March 15, 2010
Selig on A's stadium report: Still typing, be patient
In case you, like Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff, have been wondering what's up with that A's relocation commission that Bud Selig instituted last spring, Selig officially declared yesterday that they're still working on their report:
"I've talked to them a lot," Selig said of the committee members, "and they have a report that will be coming in the near future. I don't have any comment until that's done."
The task force, in case you've forgotten, isn't actually commissioned to decide the best home for the A's, but rather to discover "why a stadium deal has not been reached" and how best to proceed from here. Presumably the final report will include an analysis of proposed sites in Oakland, Fremont, and San Jose, though the big decision that everyone's waiting for is what it will say about San Jose's status as San Francisco Giants territory — and how much the A's would have to pay to get the Giants to give up those rights. Given Wolff's previously stated preference to relocate to San Jose, the price for buying off the Giants is likely what will decide whether the A's owner gets his way, or is stuck negotiating with East Bay cities.
Orlando arena subsidies to buy $2,100 chairs, bumper pool table
The Orlando Sentinel had some fun yesterday digging through the $480 million budget for the Magic's new Amway Center (not to be confused with their old Amway Arena — three guesses what company Magic owner Rich DeVos owns), and finding stuff that Orlando taxpayers will be helping to pay for. On the shopping list:
- A $10,000 conference table and eight $2,100 conference chairs for Magic executives.
- 264 barstools costing $892 each for luxury suite holders.
- A $2,100 poker-and-bumper-pool table, plus PlayStation 3 and Wii systems, for concert performers to play backstage before events. Writes the Sentinel, "According to city officials, that's needed to stay competitive with other venues vying for touring shows." What, no brown-free M&M dispenser?
- A $87,600 Zamboni, though the arena won't be home to a hockey team.
A spokesperson for Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer defended the expenses, saying, "We are investing in making this a state-of-the-art facility, and it's important that we invest now so we don't have to replace these items in five years." (Note to Buddy: I'm pretty sure PlayStation 4 will be out by then.) Jim Martin, chair of the watchdog group CountyWatch, retorted: "That stuff needs to be scrutinized. The question is, can you justify it at this time? The next question is, could you ever have justified it?"
Kings land swap plan moves forward, but where's the money?
To absolutely nobody's surprise, on Thursday Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's Kings arena task force officially endorsed developer Gerry Kamilos' three-way land swap deal that would end up with an arena on city-controlled land at the downtown railyards and a new Cal Expo on the site of Arco Arena. City officials now say they hope to sign an "exclusive negotiating contract" (presumably a memorandum of understanding or something similar) with Kamilos by next month.
The big question remains how the heck the Kamilos plan would be paid for, especially given that the state-run Cal Expo says it won't agree to relocate unless someone pays for a new modernized state fair facility, and that "someone" isn't them. There's also the issue of whether tax-increment financing (i.e., kicking back property taxes to the developer) would be involved, as previously hinted; city councilmember Sandy Sheedy, showing unusual perspicacity for a local elected official, noted, "Sometimes when you just say no new taxes, it doesn't mean the rest of the public funds that go into it."
And Sheedy's not the only one getting cold feet: The Sacramento Bee has run a slew of columns and opinion pieces over the last few days questioning the arena deal. Some samples:
Bee associate editor Foon Rhee:
There's a reason why financial projections for arenas and stadiums tend to be so rosy, says Stanford University economist Roger Noll, an expert in the field. Support from sports fans alone is not enough to build a majority in favor of public subsidies, he says, so boosters resort to two lines of argument: the benefits will ripple far and wide, and the arena will attract lots of family-friendly events besides sports.
But such boosterism is "increasingly not working," Noll said, because inflated claims are getting punctured by hard reality.
Even if construction of a new arena is entirely financed by private investment (which is unlikely to be the case), the task of repaying lenders and bondholders — not to mention generating the revenue to cover the arena's maintenance and operations costs — will fall largely on individual ticket-buyers and those local businesses still able to lease luxury boxes.
It should come as no news to elected officials struggling to balance budgets that the Sacramento region is a much less affluent place than it was just three or four years ago. And no amount of civic cheerleading — or exceedingly optimistic economic impact studies — can obscure the fact that we are staring at several years of sluggish, if not jagged, economic growth in this region.
If the city is bent on providing the Maloofs with a new venue for events that only a tiny fraction of the region's residents can afford to attend, that's its business. But why should the state get involved?
Cal Expo, built four decades ago on the fanciful notion that it would become a year-round, Disneyland-like attraction, is a concrete and steel monstrosity and should be reconstructed or replaced with something more like the traditional fairgrounds it replaced. If selling the underlying property would provide the money to do so, as the arena promoters envision, so be it.
If, however, the Cal Expo site is valuable enough to finance a new fairgrounds and a basketball arena, then the excess should be returned to the state treasury, not ripped off by the city and the Maloofs. The state would be making this unjustified gift while it simultaneously is trying to sell other property and the state workers' compensation insurance system to cover gaps in the state budget.
This scheme is insanity, and someone should have the guts to strangle it before it takes on a life of its own.
March 12, 2010
Shovels fly at Nets arena groundbreaking
More than six years in the making, Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards project (aka the Barclays Center arena, aka the place the New Jersey Nets plan to play when they finally leave New Jersey) finally had its ceremonial groundbreaking yesterday. As you might expect, there were lots of shovels brandished and giant cardboard faces donned in protest. I didn't go myself, but you can read Curbed's blog for all the gory details, including photos of trays of turkey-lobster sliders.
If the word "ceremonial" didn't tip you off (let alone the turkey-lobster sliders), nothing of substance was discussed or revealed yesterday, about when the arena will open, when the associated apartment buildings will be built, when the state plans to seize the private properties that still stand in the way of construction, or anything like that. But Jay-Z was there!
Cubs drop AZ ticket tax, launch Wrigley seat auction
The Chicago Cubs have bowed to opposition from the entire rest of Major League Baseball and abandoned their plan for a ticket tax on all Arizona spring training games to help fund the new spring training stadium they're demanding as a condition of not moving to Florida. Instead, the team now says, it would happy to stick with just a $1 tax surcharge on rental cars in Maricopa County, something that's drawn less opposition.
Maybe the Cubs should consider using one of their own novel revenue-generating approaches, such as auctioning off front-row seats to the highest bidder, which they're now doing at Wrigley Field for the third straight year. Though since that would come out of their own pocket, not out of the pockets of Arizona tourists, I'm guessing not.
More Yankee Stadium demolition porn
More photos of Yankee Stadium demolition, courtesy of FoS reader Cary Goodman, and a video, courtesy of some guy who sent it to CNN. The CNN "iReporter" says that "accoring to officials" the entire upper deck will be demolished in 3 weeks — I'll see if I can confirm that.
[UPDATE: David Lombino of the NYC Economic Development Corporation confirms to me that the upper deck will be gone in three weeks. This means that all that will be left once fans arrive for Opening Day on April 13 will be a few exterior walls, which for better or for worse should spare them this kind of scene.]
Silverdome owner knows these guys, see
The possibly crazy guy who bought the Pontiac Silverdome last year for $583,000 has given his first interview on the subject of what he plans to do with his new inflatable toy, and he sounds, well, possibly crazy — even after accounting for his speaking in stereotypically broken English. Take it away, Andreas Apostolopoulos:
"We're gonna spend a lot of money here, create a lot of jobs, meet a lot of new people. It's not for sale, and it's never gonna be for sale. ... When I seen it, I like it. I knew there was a lotta work to be done. But work doesn't scare me, you know?"
Apostolopoulos says he's been approached to use the Silverdome, which costs $1.5 million to maintain even when idle, for events like horse racing, polo, and soccer. The people behind these proposals were described by Apostolopoulos as "some guy" and "another guy." Though they already have monster trucks lined up, so maybe tomorrow it'll be major league polo. Or monster truck polo!
Chicago businessman claims seat scheme can fund Vegas arena
The guy behind Las Vegas' abortive 2004 bid to woo the Montreal Expos is back on the scene, this time with a new financing plan for the city's proposed arena. The brainstorm of Lou Weisbach — a Chicago-based Democratic fundraiser and marketing businessman who previously tried to buy the Cubs, is to sell luxury boxes and personal seat licenses, but with a twist: Instead of paying their license fees up front, they'd pay for them over time, like a home mortgage. (This is actually how most luxury box deals already work, but never mind that for now.) Weisbach calls the concept "Equity Seat Rights," and notes that it's been used by the University of Kansas and UC-Berkeley to help finance expansions of their college football stadiums.
Leaving aside that from a stadium builder's perspective, it doesn't really matter whether your funders give you the money up front or over time (any more than a home seller cares much whether a buyer is paying cash or taking out a loan), could this actually work? The projected cost of building an arena is at least $400 million, not counting land. Weisbach says that by selling 1,000 PSLs — oops, ESRs — plus 150 suites, he could make the project work with no public money.
The big question here is what he could get for the suites: If they were to go for a quarter-million per year apiece, which is the low end at L.A.'s Staples Center (which has four pro sports teams to the Las Vegas arena's zero), that would indeed cover most of his construction costs, regardless of whether the ESRs sold. If the price were lower, not so much. And that's assuming that they all sell — it's going to be dicey, to say the least, to get people and corporations to pay top dollar to seats at an arena with no guarantee of what team if any will even play there.
Add in that Vegas' baseball stadium plan also initially was proposed to be taxpayer-free, but then turned out not to be, and there's plenty of room for skepticism here. Though in the Las Vegas Sun article on Weisbach's plan, it was called "a common-sense approach" by Chad Wilkins, a consultant who ... erm, works for Weisbach. But if you can't trust a consultant to a marketing guru, who can you trust?
March 10, 2010
Yankee Stadium demolition picks up pace
I dropped by Yankee Stadium yesterday, where the pace of demolition is picking up as the June completion date nears. (Not to mention, cynics might note, opening day, by when the Yankees might like to have the picked-apart corpse of the House That Ruth Built out of sight as much as possible.) The left-field grandstand has a large hole in it now, and several deep gashes where work crews are preparing to take down more sections.
There's also a growing crowd of people on the nearby #4 elevated train platform, snapping a few photos but mostly watching the demolition in grim silence. Yesterday I met an off-duty policeman who said the scene was "sad," and that he'd worked the final game at the old stadium; he also pointed out the old Yankee logo etched into the exterior outfield wall, now exposed for the first time in decades by the demolition crews. (See more photos below the jump, click to enlarge).
March 09, 2010
Food fight over Texas Stadium implosion
The plans to have a processed-cheese product sponsor the demolition of Texas Stadium has run into opposition: The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine says it's "inappropriate" for the city of Irving to promote unhealthy foods, and instead offered $75,000 for the city to use the stadium implosion to highlight childhood obesity.
Irving Mayor Herbert Gears said this didn't make any sense to him, but the committee has a plan and everything:
The physicians committee also suggested the city use a banner that depicts on overweight man eating cheese under the words, "Cheese really blows you up."
Gears called the proposed banner "tacky" and "offensive" in its depiction of a "stereotypical overweight person."
March 05, 2010
Vegas hit with two competing tax-subsidized arena plans
I'm being interviewed by Las Vegas radio on Monday morning (tune in here at 6:50 am Mountain time), and now I think I know why: Two would-be developers have proposed building a sports arena near the Strip, and will be presenting plans to county commissioners in the next couple of weeks.
Both plans involve major public subsidies. One plan, pushed by the nonprofit Las Vegas Arena Foundation and Harrah's casino, would raise sales taxes by 0.7% in an "entertainment corridor" near the Strip, to help fund a $488 million arena. (No breakdown on how much money would come from the tax hike.) The other, from International Development Management, would reestablish a redevelopment agency to kick back property taxes to the developers — that's right, yet another TIF. The IDM arena would cost $751.7 million ($404 million for construction, $347 million for land).
As for who would play there, an IDM spokesperson said that the city "needs the arena to host bigger and better events." (Because, you know, there's nothing much to do in Vegas now.) This will no doubt fuel renewed speculation about an NBA franchise moving to Vegas, though the league hasn't been thrilled with the idea so long as betting on basketball is allowed there.
County commissioners, meanwhile, are both intrigued and wary of committing public funds — though not necessarily clear on how modern arena finances work. Commissioner Tom Collins — who, may I just say, has the best Vegas elected official name ever — told the Las Vegas Sun, "If it involves any public funding, then I think the county should own it." Noooooooooooooo!
Polls say "no" to Vikes stadium; Vikes say "bah" to polls
A poll of Minnesotans has found that 64% are opposed to state funding of a new Vikings stadium, with only 31% in favor. This is in line both with past polls on the Vikings stadium, and for that matter with how Minnesotans felt about spending public money on a Twins stadium before that.
Vikings stadium czar Lester Bagley, as you might expect, wasn't too thrilled with the poll results, telling the Minneapolis Star Tribune that such polls "ask the wrong question, which is whether it's important to keep the Vikings in Minnesota for the next generation. And to keep the Vikings, we have to resolve the stadium issue." (Presumably Bagley meant that whether to keep the Vikings in Minnesota was the right question.) He added that the new Twins ballpark would never have been built if "you put a finger up in the air to see what the polls are."
Good thing, then, that the state legislature agreed to build the Twins stadium without asking voters what they thought. Because as everyone knows, in Minnesota the only person whose opinion counts is Garrison Keillor's.
Yankee Stadium, Texas Stadium nearing full demolition
New demolition photos of Yankee Stadium and Texas Stadium. Yankee Stadium is slated to be completely razed by this summer, with construction on a new public park on the site to finally begin at that point; Texas Stadium will be imploded in a shower of processed cheese on April 11.
Yankee Stadium's Gate 2, interestingly, seems to be more or less still standing, though the part of the grandstand that was behind it is now gone. So it's possible that the city Parks Department is still considering the plan to preserve it as a memorial to the stadium, though that will likely depend on whether anyone can find money to do so — especially given that New York City has enough money troubles of its own these days.
March 03, 2010
Dolphins drop stadium reno tax ... for now
The Miami Dolphins are setting aside their push for a hotel tax hike to fund $250 million in stadium renovations, saying they'll now move ahead with a bid for the 2014 Super Bowl without renovation plans in place. Which contradicts somewhat Dolphins lobbyist Ron Book's earlier pronouncement that "we have to have something to show the owners, to show what we are doing to keep the stadium in a position that they find acceptable" for a Super Bowl bid to work, but that's just the sort of thing that lobbyists say, right?
Notwithstanding today's Miami Herald headline ("Miami Dolphins drop push to raise taxes for stadium upgrades"), the team is very much not dropping its push for a hotel tax hike or some other kind of public stadium subsidy, just putting it off for a few months:
The team backed off a plan to support state legislation that would have allowed Miami-Dade County to increase hotel bed taxes to raise dollars for stadium improvements. But the team and host committee officials are examing other funding options.
"We're not dropping either the idea of stadium improvements or the concept of pursuing public funding," [Dolphins CEO Mike] Dee said. "What we're doing is slowing down the process to match the ongoing discussion with the community."
Dee estimated renovation plans could be unveiled later this year.
Presumably Dee is banking on the economy having perked up by then, but he probably shouldn't count on it.
Roughriders stadium study endorses Roughriders stadium
Last July, the Saskatchewan director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation predicted that it was "a foregone conclusion" that the province's then-announced Saskatachewan Roughriders stadium study was "going to recommend a new domed stadium," given that it was being conducted by a stadium management company. That study was released on Monday, and surprise, surprise:
The study says the domed stadium would be the only 30,000-plus all-weather venue for all of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Montana and North Dakota and could draw 500,000 people each year. The facility could have an operating profit of $1.1 million annually if it was host to 31 events a year, including 11 CFL games, according to the study.
"The project is clearly economically feasible and will generate related and recurrent benefits throughout the province of Saskatchewan. The benefits are overwhelmingly positive," the study says.
I can't tell from the news coverage whether that's a $1.1 million annual profit after paying off construction bonds, or assuming somebody else foots the bill for building the thing. Not that it matters much, as the construction cost is a bit of a moving target anyway, according to the report: $386 million for a 33,000-seat fixed-roof stadium, another $45 million to make the roof retractable. And no one knows yet how it would actually be paid for, with Saskatchewan Enterprise Minister Ken Cheveldayoff saying:
"The feasibility report says it is feasible to go forward. Now we will look at the capital accumulation phase," said Enterprise Minister Ken Cheveldayoff, whose Saskatchewan Party government indicated a decision about whether or not to proceed will be made by late spring.
"We'll talk to the federal government, the provincial government, the city and the Roughriders to put a plan in place," Cheveldayoff said.
"I can say right now that each partner would have to come to the table and contribute for this report to go forward."
Whether this would be a good deal for Saskatchewan, needless to say, depends on who comes to the table with what. But no doubt the Roughriders are happy that the headlines were written before any of the costs were figured in.
Nets arena groundbreaking set for next week after court ruling
It's not quite all over but the shouting, but just about: A New York state judge dismissed a court challenge to the state using approved a court petition by the state (over landholder objections) to use eminent domain to seize land for the Nets' planned Brooklyn arena on Monday, clearing the way for construction to begin. Street closings are set to begin next Monday, with a ceremonial groundbreaking on March 11; as for evicting the remaining residents and businesses occupying buildings marked for demolition, the state Empire State Development Corporation says it "anticipates an orderly relocation taking place over the course of the next few months."
Barring a surprise injunction in one of the other remaining lawsuits, then, it looks like the Atlantic Yards project, or at least the Barclays Center piece of it, will be opening in Fall 2012 as planned — not as planned originally, mind you, but if you keep making enough predictions, one of them will be right.
Whether the rest of the project, including the affordable housing component, gets built anytime soon is another story, but Bertha Lewis, who brokered the housing deal in return for her support of the arena, has bigger fish to fry these days anyway.
March 01, 2010
Poll: Santa Clarans evenly split on 49ers stadium
An independent poll of Santa Clara voters has found them evenly split, 45%-45%, on whether to build a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. Caveat: The poll was only of 200 Santa Clarans, and has a seven-percent margin of error. Still, it's a sign that the vote could go down to the wire, despite the Niners' rather whopping campaign spending advantage.
The poll was reported by San Francisco Chronicle columnists Matier and Ross, who last week promoted the idea of a shared stadium in Oakland for the 49ers and Raiders, of which Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty enthused, "I'm not sure how much public participation would even be needed, aside from providing the land. ... We've already been approached by one developer interested in building it." As Santa Clarans could tell you, "not sure" really isn't good enough when it comes to stadium finance plans.
Houston sports authority to build Dynamo stadium, unless it doesn't
Newspapers have long derided their sports sections as the "toy department" — more about cheering than actual journalism — but Houston Chronicle sportswriter Jose De Jesus Ortiz's article on Friday about progress towards a new Dynamo soccer stadium takes rooting in the press box to an extreme. De Jesus Ortiz begins by declaring that Dynamo fans should be "doing cartwheels" over the fact that, notwithstanding that still no one has quite figured out how to pay for it, city and county commissioners have asked the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority to be the builders and owners of the proposed 21,000-seat stadium.
Why is this good news? Because, according to De Jesus Ortiz, the authority already built for Houston "among the best stadiums in the United States for baseball, football and basketball." And then he goes further:
Contrary to what some would have you believe, taxpayer dollars weren't used to build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium or Toyota Center.
"It was very carefully drawn to tax hotel, auto and seat licenses," [state Sen. John] Whitmire said. "So they've been great cost-effective venues to benefit not only Harris County but East Texas and Texas in general. We've received a Super Bowl, a baseball All-Star Game, a World Series and other major sporting events because of these stadiums.
"It cost no property taxes. It generates an increase in property taxes, which then you use for general services. It's a win-win. The venues are built with bonds and you pledge user fees, parking, hotel, rental cars, seat licenses. Then the stadiums increase the value of the surrounding area, which creates taxes."
That's a large mouthful of justification, but none of it comes down to "no taxpayer dollars" — at best, if you believe the argument that the stadiums raised property values (without merely redirecting property increases that would have taken place somewhere in Houston anyway), it's that "the stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars, but they ended up being a good investment in the end." It's a claim that's hard to evaluate, though, since De Jesus Ortiz didn't interview any economists or urban planners for his story — his only source, in fact, is Whitmire, who is the guy who came up with the idea of the sports authority in the first place, and so might not be the most objective observer.
Meanwhile, the more reality-based media — and yes, that'll probably be the only time I use that term to refer to a Fox TV news outlet — reports that there's a potentially large hurdle to the sports authority taking over the Dynamo stadium project, which is that the authority has a no-compete clause with the Rockets' Toyota Center that prohibits it from even discussing building a new stadium or arena within ten miles of that arena until 2013. Authority board chair Kenny Friedman says that he hopes the non-complete clause won't apply since the soccer stadium isn't planned for holding concerts; the board is expected to discuss this issue at a meeting today.
February 25, 2010
Vikes sign new team for stadium blitz
At least one industry is hiring these days: Following on the heels of the Detroit Red Wings hiring an arena campaign manager the Minnesota Vikings have brought on board seven new lobbyists for their own stadium push.
The Vikes' own already-in-place stadium czar, Lester Bagley, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that he'd like to see a stadium built ASAP, given low interest rates and construction costs, but one of the new lobbyists, John Knapp, tempered his enthusiasm a bit, telling the paper, "It's still early in the session, and obviously legislators are trying to deal with the budget." But then, Target Field wasn't won in a day.
Sacramento developer pressing Cal Expo on Kings land swap
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's Kings arena task force doesn't make its final report until March 11 — and really they could probably use even more time, given the haziness of some of the proposals — but that's not stopping developer Gerry Kamilos from lobbying the Cal Expo board to sign off on his convoluted three-way land swap deal. The Cal Expo board is scheduled to discuss the plan at its meeting tomorrow.
Cal Expo official Brian May (sorry, different Brian May) told the Sacramento Bee that the board was "intrigued," though he also suggested that the NBA's endorsement of the Kamilos plan may violate a letter of agreement the league signed with Cal Expo not to hold arena talks with any third parties. Continues the Bee:
May said Cal Expo has homework to do before deciding if the Kamilos proposal is workable: How much could the state get for the Cal Expo land? Is the Natomas site big enough? What would a new fairground cost to build? How would it be financed? Would there be legal challenges in Natomas to the State Fair being built there?
Yankees stadium concrete testers facing 25 years in the slammer
For those following along, the case of the concrete testing firm charged with faking test results at the new Yankees stadium among other places, and the verdict is: Guilty, guilty, guilty! Everyone swears that this doesn't mean the new stadium, the Freedom Tower, and dozens of other buildings are about to fall down, but then, how would they know? The city Buildings Department is reportedly working to check on all the buildings that got faulty inspections, which would be more reassuring if the Buildings Department had the staff to do its regular inspections in the first place.
February 24, 2010
Slot machine cash for Vikings proposed (again)
There's yet another Minnesota Vikings stadium funding bill afoot, this one slot machines at race tracks. Licensing "racinos" could raise $125 million a year for the state, say the sponsors of the "Jobs, Family and Economic Development Fund," who say the proceeds could be used for "rural development, early childhood development research and development of bioscience and medical technology, athletic and recreational facilities, and the general fund." (But surely family athletic and recreational facilities.)
Those with long memories will recall that this plan was already floated once last October, and those with even longer memories will remember when a similar plan was proposed for the Twins way back in 1997. That went nowhere at the time amid major opposition to expansion of gambling, but apparently some legislators think the state might just be desperate enough for revenue this time around to rethink the matter.
Most observers, though, think not. The bill's chances: "Not good," says MinnPost. "An expansion of gambling would face a tough road," says Minneapolis Public Radio. "Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller have expressed doubt" that it could pass this year, says the Star Tribune. "Ground breaking," says ... um, CasinoGamblingWeb.com. And even they call it "a tough sell."
Red Wings hire ex-Pistons exec to run arena campaign
The Detroit Red Wings new arena drive story continues to inch forward — yesterday's news was that Wings and Tigers owner Mike Ilitch had hired an arena czar to oversee the team's choice of a future home.
The man of the moment: Tom Wilson, the former Pistons president who helped oversee construction of the Palace of Auburn Hills in 1988. Asked whether, like the Palace, a new Red Wings arena would be built with private funds, Wilson replied ("with a laugh," reports the Detroit Free Press): "It won't come from my money. I don't have that much." Of course, neither does Detroit.
February 22, 2010
Rays FanFest fans: Trop's just fine, so is St. Pete
In the latest Tampa Bay Rays stadium kerfuffle news, a randomish sampling by the St. Petersburg Times of fans who turned out for the Rays FanFest has determined that:
- They like Tropicana Field just fine.
- They think it could be even more inconvenient to drive to Tampa or points north than to St. Pete.
- They (okay, one guy) think the Rays would sell more tickets if they'd "stop shooting off about how bad the stadium is."
Of course, there's a reason why "randomish" isn't accepted polling practice: You could reasonably argue that people who are already diehard Rays fans aren't the best test case for how to expand the team's reach. But it is mildly interesting that at least some fans have a rosier view of the Rays' dome home than the team's owner does.
Glendale seeks sales-tax kickback for Coyotes
Apparently special tax districts are all the rage right now: In the midst of the Arizona legislature's debate over a TIF for the Chicago Cubs' spring-training stadium, state rep Jerry Weiers has introduced a bill to kick back a portion of sales taxes in a two-mile radius around sports arenas to local governments, to help pay for arena operations or infrastructure. Given that Weiers hails from Glendale, that's clearly targeted at the Phoenix Coyotes, who as you may recall are having a wee bit of a dustup over where to play and who's going to throw money at them to play there.
This isn't technically a STIF, since it would be current sales tax revenue that would be kicked back to Glendale, not future sales tax increases, but it amounts to much the same thing: a way for the state to pay the team to stay in Arizona without actually just paying them outright. Weiers skipped any claims about economic benefits or what have you in promoting his bill, telling the Arizona Republic, "If we don't figure out a way to keep this team, they're going to Canada." Yeah, as the old joke goes, all over Canada.
UPDATE: Looks like the Weiers bill is dead already — see link in comments.
February 19, 2010
Rays owner: This old stadium just doesn't go with our sofa
Tampa Bay Rays owner Stuart Sternberg has given a longish interview to the Tampa Tribune on why he feels his team needs a new stadium. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some highlights, and comments:
I stated since the very first day I came in to anybody who would ask, and I was asked quite often, we're not going to be there through 2027. It just can't happen. Baseball won't allow it. Our partners in baseball won't allow it. The other teams won't allow it.
Well, not quite — he actually said it's going to get "really get expensive to maintain this place as years go by" and that Tropicana Field wouldn't "last" until "2020 to pick a year." But the bigger question is: What does "Baseball won't allow it" mean? That the league would contract the franchise without a new stadium? Force it to move? Send in the Marines? It's the nature of these sorts of threats to be vague, but this one's even vaguer than most.
[Tropicana Field is] a great place to watch a game, but for whatever reason people are not as attracted to it as they would be to another venue.
Not Perhaps the fact that the team's owner has publicly said that it's on the verge of obsolescence might have something to do with it? (Yes, the Trop is generally regarded as a pretty bad baseball stadium design, but it's worth noting that most of the actual fan complaints seem to involve it needing a paint job.)
We can sit down and look at a long list of every stadium that's opened up. They've all been very successful.
Of the seven teams that finished behind the Rays in attendance last year, four (Washington, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati) play in stadiums built since 1994.
[Asked if he would build a stadium himself:] I don't have that money. I don't.
This is the kind of answer that screams for a followup: What does Sternberg mean by that? True, he may not have half a billion dollars sitting around, but neither do any of the cities around Tampa Bay — they'd borrow the money, then pay it back over time. Does he mean that he can't front the construction costs, but would pay off the bond costs down the road? Or that he couldn't afford to make the bond payments, because new stadium revenues wouldn't be enough to pay off the construction costs? If the latter, wouldn't it be cheaper for Tampa and/or St. Pete just to give him some cash, rather than investing in a money-losing facility?
But now we're back to asking what it means for a baseball stadium to "last." And as we've seen before, that's a question that sports team owners really hate for anyone to think too much about.
Nets officially headed to Newark for next two seasons
This almost slipped past me, since it's only been reported at the bottom of NBA trade deadline pieces, but the New Jersey Nets finally got approval to move from the Meadowlands to Newark for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. The Nets will pay the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority $4 million to break their old lease; no immediate word on whether Newark's Prudential Center will still send concerts to the Meadowlands in exchange (though the two arenas did apparently agree to a "non-disparagement clause" to stop either side from publicly dissing the other), or how that whole ticket tax imbroglio worked out.
The long-term plan is for the Nets to be in Brooklyn starting in 2013, though work is still moving slowly at the planned Brooklyn arena site — there have been some street closings and a crane or two are on-site, but the private properties the state had said it would seize by eminent domain this winter are still waiting for the marshals to arrive. And they have their chains ready.
Sacramento arena task force presses for details, any details
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's arena task force has begun questioning prospective Kings arena developers, and have actually begun focusing in on the big question: How the heck does anyone propose to pay for this thing? The answers are awfully handwavy, according to the Sacramento Bee:
Several of the contenders suggest selling long-term seat licenses to arena users. One talks about enlisting civic-minded real estate agents to donate commissions. Another relies in part on competing for federal transportation and job-creation funds. And one would coax major corporations to pay sponsorship fees.
The presumed front-runner, developer Gerry Kamilos, again stressed that the Kings would pay $10 million a year in rent under his plan. "That's substantive to me," Kamilos' development partner David Taylor told the task force. Given that that would come to less than $150 million, and the whole project would cost at least $700 million, maybe not — though the rent would come "with annual adjustments," according to the Bee, so maybe there's hope that the Kings rent would actually scale up enough over time to come to a more significant chunk of change. File this under: Reply hazy, ask again later.
Selig, D-Backs endorse Cubs stadium TIF
Baseball commissioner Bud Selig has officially come out against an Arizona-wide ticket tax scheme to help fund a Chicago Cubs spring-training stadium. In doing so, Selig joins every other team in Arizona, who would rather not be helping to foot the bill for their rival's new home, no matter how many Cubs fans boost the gate at their spring games thanks to the team's presence in Arizona rather than Florida.
Selig says he'd rather see a tax-increment financing scheme. The Arizona Diamondbacks agree, which should be no surprise given that a TIF was their idea in the first place; however, team president Derrick Hall hedged a bit, saying, "We would be open to [a TIF], but believe the legislators are not in favor of it. ... We are just seeking other solutions so as to not tax fans who attend any and all spring games." In other words: We don't care who you tax, Arizona legislature, so long as it ain't us.
Edmonton mayor: How about a ticket tax for Oilers arena?
Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel has started soft-pedaling his tax-increment financing plan for an Oilers arena, most recently suggesting that $5 ticket tax could be used to help raise some funds instead. "I think it's not unreasonable expecting those people that use the building should pay for it, and some form of ticket tax would be an expected result," Mandel said in a speech yesterday. "I think the citizens of Edmonton will feel more comfortable with those who use it to help pay for it as well, too."
Mandel also hedged a bit on the TIF plan (called a "community revitalization levy" in Canadadian), saying, "I would stress that a CRL is only possible when it goes hand in hand with proof that the revenue streams assumed into a CRL calculation are achievable." Which is kind of missing the point, since the biggest problem with TIFs isn't that the revenues don't show up (though many times they don't) but that they're cannibalized from tax revenues elsewhere in town — but at least it's nice that Mandel realizes it's not a magic money machine.
The Edmonton Journal actually goes so far as to suggest that Oilers owner Daryl Katz should embrace a ticket tax:
One of the weaknesses of the vision for an arena development presented by the Edmonton Oilers' owner Daryl Katz is an apparent failure to grasp the vital political ingredients to success, a failure exemplified by his suggestion that the $100 million he initially put forward as his contribution might be diverted to other components of the redevelopment.
Mandel is actually doing him a favour by seeking to hold him to his original commitment, a favour underlined by proposing to bring ticket buyers to hockey games and other events in as a sort of third stakeholder to partner with Katz and the population at large.
Given that ticket tax money mostly comes out of his pocket — every $5 in extra tax that fans have to pay is $5 less in ticket price he can get away with — it's not all that likely that Katz will see this as a favor. Or even a favour. Though at least Mandel is moving the discussion away from "Should we build a new arena?" to "How should we pay for a new arena?" and that's something that every sports team owner has to be grateful for.
Everybody and their sister has a Rays stadium plan
Oh, they're coming out of the woodwork in Tampa now: Yet another developer has floated an idea for a multiuse development project that would include a Rays stadium, this one in downtown Tampa.
Except that the developer in question didn't seem to intend for its plans to be public just yet, and backed the hell away from any specifics after the St. Petersburg Times leaked its designs:
"If there comes a day where the Rays want to leave the bay area region, this would be an option," [Land and Sand president Claire] Clements said of the conceptual plan that resulted. "That would be up to them, not me. It's just a vision."
Clements wouldn't say Thursday who she is working with on the project. She wouldn't discuss what, if any, efforts there have been to lock up land in the Channel district for a possible stadium, or how such a deal would be financed.
Nor did she deny working with anyone else or trying to obtain rights to land. She said she's not working with the Rays in any fashion.
Clements, 53, stressed that she had no intention of going public with any of her efforts until the Rays indicate they intend to leave St. Petersburg and Tropicana Field. She said she believes something her mother says: "If you stir it, it stinks."
Of course, Louis Brandeis put it slightly differently.
February 18, 2010
Yet another half-baked Rays stadium plan emerges
Throw another developer on the fire in the Tampa Bay Rays stadium chase: Former Tampa mayor Dick Greco says he's considering leasing land at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Hillsborough County (that's the Tampa side of the bay, for those keeping score) and building ... well, something there. Could be hotels. Could be the ever-popular "mixed-use development." Could be a stadium. "It could be a soccer stadium, it could be anything," Greco told the Tampa Tribune.
As trial balloons go, this makes the one about building a Rays stadium atop an old landfill seem downright specific, but it got Greco's name in the paper, so mission accomplished.
Meanwhile, St. Petersburg Times sports columnist John Romano suggests that Tampa Bay should only consider building a new stadium for the Rays if MLB solves its competitive balance issues so that small-market teams have a shot at competing with the Yankees and Red Sox of the world. (Yes, some small-market teams are successful, but as Romano notes, "You cannot argue that a franchise needs a stadium to remain competitive financially and simultaneously argue that payroll disparity has no impact on what happens on the field. Either money matters, or it doesn't.") His suggestions:
- Raise the "luxury tax" on high player payrolls, or lower the threshold so that it hits more teams. Nice thought, but given that the Yankees have already been paying tax at a usurious 40% rate in recent years, and that didn't stop them from a free-agent-fueled World Series run last year, it's going to be tough to see how to slow them down. (Though a higher tax rate would generate some more revenue-sharing money for teams like the Rays.)
- Move either the Yanks or Sox out of the Rays' division. That's not gonna happen — Yanks-Sox intradivision matchups make too much money — but the Rays might want to push for relocation to the A.L. Central, which right now could be won by a decent Triple-A team.
- Eliminate the unbalanced schedule, which forces the Rays to play tons of games against the Yanks and Sox, while competing for the wild card against teams in the other divisions who play most of their games against weak intradivisional competition. This makes complete sense, but again is likely to fall to economic concerns (cf. above about Yanks-Sox games).
MLB commissioner Bud Selig, meanwhile, responded by saying the Rays need a new stadium. "I know it's the same message I've delivered a lot of other places, but it's so true here," Selig said at the Governor's Baseball Dinner. At least he recognizes he's becoming self-parody; they say it's the first step.
February 17, 2010
Yankee Stadium demolition, new park construction creep along
It's almost time for the New York Yankees to begin their second season at their new stadium, and Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez notes that the new parks to replace the ones buried under the team's new home in 2006 are still nowhere to be found:
Back in late 2006, when U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald rejected a challenge to the stadium plan by local residents, she noted that the city was replacing all parkland with new permanent park facilities.
"Nearly all [of those facilities] will be operational by the time the new Yankee Stadium opens in 2009," the judge said in her decision, "and the remaining three ballparks to be located on the existing Yankee Stadium fields will become accessible by 2010." ...
Portions of a new park and outdoor tennis courts were inaugurated along the Harlem River in November - just in time for winter. But a huge new tennis clubhouse, cafe and community facility have not been finished. Nor has a toddler park, a skateboarding park, a full esplanade for the public, and a sand beach along the river - all of which were promised.
None of this is really new news, since the delayed openings have been acknowledged by the Parks Department since May 2008. And demolition of the original Yankee Stadium does seem to be creeping along — the latest photos show that the left-field upper deck has started to come down, after the lower levels were gutted earlier this winter. The city's claim is currently that the old stadium will be gone (and new park construction started) by June, which certainly looks plausible.
Still, with the city's original promises going unmet, Bronx community activists Joyce Hogi and Karen Argenti have dashed off a letter to the National Park Service calling on the agency to live up to its promise to "take remedial and disciplinary steps to ensure that state compliance occurs," namely by cutting off federal funds unless the parks are built ASAP.
February 15, 2010
Oakland to study shared Niners-Raiders stadium
And we're back to this again: The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board is about to conduct a "feasibility study" of building a new NFL stadium either on or adjacent to the site of the Oakland Coliseum, for the Raiders and possibly the San Francisco 49ers as well.
A shared 49ers-Raiders stadium, a la the new New York Jets-Giants facility opening this year, has already been endorsed by the NFL, and 49ers owner Jed York said he'd consider moving to Oakland, though it's unclear how much that's a ploy to get Santa Clara and San Francisco to up their antes for stadium bids. Especially since Alameda County supervisor Gail Steele promised that no public funds would be used in building a new stadium, given that the county still owes $150 million on its ill-fated renovations to the Coliseum 15 years ago. Though as readers of this site know, there are public funds and then there are public funds.
K.C. squabble continues over stadium reno subsidies
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser is back again with his proposal to stop paying the city's $2 million a year subsidy towards renovations of the Royals and Chiefs stadiums. Funkhouser proposed the same thing last year, you may recall, but the city council ultimately ended up not going along with it.
This is really a squabble between the city and the county, thanks to a terribly written stadium funding contract that guarantees the teams public money, but doesn't specify which public body will pay it (and which the city isn't actually a signatory to). The only thing for certain: Kansas City residents will end up paying the cost somehow, whether via city taxes or county taxes. If not, the teams could break their leases and move to ... well, I'm sure there's someplace out there with newly renovated stadiums that would love to host some sports teams. Hey, there's an idea...
Beijing fills Bird's Nest with slush in attempt to lure suckers visitors
More evidence that Olympic stadiums are hopeless white elephants:
The "Happy Snow and Ice Season" will run all winter at the stadium where Chinese directors staged a stunning opening ceremony for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt set world records. Now slushy mounds of machine-made snow and a single ski slope occupy the grounds.
It's a long way from Olympic grandeur for the Bird's Nest, meant to symbolize China's decades of vast economic growth and status as a new world power.
With a price tag of $450 million, the world's largest steel structure has been called a potential white elephant, a big, expensive building that no longer serves a purpose. Its maintenance costs are $15 million a year.
Since the Olympics ended, the stadium has hosted an opera, an Italian soccer match and a Jackie Chan concert. Stadium management is also wooing Spanish soccer team Real Madrid to come play a game.
Both attendance and reviews of the Happy Fun Ball Snow and Ice Season have been bad, with visitors complaining that the attractions don't live up to the ads, and about the $26 admission fee with additional charges added once you're inside. Best quote, from a Beijing dad who drove an hour to the stadium with his 12-year-old son to the stadium:
Ma [Tianjun], who drove an hour to get to the park, said he realized too late how expensive it would be. "Once you board the thieves' ship, you can only go forward," he said, using an old Beijing saying.
MN legislator: I'll sell that for a dollar!
Well, here's an interesting idea: Minnesota state representative Paul Kohls introduced a bill on Thursday to sell the Metrodome to the Vikings for a dollar to keep the team in town. "I wasn't really looking to get in the middle of it, but as I was thinking about it, candidly, I was concerned about taxpayers being put on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars," Kohls told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
This would basically have the effect of abolishing the Vikings' lease, which is one of the few where teams actually have to share a significant chunk of revenue with the state. (Though the lease expires after 2011 anyway, and the Vikings have been absolved of paying rent in recent years.) It would also stick the Vikings with paying property taxes, which they currently don't at the state-owned facility, though I suppose the legislature could always tack on a tax exemption as well — it'd still be cheaper than building a whole new stadium with public money.
Vikings officials, needless to say, weren't enthused about the idea, with VP for stadium grubbing Lester Bagley declaring, "The Metrodome no longer works in sports economics or for our fans' game day experience. We need to build a new facility to secure the long-term future of the Vikings in Minnesota. This doesn't get us there." In other words, they'd rather get a new stadium for free than a used one for free. We'll see whether the governor and the legislature call their bluff.
Cubs begin Wrigley reno, unveil latest self-scalping plan
Renovations have begun at Wrigley Field, though nothing yet along the lines of the more ambitious plans announced last summer. First up: more bathrooms, opening up space underneath the bleachers to fans (a la Fenway Park's Big Concourse), adding some ad boards, and removing granite panels that had been added to the outside of the ballpark, to allow sunlight in. The Cubs are also replacing the bricks along the left-field line, and auctioning off the old ones; no word on whether winning bidders also get to throw them at Steve Bartman.
To help pay for this, meanwhile — or just to pay for Marlon Byrd — the Cubs have announced a special presale of selected seats to games this year, but only for fans willing to pay a 15-20% surcharge. "We believe there are fans who will pay extra, just like they'll pay for a Fast Pass at the amusement park," Wally Hayward, the Cubs' chief marketing officer, told the New York Times.
According to the Times, some fans are calling this a stealth ticket price hike, and there's a good argument that that's exactly what it is, especially since the Cubs haven't revealed what percentage of tickets will remain after the "presale" — meaning fans who really want tickets will have a huge incentive to pay the 20% premium or risk being shut out. From a marketing perspective, it's actually a pretty clever way to test the waters on pricing: If fans are really willing to pay more, you get to charge them more, and if they're not, you end up getting to sell to them anyway at the old prices, without risking embarrassing rows of empty seats. And at least it's arguably less likely to outrage fans than setting up your own ticket scalping agency.
