Field of Schemes

February 29, 2004

MN budget projections lift stadium hopes

Minnesota's state budget forecast came in Friday with a projected deficit of $165 million, lower than previous estimates. This has raised the hopes of the Twins and Vikings of getting new stadium deals approved this year, now that the state legislature would be spared the spectacle of giving cash to billionaires while slashing, say, school programs. Still no word, though, on when or if Gov. Tim Pawlenty plans to put a stadium bill before the legislature, or whether it will require public referendums.

February 27, 2004

Twins want to get STIF

Add one more team to the tax increment financing bandwagon: the Minnesota Twins have become the latest sports franchise to ask that taxes from a new stadium project be kicked back to pay off construction costs. While TIFs have been widely used - and, some say, abused - as a means of rebating property taxes on development projects, the Twins proposal would be the rarer sales tax increment financing, or STIF, using both team income taxes and sales tax on everything from tickets to hot-dog projectiles to subsidize stadium bonds. (The proposed Brooklyn Nets arena would use a similar funding scheme.)

STIFs have never been used in Minnesota, and in those states where they have been used, they have a checkered past: as finance expert John Mikesell has written in the one substantial study of STIFs, sales taxes "are less suited for use in tax increment finance programs" than property taxes for several reasons, including the volatile nature of sales-tax receipts during lean economic times, and the difficulty in determining how much sales tax activity is "new" and how much is merely cannibalized from spending in nearby areas. (California repealed its STIF law in 1993 for precisely this reason.) Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty apparently concurs, with a spokesman saying of the Twins' STIF pitch: "I know the governor won't be supportive."

NYC sets price for West Side MTA land: bupkis

When last asked how much New York City planned to pay the state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority for development rights to the West Side rail yards where a new Jets/Olympics stadium would be built, deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff replied: "We need to work out a deal with the MTA for those." Today Deputy Dan's initial offer was revealed: How about, umm, nothing? As reported in Newsday, the city considers its plan to extend the #7 subway line to the new stadium a "land swap" for the MTA development rights, valued at an estimated $1.7 billion; as one unnamed state official put it: "They're getting a subway line for free." MTA chair Peter Kalikow, who is facing a billion-dollar-plus deficit that already has the authority considering hiking bus and subway fares for the second time in two years, would say only that "we think that, in the end, there'll be a process that they'll be satisfied with and we'll be satisfied with."

In related news, the city has announced that the seven-month land-review process for the Hudson Yards project surrounding the stadium will begin in April - leaving just enough time to report on the results in the Olympic bid book due to the IOC on November 15. That's assuming, of course, that anyone still wants the Olympics after August.

February 26, 2004

There's no "I" in Selig - oh wait

HBO's "Real Sports" is reporting that the Milwaukee Brewers were paying over $2 million a year to owner Bud Selig, his daughter Wendy Selig-Prieb and son-in-law Laurel Prieb at a time in the 1990s when the team was demanding (and getting) public subsidies for its $400 million Miller Park. The Brewers denied the charges, but it sure would help explain where that $110 million in team debt came from.

There's no "I" in PSL

Tack on a few million dollars more to the $216 million the Cleveland Browns have received for their new Browns Stadium, opened in 1999. When the stadium funding package was originally approved, sale of personal seat licenses - the resaleable rights to purchase season tickets - was supposed to go to defraying the public's stadium construction costs. But while all 57,000 PSLs were sold out immediately, about 2% of PSL holders default on their accounts each year, and those are resold by the team, which keeps the money - at least $375,000 a year, reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which notes that this is more than the team's annual rent payments to the city. Not that Cleveland could use the money or anything.

No Cana-dough for Canadiens

In the latest news from the strange land north of the border, Montreal Mayor GÈrald Tremblay has rejected any property tax breaks for the Bell Centre, home of the Montreal Canadiens. "I think that the money we're getting, which is a little less than $7.5 million dollars, is for services that we provide for the fans and for the team when they attend the Bell Centre," said Tremblay. Canadiens president Pierre Boivin had asked for a cut in rates, claiming that Bell Centre's property taxes are equal to taxes on all U.S. hockey arenas combined.

In a completely unrelated story, the Tampa Bay Lightning are asking for a property tax break from the city of St. Petersburg, saying the $1 million a year the team currently pays is unacceptable. Where's a NAFTA lawyer when you need one?

February 25, 2004

When is a new tax not a new tax?

With numerous Minnesota politicians having promised not to levy new taxes to pay for new homes for the Vikings and Twins (combined estimated cost: more than $1 billion), stadium boosters are scrounging around for any state revenue that can't be considered "new." The latest suggestion: extend state auto rental and alcohol taxes, currently set to expire next year, until the year 2032. (We're sure it's entirely coincidental that the Minneapolis citizens proferring this plan just happen to own a plot of land where the Twins are looking to build a ballpark.) Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been cool to the idea so far, having a spokesman deliver the mixed message: "He hasn't made a decision, but we don't think that's appropriate."

Jersey claims ring hollow

Newark Mayor Sharpe James says he can build a hockey arena for the New Jersey Devils for $300 million (including $210 million in city funds); New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority president George Zoffinger says the Continental Airlines Arena will do fine even if the Devils and Nets leave for greener pastures. Don't believe a word of it, says Newark Star-Ledger reporter Matthew Futterman, who points out that no major sports arena has survived once its pro teams have fled, taking not just ticket sales but corporate sponsorship dollars with them. As for the proposed Newark arena, Futterman estimates the total cost, including land, would ultimately be between $325 million and $360 million. Isn't this where we came in?

Glendale arena development imperiled

With the NHL headed for a likely work stoppage in the fall (called a "strike" by the Arizona Republic, but more likely a lockout by owners), the owners of the Phoenix Coyotes are scrambling to find private investors willing to finance their planned 200-acre Westgate development project to accompany the team's new Glendale Arena. With the city's debt payments on the arena scheduled to come out of sales taxes from hockey games and from the Westgate development, an extended NHL labor conflict could also force the city to dip into its general fund to pay off arena bonds - other cities hoping to finance sports facilities with "tax increment financing," take note.

February 23, 2004

Expos follies

Various wheels continue to spin in place in the never-ending multi-city race to acquire the Montreal Expos:

Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams says he's working to cut the price tag of a proposed stadium from $436 million to under $400 million - not to save the district money, mind you, but to save money for the team's still-to-be-decided owners. "The mayor and other officials have concluded that the $339 million stadium financing package that they offered last year failed in part because it required too large an initial investment from the group that buys the team," reports the Washington Post - though it's been clear for months that MLB's holdup is the D.C. city council's insistence on not opening stadium funding talks until after the Expos are officially moved. Maybe the Post missed Bob DuPuy's memo.
Execs of Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trail Blazers, threw cold water on Portland's simmering hopes to land the Expos, With Seahawks official Lance Lopes saying: "Baseball's economic model is so broken, to put a team in a town this size, it would have to be greatly subsidized." (Of course, they would say that, given that a baseball team in town would compete with the Blazers for corporate sponsorships.) Portland Mayor Vera Katz will reportedly make a decision later this week on whether to make a renewed push for a stadium bill this year.
Expos players Brian Schneider and Dan Smith visited Monterrey, Mexico last week to check out the stadium and neighborhood, in the unlikely case that MLB chooses to expand into the land of corn smut. Their verdict? "We only had a couple of hours to look around before it got dark." Note to the Expos: Next time you might want to send some players who wake up before noon.

MN pols await budget numbers

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty had promised to introduce Twins and Vikings stadium bills in early February, and now it's clear what he was waiting for: the state is scheduled to release its annual budget deficit forecast on Friday, and the results could determine the fate of stadium proposals, at least for this year. "If we see significant red ink, you can't deal with stadiums and reduce in other areas," State House Speaker Steve Sviggum told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "It would be wrong." Of course, this year's budget figures are essentially meaningless when it comes to stadium financing, which would be bonded out and instead create a slow drain on the treasury over the next 30 years - but as Carleton College political science professor Stephen Schier explained: "It's appearances. The worse the budget picture is, the more explaining you have to do."

February 21, 2004

New Nets sites proposed

With Brooklyn residents having retained former New York Civil Liberties Union director Norman Siegel to fight the seizure of their homes to make way for a new Nets arena, everyone and their sister is popping up with ideas for alternate sites. So far the list includes Coney Island, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, East New York, and either of two sites in Queens, the Sunnyside rail yards or the Shea Stadium parking lot. While none of these locations would require evictions, there would still be the question of how to pay for them: Nets owner-in-waiting Bruce Ratner has demanded $585-million-plus in public subsidies for his "Atlantic Yards" site, and would doubtless demand that taxpayers cover construction costs at a new location as well.

The Shea Stadium site, floated by Queens councilmember Eric Gioia, has still another problem: the New York Mets want to put their own new digs there. Team owner Fred Wilpon confirmed that the Mets have reopened discussions with the city on a new $800 million stadium to replace Shea, observing unhelpfully: "We and the Yankees have gone together to talk with the city. Each of us has had the ability to do the planning. The planning is ongoing. Will anything happen? I really can't tell you. I really don't know."

New Dallas site proposed

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller has suggested to the Cowboys that they consider a less-expensive site at the Dallas fairgrounds of Fair Park for their planned $600 million stadium. Still unclear is how the facility, which would replace the Cotton Bowl, would be paid for; the team had previously asked for up to $550 million in public money, but Miller said that "I would expect them to lower the taxpayer subsidy significantly."

February 20, 2004

Marlins determined to boost stadium performance

Despite a distinct lack of progress on various new stadium plans for the Florida Marlins, team president David Samson insists that he's still, er, holding on tight to a planned March 15 deadline. "It's my experience that without a deadline, nothing ever gets done," Samson told the Associated Press. "The deadline is firm. It's not flaccid." He added: "We do not plan on failing." Sounds like somebody's been taking either his name or his e-mail inbox a bit too seriously.

February 19, 2004

St. Paul mayor: Oh, fine, go ahead and vote

St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly now says he's okay with a public referendum on a bar and restaurant sales-tax hike to help fund a $520 million stadium for the Minnesota Twins, but his staff doesn't sound too happy about it. "We understand the reality is that with so many people up for re-election, the chances of it coming out of the Legislature without a referendum are very, very slim," said deputy mayor Dennis Flaherty. "We're not going to make an issue of it." Perhaps one reason for the mayor's reticence on a referendum - which is required by state law - is that the last public vote in St. Paul in 1999 overwhelmingly rejected a stadium sales tax hike.

February 16, 2004

Banks to put kibosh on Nets deal?

Even with upwards of half a billion dollars in public subsidies set to come his way, developer Bruce Ratner may have a hard time winning over bankers to his planned $2.5 billion Brooklyn development centered around a new Nets arena, according to the New York Post. With no tenants in place for what would be 3 million square feet of office space, and Ratner's past difficulties in finding tenants for his buildings, "no one wants to lend on a speculative project," an unnamed commercial real-estate source told the Post. This could become an issue in the NBA's vote on whether to approve the Nets sale to Ratner, which could come anytime in the next few months.

February 15, 2004

St. Paul referendum drive would cap stadium money

Still no action in the Minnesota legislature on those Twins and Vikings stadiums, but out on the frozen asphalt, it's a different story: a multipartisan group of St. Paul residents has started a petition drive to place a referendum on the November ballot that would limit city subsides to sports teams. The group needs to gather 6,000 signatures to gain ballot status for its proposal, which would mirror a $10 million stadium-funding cap approved by Minneapolis voters in 1997.

Yanks back in stadium game?

The New York Post reports that officials from the Yankees have met with city deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff in an attempt to shake loose some of the stadium dough that he's been handing out. (The Yanks are seeking to build an $800 million stadium in a public park across from Yankee Stadium.) Insisted Doctoroff spokesperson Jennifer Falk: "We are only willing to make investments in those projects where we can show significant private investment and incremental tax revenues offsetting the public dollars." Since the city Independent Budget Office calculated several years ago that a new Yankee stadium would generate just $3 million a year in new tax revenues for the city, and the city is already paying the Yankees more than that in stadium "planning" costs, shouldn't Doctoroff really be presenting George Steinbrenner with a bill?

February 14, 2004

San Diegans: If you pay it, we will build

A poll commissioned by San Diego business leaders who back a new stadium for the Chargers turns out to show only that the team's demands are likely too high. Of San Diego voters surveyed, 59 percent backed a new stadium built by the Chargers, public site improvements at "a minimal cost" to taxpayers, and an end to the ticket guarantee that has cost the city $36.4 million since 1997. The team, by contrast, says it will build a $400 million stadium only if the city hands over 60 acres of public land for development, and provides $175 million in roads and infrastructure. Pollster Dave Metz, according to the Union-Tribune, replied that "the question on the hypothetical agreement was not modeled on the Chargers' redevelopment proposal." Yeah, we got that.

Public to pay for Bengals' new turf

When the Cincinnati Bengals announced earlier this month that they were replacing the grass field at Paul Brown Stadium with artificial turf, the team said it would be picking up the cost, estimated at $500,000 to $1 million. Not so fast: the Bengals also extracted a lease clause from Hamilton County that says once 14 NFL teams adopt a new technology, or seven do so with public money, the county must reimburse the team for its costs.

"I have no doubt in my mind taxpayers are going to have to pick up the tab," County Commissioner Phil Heimlich told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "The lease is like the Energizer bunny, you know how it keeps going and going? Well, we keep paying and paying."

The list of "Level I Enhancements" that the lease puts taxpayers on the hook for includes "smart seats," "stadium self-cleaning machines," and our favorite, a "holographic replay system." We can hardly wait to see what happens once other teams' stadiums can make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

February 13, 2004

Do I hear six?

New York's state-run Empire State Development Corporation today announced that the price tag for its proposed expansion of the Jacob Javits Convention Center is now, depending on which newspaper you read, $1.9 million, $2.2 billion, or somewhere between the two. This would raise the total public cost of the Hudson Yards project, which includes a new stadium for the Jets and a new subway line to get people there, to between $5.55 and $5.85 billion. No financing plan was announced for the Javits expansion.

February 12, 2004

Hudson Yards, The Day After

Reaction to New York City's $5-billion-plus Hudson Yards plan, in today's newspapers:

"It's unprecedented that a major redevelopment area of this scale would be financed by a rezoning program." -Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business advocacy group
"I think there's been little justification for the need for 28 million square feet of office space. The city hasn't considered the fact that there are economic trends at work like the continuing decentralization of office jobs." -Jonathan Bowles, research director for the Center for an Urban Future
"Repayment is being tied to a stream of revenues that won't exist for at least a decade and which ultimately may or may not be sufficient." -Ronnie Lowenstein, director of New York City's Independent Budget Office
"The idea of raising billions by selling development rights and then putting the money in an off-budget fund [is] an extraordinary departure from democratic government. A huge chunk is being siphoned off for a one-stop subway line for a stadium that should not be approved." -New York Assemblymember Dick Gottfried
"I haven't seen anything like it in my 40 years in the business." -Richard T. Anderson, president of the New York Building Congress

Also today, Newsday reports that while Deputy Mayor Doctoroff didn't address how to pay for the planned $1.4 billion Jets stadium in yesterday's news conference, he did include it in revenue projections to pay off the city's bonds: "We would clearly have a lot of problems with the plan we unveiled today if there was no stadium - you need the stadium. It becomes infinitely more difficult to induce developers to build buildings in the surrounding areas and generate the revenues to pay the debt." We always thought it was good accounting practice to consider both the costs and revenues of all elements of a project, but maybe Deputy Dan has been getting other advice.

Pittsburgh seeking private arena bux

At the urging of a state senator, Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy and Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato say they plan to form a task force to find a way to build a new Pittsburgh Penguins arena - with private money. "My fear is, suddenly, the Penguins are going to teeter and threaten to move out of town, then it's going to be a crisis mode," said state representative Don Walko. "In a crisis mode, I don't think the interests of the public are best served." Walko noted that with Pittsburgh near bankruptcy, "let's face it, we're not going to get any local tax support for it. So the private sector is going to have to step up." The intended model for the plan is the Columbus Blue Jackets' $192 million Nationwide Arena, which was entirely paid for by Nationwide Insurance and the Columbus Dispatch newspaper.

NFL faces stadium "coercion" lawsuit

Catching up on news from a couple of days ago: A federal judge in Cincinnati has ruled that a local taxpayer can move ahead with her lawsuit against the Cincinnati Bengals, charging that the team and the NFL violated anti-trust laws by using its monopoly status to coerce Hamilton County into paying for the $458 million Paul Brown Stadium. "Davis clearly alleges - in substantial detail with numerous supporting facts - that the defendants were able to coerce the construction of a new stadium and negotiate unjustifiably favorable lease terms solely because of the monopoly that they enjoy over professional football; indeed, it would be difficult to conceive of a complaint alleging a more detailed and direct connection," wrote U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the suit, sports observers are eagerly awaiting the discovery phase of the trial, when the NFL may be forced to open its books to the plaintiff's lawyers.

February 11, 2004

Hudson Yards cost breaks $5B

After more than a year's delay, New York City deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff has at last released his plan for financing the multi-billion-dollar Jets-stadium-plus-office-building development known as Hudson Yards - sort of.

Under the plan announced this morning by Doctoroff at a City Hall press conference, the city would create a Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation that would sell $2.8 billion of bonds to pay for: an extension of the #7 subway line ($1.76 billion); decking over state-owned rail yards between 10th and 11th Avenues ($351 million); and building new streets and open spaces ($361 million). Not included in this bond issue - and currently being "worked on with the state," according to Doctoroff - are the cost of expanding the Javits Convention Center (previously estimated at $1.4 billion); the public share of a Jets/Olympic stadium ($600 million out of $1.4 billion total cost); the cost of an underground truck parking structure that would service both the stadium and the convention center ($250 million); or the cost of acquiring air rights to 23 acres of Metropolitan Transportation Authority rail yards (Doctoroff: "We need to work out a deal with the MTA for those"). Total public cost: at least $5.05 billion, with more than $2.2 billion of that still unaccounted for.

To pay off the $2.8 billion in bonds, Doctoroff proposed a dizzying array of revenues, all to be collected by the new Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation: payments of lieu of taxes (PILOTs) that commercial developers would agree to in exchange for being exempted from paying property taxes or sales tax on construction materials; property taxes on new residential buildings; the sale of both development rights and air rights to the platform built over the rail yards; the sale of "surplus property" generated during construction of the new subway line; and zoning bonuses to be paid by developers into a District Improvement Fund. Doctoroff confirmed, incidentally, that we got it right: by creating the HYIC and using PILOTs, the city would be able to spend billions in public dollars with no more legislative authorization than a single city council zoning vote.

All in all, Doctoroff's presentation presented little new information from what he'd proposed a year ago, with funding still unclear for the stadium, convention center expansion, or acquisition of MTA air rights, and bonds still depending on unsecured projections of office building development that wouldn't even begin until the year 2010 - a mechanism that Dallas development bond expert Ryan Evans scoffed at last year as unworkable: "TIF bonds are tough, because they're risky - you have to hope you get development to pay them back. Well, I'm not going to buy that bond, are you?" Asked if the city could sell bonds without committing general revenues as a backup or buying bond insurance, Evans laughed: "Good luck! Here we not only had enough investment on the ground to pay back the bonds, they still wanted insurance. And then wanted to know what new investment was going to come on top of all of that, which we had to prove. And then we had to have a reserve, just in case."

While Doctoroff announced the companies that would be working with the city to sell its bonds - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Bear Stearns - he said negotiating the actual bond sale is still another item yet to be worked out: "We've got to convince everybody - we've convinced ourselves - that the demand exists to build the buildings." He'd better have stocked up on ingratiating grins.

One more item of note: conspicuous in his absence was Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who decided he'd rather be in Washington for the day to lobby for more homeland security funds. Too bad, because we would have liked to ask him about his promise last week that "if it's the city [putting up money for Hudson Yards], it's up to the City Council and the mayor. Nobody is trying to cut anyone out." Not to mention his bizarre assertion to Newsday that "We can rent [the Jets stadium] out for eight-odd Sundays a year for somebody that's going to pay us $600, $700, $800 million. This would be the best rental anybody has ever done in the history of the world." (In fact, the Jets would put up $800 million in construction costs, not rent, and would almost certainly reap the revenue from non-football events.) We know city math scores are a problem, but this is ridiculous.

February 10, 2004

Newark mayor: We'll build Devils arena

Promising "thousands of construction and permanent jobs, opportunities and new hope," Newark Mayor Sharpe James announced plans to build a $300 million hockey arena for the New Jersey Devils by 2007. Reports of the plan's funding are a bit unclear: the city would pay $200 million from its Newark airport lease, while the team would supply the remaining $100 million; according to the Newark Star-Ledger, the Devils would also pay rent on the arena, but "city taxes on parking and income collected in the arena and the surrounding development would offset the team's rent payments."

The Newark city council still must sign off on the plan, and the Star-Ledger reports that the New Jersey state senate may also have to sign off on the "tax increment financing" share of the plan (presumably meaning the rent kickbacks). James' office promised to reveal more details at a Thursday news conference.

February 09, 2004

NYC biz leaders hedging on stadium?

Maybe this explains that anti-stadium New York Times editorial: the Times' Charles Bagli reports that some city business leaders are starting to doubt the wisdom of a Manhattan stadium for the Jets, fearing it will only stir up opposition (and lawsuits) that could doom the greater West Side redevelopment plan. (Others were skeptical of the West Side plan as a whole, fearing it will divert funds from Lower Manhattan redevelopment.) Most of the stadium critics would speak only off-the-record; as one developer told Bagli: "Everybody has to go to [Deputy Mayor Dan] Doctoroff to get things approved. How can we say anything?"

February 07, 2004

Newark woos Devils

Newark Mayor Sharpe James is reportedly close to an agreement with the New Jersey Devils to move to a new $300 million hockey arena in downtown Newark, though city council approval would still be necessary. "It's good that there's no taxpayer dollars involved," said state senate president Richard Codey of the arena project, which would, in fact, use $210 million in public money derived from the city's Newark Airport lease.

February 06, 2004

Diagramming the end run

After speaking with several city development experts, many of whom were initially as baffled as we were as to how New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg could approve hundreds of millions of dollars in Jets stadium subsidies without putting them up for a legislative vote, we've come up with one potential scenario that could do the trick:

The city takes a large swath of West Side land, and transfers it to a city development corporation such as the Industrial Development Agency.
The IDA makes an offer to developers: we'll exempt the land from city property taxes, if you agree to payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) equal to what their property taxes would have been.
The IDA collects the PILOTs, and uses them to pay off construction bonds related to the stadium project (which, counting the associated new subway line and convention center expansion, could amount to more than $4 billion).

The net effect - redirecting property tax money from city coffers to the stadium project - would be the same as the city's original tax increment financing (TIF) plan, with one notable exception: unlike creating a TIF district, use of a development agency would not require the approval of the state legislature. It would, however, still require a city council vote on zoning changes; it's unclear whether the council or state legislature vote would also have to vote to seize the land by eminent domain.

Interestingly, Bruce Ratner's Nets arena plan would not be able to use a similar scheme, since it would use sales and income taxes, and as Frank Mauro of the Fiscal Policy Institute notes, "the IDA can't give away the sales tax on hot dogs." Ratner's $435 million TIF request, then, seems destined for a vote of the state legislature. The Jets, meanwhile, could conceivably end up getting their West Side billions after no more than a single city council zoning vote.

Loonie biz

In north of the border news, Ontario is mulling a request from the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs for help refurbishing the University of Toronto's Varsity Arena and building a 25,000-seat stadium for the CFL's Toronto Argonauts. Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment, which owns both teams, wants the government to guarantee part of the $100 million in construction loans for the project, though it's not clear how much this would end up costing the province; Toronto Mayor David Miller backs the project, but has said he wouldn't accept it costing the public tax money.

Meanwhile, one province to the east, the Montreal Canadiens are asking for property tax breaks from Quebec, along with an income tax surcharge on visiting teams that would be funneled to the team - a scheme used to subsidize other Canadian NHL teams that claim they're hampered by the weak Canadian dollar from competing with U.S. teams. Of course, if they've checked the exchange rate lately, they might want to come up with a new argument.

February 05, 2004

Expos status report

It's been a few weeks since we've checked in on Bud Selig's Stadium Extortion Across North America Tour, as Doug Pappas has called the endless saga to find a new home (preferably publicly funded) for the Montreal Expos. The current state of non-affairs:

Washington, D.C. is considering a new stadium site near the waterfront that, the Washington Post confusingly notes, "might save money because the land is owned either by the federal government or the city" but also "could exceed the approximate $470 million cost of each of the other sites currently under consideration." D.C. still has no financing plan for a stadium, and won't consider one unless MLB first agrees to move the Expos there.
Norfolk is apparently being taken seriously as a contender by MLB, despite its dinky size. Doug Pappas notes that the city's plan - which would include hotel and restaurant taxes, a ticket tax, and player income taxes, in addition to a state TIF district - is being led by "'a pair of 26-year-old former stock brokers,' a phrase not likely to inspire confidence." The Virginia state legislature, meanwhile, has decided to let the Virginia Stadium Authority expire next Jan. 1 if no stadium deal is in place, effectively giving MLB a deadline to put up or shut up if it wants to move the Expos to either Northern Virginia or Norfolk.
Portland, Monterrey, and Las Vegas are all reportedly still in the running, though none has made much headway on stadium financing plans.
A guy who went 1-for-7 with the Expos in 1991 wants to buy them and move them to Tiger Stadium.

Undaunted, MLB president Bob DuPuy told USA Today of finding a new home for the Expos: "We'll get it done this year, I promise you." That's what they all say.

The two faces of Mario

"The fans have been very loyal to me over the years, supporting my career. They were there for some tough times, too - two back surgeries, cancer. So the relationship has only improved throughout the years. To lose hockey here would be devastating not only for the hockey side but for the city. Now we have some stability with the franchise." -NHL superstar Mario Lemieux, after buying the bankrupt Pittsburgh Penguins in 1999

"It's really up to the public sector now to come to us and say, 'We're ready to sit and talk about the arena.' The clock is ticking: 2007 is when the team could leave town, and that possibility is real." -Ken Sawyer, Lemieux's team president, 2004

Indy mayor disses own stadium

In announcing that the NCAA had agreed to hold it's men's basketball finals in Indianapolis at least once every five years, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson declared the city's RCA Dome outmoded and inadequate to the task, saying: "I think it's reasonable to expect that Indianapolis will have a new stadium at some point in the future, very likely by the time the next Final Four rolls around after 2010 - if not before." Now that's marketing genius.

Jersey to Nets: Don't let door hit you

In an op-ed in yesterday's Newark Star-Ledger, New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority president George "we're not in the business of subsidizing millionaires" Zoffinger declared that while he'd be sorry to see the Nets go, it's better than showering them with state money to get them to stay. He also dropped a hint that if the Nets leave, New Jersey will seek a replacement team, saying: "The values that would have come to the Nets will become those for someone else."

February 04, 2004

Bloomberg displays ambidextrous mouth

More on the looming Jets stadium controversy: Responding to charges that he planned an "end run" around legislative approval for the multi-billion-dollar project, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the New York Sun: "We'll comply with the law and depending on how it gets finances or where it gets built. If it's on state land, it's up to the state. If it's using state monies or federal monies, it is up to them. If it's the city, it's up to the City Council and the mayor. Nobody is trying to cut anyone out." The Sun then added: "The mayor has stressed that the stadium will be privately funded." Say what?

San Diego on Chargers: Hands off

Here's an interesting tactic: the city of San Diego recently sent warning letters to cities that have expressed interest in being the new home of the Chargers, reminding them that the team's lease on Qualcomm Stadium remains in effect, and noting the city "will take necessary actions to enforce and protect its rights." (The Chargers have sued the city, claiming an out clause in the lease should allow them to move.) As you might imagine, the NFL and the Chargers are mighty steamed.

February 03, 2004

NYC stadiums to evade legislative vote?

New York City councilperson Christine Quinn is charging that the city government is planning an end run around legislative oversight for its planned $600 million Jets stadium subsidy, by creating a local development corporation that could spend money without needing the approval of the city council or state legislature. We're not sure how this would work - the development corporation would have to get ahold of tax money somehow, which would normally require a state vote, at least - but stay tuned to this space for further developments.

Pawlenty backs referenda

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has declared that it's his "strong preference" that communities being asked to pay for new stadiums for the Twins and Vikings with tax revenue be allowed to vote on the proposals in public referendums. With yet another poll showing Minnesotans opposed to spending tax money on new stadiums, this could end up being the final nail in the coffin of the latest round of stadium proposals - unless, of course, Paul Allen gets involved.

February 01, 2004

Rich still won't cough it up

Three years after his last failed attempt to shake loose public money for a new basketball arena, Orlando Magic owner (and Amway founder) Rich DeVos is once again levying arena demands. True to form, these included both the stick of a veiled move threat ("It really comes down to, 'Do you want a professional sports team?'") and the carrot of promised economic windfall: "The business it would produce . . . people at the restaurants, bars. Everything would be alive again." We can only imagine how that would translate into Chinese.