

.aussie, unless somehow you can convince this person of the fallacy that football is a 'drain on resources that could be better spent elsewhere' you're wasting your time. There's some strange belief that football raids the coffers of money that would otherwise be going to academics. The reality is there is a ton of money on the sideline by prospective alumni and donors like myself that will remain on the sidelines until we have a football program. It's not as if my donations to the English Department are being deviously re-directed towards football. Give us a break here. If anyone wants to argue the burden on the students for the $300 fee, fine, do it. But don't create strawmen arguments that football is a drain on the school's resources. The drain on the resources is the shoddy allocation Charlotte gets from the state as the post by rworkman points out. If Charlotte got equitable funding (at the UNC SYSTEM average -I couldn't care less that UNC-CH and NCSU get so much) the positive impact on the students would be greater than the negative impact of the football fee from a purely economic perspective. So for anyone who wants to boo hoo about money, I will gladly drop my support of Charlotte football when you step up your letter writing campaigns to the entire NC GA to get Charlotte the funding it deserves.

It's the latter, not the former. Just one in a series of committee meetings being held to explore the possibility of football at Charlotte. They have brought in a variety of speakers as well as their own information gathering. They will continue having these meetings until early '08 and end with a recommendation either for or against establishing a permanent football program. Then of course it's up to the Chancellor and BOT to make the ultimate decision. Here's the link to the story in the Observer as well: http://www.charlotte.com/colleges/story/219386.html Apparently Fox News Edge did a story on it but I missed that last night. Personally, I think the recommendation of starting football to the BOT/Chancellor is approaching near lock status.

Thanks for mentioning that. Also, Mike Persinger (Observer Sports Editor) just told us David Scott was at the meeting and there will be a story in tomorrow's paper.

Based at feedback gathered from the football committee meetings held downtown at the Chamber of Commerce it's sounding like it's becoming more of a certainty than a possibility. Quite a departure from the pipe dream days. Anyways, the guest speaker was the AD of USF responsible for implementing football. They're considered by most to be a model of how to move from no football through D-1AA to D-1A. Charlotte AD Judy Rose also acknowledged the changing landscape of college sports and the power that BCS schools are gaining. She's seem to have moved to the position of football being a requirement to protect the basketball program at Charlotte.

I was a little wrong in my numbers. The election turnout was 20 times greater than the previous and also the highest EVER in any school in the state. Niner Online story These numbers may not have impressed you, monsoon, but they have impressed the Board of Trustees at the University. Personally I have no problem with you not being for football. I expect opposition. I'm just suprised at your suggestion of dismissal of the topic as if there was no support.

It HAS to happen this way by law. Education dollars (can not) and public dollars (yeah right, we're not NC State with the RBC Center) will never be used nor were they ever envisioned to be used. This election DESTROYED any previous election turnout at UNC Charlotte. It was an outrageous success that more than doubled the expected voter turnout (the voter turnout for the prior SGA election was around 560 people). It's crazy to say that those who didn't vote are passively against football. Traditionally when one abstains from voting it's widely regarded as passive APPROVAL. But no need to go that route, the numbers speak volumes. 80% of those who voted are willing to pay a fee that is believed to be in the range necessary to support football at UNC Charlotte. Spin it however you want, try to deconstruct it however you want. The PR people at UNC Charlotte went so far as to issue a statement saying the BOT will consider the vote reflective of the wishes of the students. Does anyone really believe that voter turnout would have to be higher? How many people turned out for the Arena vote in Charlotte? Good grief.

I know it may not seem that way but those are independent issues. When university officials refer to handling growth issues, those funds are anticipated to come from state funds and the endowment. Neither of those two funding streams can (state) or will (endowment) ever be allowed to support football or any other athletic venture.se

There's a reason why students are being asked if they're willing to travel 10-15 miles to a football venue. My guess is Memorial Stadium is that reason. Dubois has acknowledged there is a plot in mind where a campus football stadium would be built. I see complaints of traffic but I'm a bit bewildered by them... don't forget what roads feed Lowes Motor Speedway and Verizon Ampitheater. It's not like we're talking about rural dirt roads feeding the campus. Oh, and a light rail stop, if the NE line is built, will come onto the campus. As for a stadium receiving funding, we know we're Charlotte and we don't expect a drop of money from the state. This is North Carolina we're talking about. Only if you're NCSU do you get public assistance for sports venues.

We plan on asking the students if they are willing to support an increase in fees. Since they'll pay for the bulk of the initial start-up, obviously they have the right to voice their opinion. We're still getting 10 pledges a day with very, very limited exposure. We haven't directly targeted our core fan base yet (that's coming) and more is in store to target potential fans across the area. Another area we have not gauged interest from are the area businesses that might want to support Charlotte 49er Football. We're also (and this is the most important part) not going away. We know this won't get done in a year. We're in this for the long haul. As for the remark about more talk than work, right now we're more work than talk. But our work has resulted in more talk, andmore pledges. I will say though that I agree with you monsoon about improving facilities for undergrads and getting more of them to live on campus (with the increase in crime just off campus, it's for their own good!) I will also say again that this is not mutally exclusive from football. The Athletic Department has it made. They can watch us do the work and show them if the money and the interest is there. In the internet age, I think we're doing a great thing. This isn't sword-wavering where a bunch of people are asking for someone's head on a silver platter. I hope we can get the support of all of you, but at a minimum I hope you appreciate the way we're trying to do this. It's actually pretty fun.

The Charlotte 49er Football Initiative is meeting again tonight. I'll post rough minutes on what we talked about later tonight. If anyone has anything they'd like me to bring up, or address, I'd be happy to do so. Oh, and based on pledges so far we'd be Top 50 in donations. Not bad for a team that doesn't exist.

The pledges are coming. 40% spike in contribution pledges and pledges for season tickets. People have pledged to give more than ECU boosters give per year. Remember, most athletic programs (UNC too) generate most of their recurring funding from student fees. These are fees on top of tuition, and do not take away money from academics or research, which a lot of people believe. Considering the team doesn't even exist, I think we're off to a great start... and we haven't even done a small portion of the things we have in store.

The plot at 29 and MCC just went back up for sale. It's on the market again. I was actually talking about opposite that behind the gas station where the City has the soccer fields along the greenway. I can see why people would balk at that option. There were also a couple of people who said the Martin Marietta quary was going to go on the market eventually, but I don't see how that would be feasible for a stadium. Personally I've never looked at the property. As for th 29 where the Charlotte Research Institute will go, that's only going to be 10ish buildings in a semi-circle. There's property to the north and northeast that would still accomodate a football stadium. Regardless of exactly where, there is land available that the university currently owns. The barrier is solely money at the moment. I'm glad to see the overall positive tone of the thread. We want this effort to be embraced by the community as a whole, not just the alumni of UNC Charlotte. For too long we think the university and the city have been isolated from each other, not just physically (by the nature of the campus) but also idealogically. With the overall success of the Tire/Muffler Bowl I think the city would embrace local D1 football on Saturdays in the fall.

That's the first I heard about this, but I'll ask around. Just to address one thing posted earlier: A lot of people don't fully understand Title IX. It's not the barrier people think it is. Title IX does not require dollar for dollar spending on men's and women's athletics. What it requires is equal numbers of scholarships and comparable facilties. So if Charlotte needed $8 million to kick start football, the real figure isn't $16 million, but probably $10 million to pay for the extra scholarships and reasonable facilities for the new women's sports that would have to be added. In summary, Title IX is about equal facilities and scholarships, not absolute dollars. The parcel at the corner of Harris and 49 is owned by the State of NC. It's ID is 04931112 if anyone wants to look it up on the Mecklenburg GIS. Personally I was thinking land along US 29 that's currently undeveloped near where the future light rail will stop on campus would be preferable. Other alternatives included trying to acquire land or a land swap near the rec. soccer fields on Mallard Creek Church Rd. One last FYI, the past UNC Charlotte administration supposedly was prepared to study football at UNC Charlotte but blamed the post 9/11 environment on tableing the discussion. And for this grassroots drive that's going on now, I know a lot of the people involved in it. They're not simply going to go away or be discouraged this time.