Yesterday morning I noted that the city of Jacksonville doesn’t know how it’ll pay for its $43 million share of stadium upgrades for the Jaguars; yesterday afternoon, a spokesperson for Mayor Alvin Brown announced that, nope, still no clue. And the city council seems to have taken notice as well, even if they don’t all see it as a big problem:
- Councilmember Clay Yarborough told the Florida Times-Union that “at first glance” he doesn’t see how the city could close libraries and cut core services while spending money on humongous scoreboards for the Jaguars.
- Councilmember Bill Gulliford said announcing the improvements and then figuring out how to pay for them later is like “sending the fire truck after the building is burned down.”
- Councilmember Matt Schellenberg called it “a big win for Jacksonville,” but said he was “very concerned the mayor makes these announcements without having the backup financial information that everybody can look at and feel comfortable that it can be done.” But it’s still a big win, presumably regardless of whether it can be done.
- Council president Bill Bishop said, “We have to stay current. We have to be sure we’re competitive, not only in the NFL but in the world. This is all part of moving Jacksonville forward.”
And the city’s costs could go even higher: Jacksonville’s contract for hosting the annual Florida-Georgia college football game requires 82,000 seats, which is currently met by adding 6,000 temporary bleacher seats to the 76,000-seat stadium. Since the Jaguars are looking to remove another 7,000 seats in the renovation — because NFL teams have realized they can’t actually sell that many tickets to an HDTV-obsessed generation, and they want to avoid blackouts — this would more than double the amount of temporary seats the city would need to set up, adding “several hundred thousand dollars” in annual costs, per the Times-Union.
Lost in Wednesday’s announcement that $63 million will be devoted to upgrading EverBank Field was one fairly significant fact.
The City of Jacksonville doesn’t know how it will come up with its $43 million share.
I guess that’s Florioese for “Oops, did I forget to ask how it’d be paid for?”
Florio also manages to argue that this shouldn’t be decried as “welfare for billionaires,” because “most of the teams trying to raid public coffers haven’t committed to playing one game per year for the next four years in London, with strong hints that the plan could be extended and expanded.” In other words, it’s okay to give $43 million to your local sports team for no good reason, so long as that team’s owner not only isn’t committing to staying in town, but might actually shift more games out of town even if you give him the money. Remind me not to go to NBC Sports for relationship advice.