Friday roundup: Trump tariff construction cost hikes, Beckham lawsuit tossed, Elon Musk inserts himself into headlines yet again

Lots of news to report this week, and that’s even without items that I can’t read because of Tronc Troncing:

Share this post:

17 comments on “Friday roundup: Trump tariff construction cost hikes, Beckham lawsuit tossed, Elon Musk inserts himself into headlines yet again

  1. I am aware of price increases due to the tariffs imposed by President Trump (something opposed by elites by favored by average people because of the dumping of steel and other construction products by the Chinese and others which costs American jobs), but with the increased opposition to building sports facilities by BOTH the left and the right (albeit for different reasons), I wonder if it makes sense for teams/schools that are hoping to get new or upgraded facilities (especially in places like Arizona where there are multiple teams involved (Coyotes, Diamondbacks Suns & ASU)), to bite the bullet and pay the additional costs involved, because of the real possibility of a less then friendly towards business Administration coming to power in 2021 (see Warren, Elizabeth as one example of this) and putting a stop to their development plans?

    1. “…opposed by elites by favored by average people…”

      Except for the millions of “average people” who create exported stuff or buy imported stuff or import stuff to make stuff?

      1. I mean generally everyone wants no tariffs on the things they by or sell, and tariffs on their competitors things. There is very little principle about it on either side, or from any nation.

    2. “increased opposition to building sports facilities by BOTH the left and the right (albeit for different reasons”
      I don’t think the core issue is different at all. Nobody likes seeing their money handed to billionaires who could easily pay their own way but just don’t feel like it.

    3. Also, what exactly could Elizabeth Warren–now a senator from Massachusetts but let’s just say she does become POTUS–do to stop the people of Arizona from building some new sports facilities if that is what they decided to do? Stadium subsidies are state and local matters. The US government plays no part. This whole argument is odd given it’s the people and politicians of Arizona who have kept any new stadiums from going up. They’re doing just fine without any outside help.

      1. Well, you’re right about the President not being able to do much about it. But the “US government”, in the form of Congress, could play a part by acting under the Constitution’s “commerce clause”. (The power to “regulate commerce…among the several states” could be used to stop states from interfering with interstate commerce through subsidies.) Never gonna happen, but…

  2. Coyotes seem to be taking all of the credit, when it should go to the actual arena manager, AEG

    1. Plus, AEG likely got the scoreboard cheap, as it was an auction in July where everything in the arena was available.

  3. Stephen Ross will increase his county renovation subsides with his La Liga deal. According him in the name of promoting the game to North America. Gee I wonder if the NFL playing in Toronto would help the CFL .

  4. It’s not really hot at 49ers games. People bitching about it are pretty fundamentally incapable of basic adult preparation, like drinking water and maybe wearing a hat. Somehow they act like it’s hotter than the Sun’s core in Santa Clara, but this was somehow never an issue in Oakland, Los Angeles, Tempe, San Diego, Tampa, etc.

  5. We are told that sales and other taxes are bad but tariffs are good.

    And some pigs are more equal than others.

  6. An article on the PawSox moving to Worcester, complete with renderings of what will apparently be called Polar Park (for the local beverage company HQed in Worcester). Sad at the lack of fireworks or ghost fans impaled on various things, but am more curious on how much Signage paid for all of the billboards.

    1. I find it hard to believe that a city as poor as Worcester can afford to borrow $100M to “partner” with Larry Lucchino without direct support from the Legislature. Would guess there may be a few more steps left in this story, despite the flashy announcement.

      1. It says here that the state will put up $32m for “infrastructure improvements.” The stadium will be financed by the city “which would borrow $100 million to finance construction. The bonds would be paid off by rent from the team, and from a special taxation district the city would establish to capture tax revenue at the ballpark and nearby properties.”

        It seems like the success of this project will depend on the development near the park. It is near the Commuter Rail to Boston so as long as the Boston jobs and housing market is insane, I could see development working. But the Worcester commuter rail is also plagued with delays and it’s an hour from the city at best, so that limits things.

        I was extremely disappointed with this article from the usually good Alex Speier, which discusses all the reasons the Red Sox “needed” to upgrade their AAA facilities, even though all the players he talked to said it was fine. Also of course, no discussion about how maybe just paying minor leaguers more could help their development.

  7. Lots of towns in MA and NY/PA/NJ have tried this with little success. The problem with commuter towns is that it tends to (in the best case) increase school enrollment without any increase in business taxes. Valuations for borderline business/office properties are easily manipulated to lower property tax.

    I’ll bet the residents of that area will have bigger needs than a ballpark for their “special tax” should any money actually materialize.

Comments are closed.