Field of Schemes: Giants stadium news unfit to print

April 24, 2005

Giants stadium news unfit to print

Sometimes you just can't trust the Paper of Record. "New Meadowlands Stadium Is Approved for the Giants" was the headline in yesterday's New York Times, after the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority voted to approve the team's new-stadium plan. (Authority president George Zoffinger, who reportedly opposed the deal, abstained.) But what the accompanying article failed to mention is that the New Jersey legislature still must sign off on the deal, and plenty of legislators don't sound too happy about it.

"We are on the hook somewhere. I can guarantee it," state senator Stephen Sweeney said of the plan, which would have the Giants paying to build the stadium, while the state provides free land and swallows the remaining $124 million in construction debt on the existing Giants Stadium. "It gets to our priorities and what we need to do. If we are broke and we don't have any money for our schools, is it more important to build a stadium or to build a school?"

COMMENTS

Can we trust you? I don't see where that article says legislative approval is needed. I read - "Whether any portion of the plan will go before the Legislature remained unclear, although legislators said they would like to see that happen. " I think it's possible the legislature can step in and stop it but as far as I can tell if they do nothing then the plan goes ahead. I don't think they "must sign off on the deal"
Posted by: swedcrip at April 24, 2005 04:47 PM

Here's a tip: When a reporter writes "it remains unclear," it means "I haven't researched this yet." Unless the state of New Jersey has a very unusual appropriations process, or the governor has figured out some sort of back-door financing scheme, it's going to be awfully hard to spend $154 million or give away state land without legislative approval.
Posted by: Neil at April 24, 2005 05:15 PM

I'd count on NJ being unusual
Posted by: swedcrip at April 24, 2005 06:15 PM

Did a bit more checking, and it looks as if "it remains unclear" in this case means "it remains unclear" - no one has a definitive answer as to whether the legislature can get involved. That said, it still would have been nice to the Times to raise this question, rather than just acting as if the sports authority's decision was necessarily final.
Posted by: Neil at April 25, 2005 10:50 AM