legend500

On the picture - the one in the middle, the former Dallas City Hall/Police Headquarters. UNT already owns more than half of the Universities Center (left of the picture) and operates the 1900 Elm building foreground, left - where Law School students will have housing.

Scott: I am paying for the stadium. I consider the benefits to outweigh the cost. Hence, it's free money to me. The fee should continue to increase until it matches our most similar university in-state. If people dislike it, then a) if they are students , they may leave to a school with lower athletics fees (the closest is North Central Texas College in Corinth); b) If alumni, they can donate more money to offset the hike, or stop giving whatever paltry amount they currently are; c) If the general public, they can live with it, as they have no part in this. Easy.

Quality athletics = reputation, yes. But if victory doesn't do it (as you noted), facilities don't do it (as you allege), and recruiting and staff don't do it (the logical result of poor facilities and a lack of victory), then tell schools like Vanderbilt (renovated stadium 2004), Louisville (built 1997, expansion done in 2011), Utah (built 1998), Wake Forest (expanded 2008), and Texas (expanded 2008) that they wasted their money. Let's talk about football programs which were fiscally responsible and didn't invest in facilities. Talk to the football coaches at Texas - Arlington or at Sun Bowl winning Pacific to see what happened to those programs, and to their schools. Don't know where Pacific is? I thought their academic reputation alone was sufficient?

What ifs am I weighing here? When the stadium is built, the better teams that have committed to come will lead to higher attendance. That's all certain. No ifs. Unless you think Kansas State will draw less people than Western Kentucky.

UNT has plenty of needs on campus, but athletic money doesn't subtract from academic money - under state law, they're entirely separate (tax dollars/state money cannot pay for athletics). If you're so gung-ho to spend money on UNT's problems, why not go up there and suggest a $100/hr "Campus Improvement" fee?

Matt: I'm all for being outnumbered at our own stadium. It can suck though, I remember our home game last year at SMU.

St. Mary's is the second oldest in Texas.

Little bit of anger in your post. Bit of a pity party?

We all agree that Athletics = reputation. So it's obvious that a better reputation helps students both while they are at UNT and afterward. Thus the fee directly helps students - more than just a few times a year (although anything that helps students is good, even if it's a few times a year.)

Free money - the stadium will be paid off relatively quickly. Any money earned after that is "free". Simple.

Fouts is probably too old to renovate without completely rebuilding it as a new stadium anyway - and the expansion of the 35E/35W interchange might make that point moot. Plus, that would eliminate the additional parking and the opera house - both of which will replace Fouts.

Navy got within 500 of a sellout at Fouts and Kansas sold out at Ford. Baylor may be a regional team, but they still sell out stadiums, and will only come back and help us fill ours if we have a new one. My point, exactly. Kansas State & Air Force may very well sell out Fouts - version 2.

I wasn't comparing teams, I was comparing the effect of building a new sports facility. In that, the Rangers situation is directly comparable. How would Frisco's attendance be if they had not built a new stadium?

Schools known for football- Agreed, playing lesser-known teams is part of the problem. As stated above, and by my CUSA example, we can solve that with a new stadium. We own Tennessee and Texas Tech, historically. Does that mean that those are not "schools known for football?"

To answer my own question, the Extensive Research Universities in the area are UNT, UTD, UTA and Baylor. (Carnegie Foundation) But if you asked anyone on the streets what they were, you would probably get SMU, TCU, Baylor and maybe UNT. Football trumps academics in reputation.

A new stadium is a commitment that other schools notice. UNT was on the shortlist to join the CUSA after the third bowl - but UTEP got picked solely on facilities. Plus, better facilities brings better competitors to Denton. Air Force backed out of a 2009 game because of Fouts, Baylor cancelled for the same reason, and Kansas State as agreed to a home & home if we have a new stadium. Look at SMU - they don't sell out because of their team, they sell out because of their visiting teams. That's free money for the university.

Scott & Howard: The stadium is an intregal part of the campus experience. While I was there, I never set foot in the administration building, (as is probably the case with most students), but I don't suggest that it shouldn't be maintained just because almost nobody uses it. However, most students often use the Rec Center which was passed by a similar election and has been a roaring success when its predecessor was rarely used. These investments in facilities paid off.

No, nobody will come to sports events because of a new facility. The Rangers' doubling in attendance in 1994 was not due to a new stadium, but due to the enthusiasm for a 54-64 team. Sheesh.

Maybe the reason we can't fill Fouts right now is because it's a crappy stadium? That would be a good reason why attendance didn't go up too much during the good years.

As you say, enrollment is still shooting upwards even though tuition has gone from 1,400 when I wnt there to 6,000 today. Another $150 should have no effect. However, be of good cheer! After paying for the stadium (should take about 4 years) the fee will be used for the new baseball stadium!

Jason: Poli-Sci, actually. Right now, I'm attending the second-oldest law school in the state with Supreme Court justices as staff and Senators as almuni. I'm sure you can name that school off the top of your head, knowing its reputation exclusive of it's football history.

Unlike a private university, public universities have the resources to be good at more than 1 thing at a time. UNT can be #1 in music nationally, #1 in Political Science in the state (both of which may be true currently) and #30 in football all at the same time. The money comes out of totally different pots. They are not mutually exclusive. Plus, the music department has a new Opera House out of the deal - that will improve it's reputation just as much as the new stadium will improve football's.

UNT finally matches some other schools with a fee which, at $10, is half of what Texas State charges and hundreds of dollars less a semester than UNT's closest match - Houston. Good news!

Of the four football-playing universities in the Denton - Waco area, only two are rated as extensive research universities. Are the other two getting noticed because of their chess teams? No. How about their football history? Yes. Sports = Reputation.

jleeper: Texas universities remain one of the best deals in the nation. Private universities with less facilities and programs charge up to $30,000 - and the state has to make up for that somewhere. Since Texans won't pay any more taxes, the money has to come from students. Want to pay less for state tuition? Tell your parents to pay higher taxes, or go to a non-system school (the nearest one is TWU in Denton) Finally, by your logic, Texas & SMU, with the highest athletic fees in the state, must also be the worst universities.

music friends: The music program is strong, but being the best music school in the state and in the top nationally hasn't done much for its identity. The stadium will in a state where football is king. Plus, an opera house will be built on part of the land regained by Fout's implosion. Win-win.

pavel: That's correct. Incoming students may choose where they go - it's an open market.

Good for everyone. I hope DTCA follows the DART example (spending the money to build a true mass transit system) versus the Houston METRO system (fancy trolly-cars which are magnets for traffic accidents).

There's a lot of international press giving us props on this. Anyone know what DFW's share of non-fossil fuel electricity will be after this (wind plus nuclear expansion at Cherokee Peak)?

This article contains far too many facts, and facts, like libraries and science, have a well-known liberal bias!

Articles like this need less facts.

With apologies to Mr. Colbert.

You point out a great many problems (some extremely good points as well), but what is the solution?

1) "the only real benefit in reality is to Mexico, and not the US," Prove it.

2) "I think if you were to listen to a side of this issue from these workers instead of the businesses themselves you'd find an unwavering dissent about such outsourcing tactics by our manufacturing and industrial complexes. " Agreed, but the businessman are better placed to make these decisions than the average workers. Who benefits from cheap chinese products in Wal-Mart? Who spends their money at a dollar store? The American consumer has determined that overseas production and illegal immigration are good things, through their purchase of goods produced by both.

3) "With what's already been shown of their obvious claims of their intentions of re-taking/re-claiming the states of California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas as real estate that was "stolen" fro Mexico," Ironically enough, Texas was stolen from Mexico. How? Illegal immigration of Anglos into Texas in violation of Mexican law. Should we both leave this land originally stolen from Native Americans? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...

4) "Illegal is illegal ... period!" Speeding, jaywalking, littering, and tax fraud are all illegal, but you seem not to care about enforcing those laws. The sole laws you deem necessary to enforce to their fullest are immigration laws. Why is that?

5)" golden rings we as native born and naturalized citizens were promised ?" Americans are unique in that they aren't promised anything. If native Americans are too fat, lazy and privliged to compete with people who can't even speak the language, much less stay here legally, what does this say about the "downtrodden middle class". Maybe immigrants are drawn here to work because our middle classes have gained a misplaced sense of entitlement to not work hard. If we can't compete with immigrants, maybe that says a lot more about us than it says about them.

6) "The American people rose up en masse just this past June to relate to the Senate their grave displeasure with the amnesty plans congress sat ready to foist upon us." Congress should have ignored them. The American people also believe that flying saucers are real, and more know who Beyonce Knowles is than Richard Cheney. The only group in the US who had a high level of knowledge (More than 50% high) according to the Pew Research Center were persons making more than 100,000 dollars a year. Congress should ignore the feelings of the illiterate whole in favor of businessmen and lawyers whom are informed enough to make a decision on this important topic.

Harsh, but true.

An example of people putting petty hatreds in front of our common humanity and the golden rule. Well Said, terryorze!

"The blatant hypocracy of this church and the self-rightous diatribe I have read in these comments are the very reason I rejected christianity 17 years ago." pm, keep going! every word you type turns people away from Jesus.

YOUR personal opinion on the divisions of Jewish law is interestig, but irrelevant. Where does it say such a thing in the Bible? nowhere. Again, interesting for someone who believes the bible in totality to be inserting his own beleifs into the Word of God.

You remark "The commandment given by God was those who engage in sexual immorality were to be put to death whether homosexual or heterosexual." Since you bring this up, pm I want you to address it. Why, then, are you not killing adulterers, divorcees, people having sex out of wedlock, and gays? Do you not follow the laws your Jewish God has led out for you? Do you fear man more than God? Why are you not urging the government to re-enact such laws.

And after lamenting that Jews sadly cannot kill people anymore for being gay, you have the audacity to state that "Apparently, homosexuals think...you hate them. this is wrong." Weren't you just defending the Jews' right to kill homosexuals? Maybe that's why they think you hate them?

"I personally happen to have a close family member who is gay" this is bad news for you, pastor. Remember that "if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift." You are not reconciled with your family memeber because your hatred for gays have left you blinded to Jesus' commandment to love one another. You, pastor, will not see heaven until you have asked forgiveness for your hatred.

"It is sin and you are in danger of hells flames if your sin is unrepented."...maybe condeming gays to eternal torment is why they think you hate them, pastor?

"You also fail to mention I included those who were heterosexual who engaged in sexual immorality, I did not simply as I’m accused of single out gays." Watch out, straighties! the pastor is after you if you've touched a woman who's given birth, which is a sexual immorality under Leviticus!

Finally, an answer! "Notice homosexuality is not part of the equation." precisely! Jesus says nothing about homosexuality. He certainly had the chance, especially in this excerpt, but deliberately chooses not to.

"Jesus makes reference to the 10 commandments" Actually, he only refrences six, including the Greatest commandment which is the "entirety of the law and the prophets."

And now, watch as pm proves my point: "others wrote about him, what he did, said, and felt." That is precisely the problem with current christianity. We ignore Jesus words, which are the only valid words for christians, and instead study what other fallible men said about him!

Also notice, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. " Who is Jesus talking to? the Pharisees! This instruction in Matthew 19:1-12 applies clearly only to Pharisees, and I doubt many are reading this discussion right now.

"who they quoted and Paul whose writing were recognized as scripture?" Who recognized these missives as scriptures? the Roman Catholic Church! Awful interesting how the preachers of the new churches run back to the Holy Mother Church when they're scared...

Finally, will the good pastor like to explain why he does not feel the need to follow his Jewish God and carry out his moral commandments in Leviticus which I have presented before: "such as not putting to death those who curse their parents and those who commit adultery (Ch 20), failing to condemn those who eat poultry, rabbit and pork (Ch. 11), not executing men who touch their wives after they give birth (Ch. 12), and FAILING TO SUPPORT SLAVERY (Ch. 25 V 44). "

Appearantly the pastor doesn't wish to address the question I now pose for the fourth time: "Since he knew this could get confusing, in Matthew 7:12 he tells everyone what being a Christian is: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." No ifs, ands or buts. He also knew people like the pastor above would try to avoid the totality of the law and the prophets, and carve out specific lines of text to oppress homosexuals, support slavery, and to spread hatred in this world. For those he has a specific message just a few lines down: (Matthew 7: 15-23) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

on the actual issue, believe it or not, we probably agree. "This church showed so much love to this man’s family and partner even though they could not go against their biblical convictions." Nothing requires the church to do something against its convictions, however flawed. if the family knew of these picture, they should have known that they would be inappropriate in a gay-hating church.

A QUICK SUMMATION IN THE GOOD PASTOR'S OWN WORDS (and in the words of Christ): "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, "(I am only responding because of my love for you all and my hopes to see you saved.)" but underneath are ravenous wolves. "(It is sin and you are in danger of hells flames if your sin is unrepented.)" By their fruits you will know them." "(The blatant hypocracy of this church and the self-rightous diatribe I have read in these comments are the very reason I rejected christianity 17 years ago.)"

1) Precisely Sockpuppet. Animals do not have the ability to make a rational decision. Thus, their homosexuality is in-born, a creation of the Lord God itself, and is therefore also a natural gift to humanity.

2)The "christ commandos" are talking to themselves. Whenever you ask them what Jesus says about people they try to condemn, or why the golden rule does't apply to them, they crawl in a corner and mutter "Leviticus" and "Romans" to themselves which brings us to...

3) Pastor XY says: But Leviticus sayeth! However, Leviticus is a Jewish book, and is merely texture showing the savagery of the Jewish people before Christ came and set aside the old commandments for two exceedingly simple ones. "Pastors" using Leviticus owe us an explanation why they pick-and-choose homosexuality when they themselves are violating many of Leviticus' outdated rules: such as not putting to death those who curse their parents and those who commit adultery (Ch 20), failing to condemn those who eat poultry, rabbit and pork (Ch. 11), not executing men who touch their wives after they give birth (Ch. 12), and FAILING TO SUPPORT SLAVERY (Ch. 25 V 44).

Funny how we still read or bother with letters not directed to us (Romans). For Roman Catholics, What Paul says is of interest, but for those who refuse to accept papal authority, why do they care what the first pope said?

I ask again...what does Jesus Christ say about homosexuality? Jewish perspectives are irrelevant. Paul's perspective is good only for Roman catholics still living in imperial rome, who also reject Jesus's two commandments.

3) Not all the city, but conservative Christians desperately are in need of a massive man-on-man orgy.

READ ONLY IF YOU WANT TO SEE A DEAD HORSE FLOGGED:

"you see there are three categories of law in scripture and they are moral laws, ceremonial laws and civic laws. " Funny how people who believe in Jesus Christ insist on using old Jewish mysticism. Also funny how people who claim to believe in the infallibilty of the bible invent ideas such as these (which have no basis in scripture) just to try to hang onto Jewish beliefs.

"Jesus (God in the flesh) did not discount the Old Testament but quoted from it over and over again." Actually, he specifically rejects parts of the old laws and modifies others several times in Matthew 5: 20-44. Since he knew this could get confusing, in Matthew 7:12 he tells everyone what being a Christian is: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." No ifs, ands or buts. He also knew people like the pastor above would try to avoid the totality of the law and the prophets, and carve out specific lines of text to oppress homosexuals, support slavery, and to spread hatred in this world. For those he has a specific message just a few lines down: (Matthew 7: 15-23) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

So what will Jesus do to those who ignore his commandment in favor of hatred towards others? "Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'"