Cabela's Vote Next Week

The vote on the land giveaway to Cabela's is coming up next Tuesday, and today I got another mailer from Cabela's--this one a folded 4-page flier.

The main problem I had with the Cabela's deal was destroying a multi-million dollar Visitor Information Center (VIC) that is less than 10 years old, and shoving it inside Cabela's in less than half the space.

But now that's off the table; the VIC is staying where it's at.

Then there's the question of the giveaway of 30 acres of city property to Cabela's and the TIF itself.

While I still suspect that TIFs are being issued on flimsy grounds, I believe Rapid City most likely makes it's money back--it just takes a while.

Excepting the VIC, for me the question of the Cabela's deal comes down to this: would they have come without the TIF and the land giveaway? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know this with any certainty, but my fear is that the city essentially did what you don't do when buying a house: make your best offer first.

However, at this point, the horse is already out of the barn, and that offer has already been made. Now, the question becomes, if we take the land giveaway off the table, will they still come?

It has been said that this question is a gamble, a gamble many aren't willing to take. As for me, I'm not either. I think the city should have and maybe could have made a better deal, but what's done is done. The city is now in a much weaker position when it comes to negotiating.

I could hope that all the hubub over this might send a signal to city hall to shoot for a better deal in the future. Whether they'd get that signal could also be debated; if the land deal passes, they might see that as a tacit endorsement of what they did and become emboldened to continue or surpass deals like this.

In any event, I hope the land deal passes, for the reasons I've mentioned above. I think Cabela's will be good for the area, regardless of whether the sales tax amounts reach projections. Calling out the city on a questionable deal is a good thing; gambling that the deal will still go through if a substantial part of it is rescinded is, I think, too risky.