St. Louis Cardinals owners to build more “ballpark village,” demand tax kickbacks to pay for it

The owners of the St. Louis Cardinals announced a second phase to their “Ballpark Village” development across the street from their stadium yesterday, and blah blah, $220 million, 550,000 square feet of new construction, “mixed-use neighborhood where people live, work and play,” okay, here we go:

St. Louis Alderman Jack Cotar will introduce legislation to amend an existing development agreement that enabled the first phase of Ballpark Village on Tuesday…

According to the announcement, the “development team is proposing to use a portion of the new tax revenue generated solely within the Ballpark Village project area, including an additional self-imposed 1 percent TDD sales tax, to underwrite the bonds issued to support project infrastructure costs. Only taxes generated by the Ballpark Village project itself, as well as private equity and debt investments by the development team, will be used to finance Ballpark Village.”

This should come as no surprise, as the first phase of the Ballpark Village — a bizarro grandstand-slice-themed shopping mall with an equally bizarro racially coded dress code — got $116 million in subsidies back in 2006, mostly from tax-increment funding: i.e., kicking back property and sales taxes to the developers, who can then use them to pay off their own construction costs. It’s unclear exactly how much Cotar’s bill will propose handing over to the Cardinals owners — that “TDD” is a sales tax surcharge in the ballpark area, which if it’s narrowly drawn could just come out of the team’s pockets, but property taxes or existing sales taxes would just be a straight kickback. The original Cardinals stadium deal wasn’t too bad for the public as these things go — about two-thirds of the cost was shouldered by the team owners — but they’re making up for lost subsidy time with all the additional development across the street. Excellent job on the bait-and-switch, Bill DeWitt and friends!

Cardinals’ Ballpark Village has a curious list of things you can’t wear at its bars

The St. Louis Cardinals‘ new Ballpark Village is not only a seriously weird looking slice of entertainment-retail hell, it turns out, but the bars and restaurants there have some seriously weird dress codes. Here’s a sampling, via Deadspin:

The following is not permitted under our dress code after 9pm: sleeveless shirts on men, profanity on clothing, exposed undergarments on men, sweat pants, full sweat suits, excessively long shirts (when standing upright with arms at your side, the bottom of your shirt can not extend below the tip of your fingers), jerseys (sleeved jerseys are permitted in conjunction with a cardinals game or any other major St. Louis sporting event), athletic shorts and excessively sagging pants or shorts bandanas.

If all that sounds like code for “no black dudes,” Deadspin thinks so too, noting that Cordish Companies, the developer of Ballpark Village, also built Kansas City’s Power & Light district, and: “Two lawsuits have recently been filed alleging that Power & Light specifically discriminated against black patrons. One of the suits alleges that Power & Light employed white men who were instructed to start fights with black patrons in order to get them kicked out.”

Whether the dress code is covert racism or overt fashion policing, enjoy your tax-break-subsidized bars, St. Louis! Just not with excessively long sleeves, because That Would Be Wrong.

Cardinals opening world’s first fake-stadium-slice-shaped-mall, I guess?

The St. Louis Cardinals have finally announced the opening of the first phase of their long-delayed “ballpark village” (so long-delayed that I was calling it “long-delayed” six years ago) and it’s, okay, I don’t know what this actually is:

Potemkin village? Vegas baseball-themed shopping mall? Whatever it is, the Cardinals are getting $116 million in tax kickbacks to help build it. Also, Third Eye Blind will be at the grand opening, which just rockets it to the top of my list of grand openings to avoid at all costs.

Six-year-old St. Louis stadium to shed rusty metal panels

In a reminder that not only old stadiums show wear and tear, a four-foot piece of metal trim fell off the outside of the St. Louis Cardinals’ Busch Stadium yesterday, closing nearby sidewalks and leading to an inspection of the rest of the stadium. After rusted bolts were found holding the decorative panels in place, the other panels are now being removed, with plans to have the work completed well before the Cards return from a road trip next Tuesday.

All of which is unusual, but hardly extraordinary. And it’s notable that no one is declaring it to be a sign that the six-year-old Busch Stadium is falling down and needs to be replaced — unlike the case when bits have fallen off of certain other stadiums I could name.

Cardinals accused of stiffing St. Louis on profit-sharing

Out of St. Louis, a cautionary tale about the ever-popular gambit of requiring that taxpayers get a share of the sale of a sports team in exchange for granting stadium subsidies. (This was most recently proposed, and rejected, for the Florida Marlins deal.) The Cardinals agreed to a profit-sharing arrangement as part of their stadium deal back in 2003, but the reality isn’t quite working out that way, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

The Cardinals also agreed to give the city a cut of profits made if any portion of the team was sold.

Then, last year, owners sold a sizeable chunk of the Cardinals — more than 13 percent. Now, a group of anti-public-stadium advocates is alleging that the team owes the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And, despite another multimillion-dollar budget gap anticipated for the coming year, the city isn’t checking into it. City officials acknowledge that they have never really kept tabs on the agreement.

In fact, the Cardinals owners have sold about 17% of their shares since the new stadium opened, but in each case reported to the city that “there were no Ballpark-Related profits … arising from such transfer.” And city officials apparently took them at their word, with the Post-Dispatch reporting: “Several city officials, including Barb Geisman, the former deputy mayor for development, said there was no reason to double-check. They trust the Cardinals.”

Longtime Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums activist Fred Lindecke, who first raised questions about the profit-sharing clause (until he complained, the city wasn’t even releasing the sale affidavits it received from the Cards), wonders reasonably enough on what planet this could be true: “They were so desperate for money, they were willing to sell their ownership percentage for nothing more than the team was worth in 2002? That contradicts all logic. Even someone who’s having their home foreclosed tries to get as much as he can.”

Forbes, for what it’s worth, has the Cardinals as worth $488 million in 2010, up 80% from its $271 million value in 2002. Even at that rate, the total amount owed to the city would be only about $2 million, if I’m doing the math right. Still, it’s not exactly money that the city can afford to be turning down these days.

St. Louis “ballpark village” now a parking lot

The St. Louis Cardinals have released their “temporary” plans for the site of the Ballpark Village on the site of their old Busch Stadium, now that the actual Ballpark Village isn’t so much happening: a parking lot and softball field:

The release also said that “once the bonds for the larger Ballpark Village project are sold, the softball field and parking lot will be taken over by the construction of the larger project.”

So when will those bonds be sold? That’s unclear. City officials earlier this year approved a revised plan that gives the Cardinals up to three years to sell bonds to start construction. At the time, team President Bill DeWitt III said the bond market was still “quiet” and “iffy” but that he still remained enthusiastic about developing the site.

Mayor Francis Slay signaled his disappointment with the news, but said the additions are “the best we can expect” given the economy and woeful credit market.

Somebody should have thought of that, perhaps, before giving the Ballpark Village $100 million in tax breaks.