Field of Schemes

May 28, 2004

MSG fires first shot in ad war

It's pretty much unprecedented in the world of stadium battles: A slickly produced TV ad asking "What could New York City do with $600 million?" and listing various items, such as schools and firehouses, that would be better investments than the proposed Jets stadium. (The total public cost of which would actually be closer to $1 billion, counting land acquisition.)

Of course, there's never been a stadium opponent with such deep pockets as this one: The ad was paid for by Cablevision, owners of Madison Square Garden, the Knicks and the Rangers, and the Jets' newest nemesis. Snapped NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg: "There is an allegation that one company in order to protect their own commercial interest is trying to stop jobs coming to this city. That's an outrage." Oh, right - jobs.

May 27, 2004

Bobcats' ticket revenue to be bobbed?

The cash-strapped Charlotte City Council is considering a ticket-tax surcharge on the new Charlotte Bobcats franchise, due to start play this fall, to help close a budget gap. "The arena got us into this pickle, it should help get us out of it," said city council member Susan Burgess of the Bobcats' $265 million arena, which is costing the city $170 million in hotel and rental-car tax money. Any new ticket tax would need the approval of the state legislature.

Send money or we'll kidnap this team

Mark Kreidler of ESPN.com points out that Paul Tagliabue's talk of sticking an NFL franchise in Los Angeles isn't just directed at L.A., but at juicing stadium demands in other cities as well:

"That sound in the background? That would be the screws turning in places like Indianapolis and San Diego and, oh, two or three other markets that have become the regular whipping boys of this sadistic process. ... Thus, this utterly familiar scenario, with the commissioner saying something about an L.A. stadium 'decision' just vague enough to stir the usual pot of recriminations and fear in San Diego and Indy and (maybe) New Orleans and (perhaps) the Twin Cities -- places where the NFL situation is not utterly settled to the contentment of, ahem, management."

May 26, 2004

Reading the fine print

A Newsday article on how Suffolk County is making out on a publicly funded baseball stadium for the minor-league Long Island Ducks is an excellent lesson in why you can't analyze a stadium deal until you know the terms of the lease.

Citibank Park was built in 2000 for $19 million, $14 million of which came from the state, $5 million from the county. The team has been wildly successful, turning a $7 million profit in its first two years of operation. But because the county, which owns the park, gets no share of merchandise and concessions sales, its take was just $1.4 million over those two years - barely enough to cover debt service on its $5 million in bonds.

The state, meanwhile, which paid for almost three-quarters of the park, is completely hosed, since a team on the eastern part of Long Island is unlikely to draw any fans from out-of-state who'd increase state sales tax revenues.

Ducks owner Frank Boulton, who's also commissioner of the Atlantic League in which they play, brushed off criticism that he should have been more generous in his lease terms, snapping: "I'm not going to apologize for doing a good job and being successful." Boulton also noted that the league's Atlantic City franchise, which he also owns - this is a man with no shortage of hats - by comparison pays only $125,000 a year in rent. The article didn't say, but presumably he didn't apologize for that, either.

NFL to L.A. in '08?

Major trial-balloon-floating from NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who says the league hopes to pick a Los Angeles stadium site by next May, with a team to begin play in 2008. As for what team, the Washington Post cites "executives around the league" as saying that an expansion team is less likely that relocation of an existing franchise such as the San Diego Chargers, Indianapolis Colts or New Orleans Saints, all of which are currently mired in local stadium battles. (And as for who would pay for the L.A. stadium, neither Tagliabue nor the Post said a word.)

The timing of the May 2005 deadline seems targeted at the TV networks: the NFL's TV contracts expire after the 2005 season, and swapping a small market like New Orleans for the nation's second-largest media market could help boost the sale price of the league's broadcast rights. Whether a league commitment to L.A. without an L.A. commitment to stadium cash - as seems likely, given the city council's past distaste for funding a football stadium - will be enough to pry Rupert Murdoch's claws off a few million more Foxbucks is uncertain, and could make for some interesting internal NFL debates about using league money instead.

Red Sox: No "big kaboom"

More on Boston Red Sox owner John Henry's statements yesterday on renovating Fenway Park: team architect Janet Marie Smith says the team is looking at ways to fit a small number of new seats, perhaps 3,500, into various parts of the park: "I personally don't feel a big kaboom happening," she said. Her boss concurred, saying of the 92-year-old ballpark (current capacity: a smidge over 36,000): "I'm not in favor of going above 40,000 [seats]." Henry also said he would not be seeking any public money for the renovations.

Jets, MSG flacks face off over stadium

The proposed $2 billion New York Jets stadium has already begun creating jobs in one industry: local lobbyists. Newsday reports that the Jets have hired two former aides to Republican Gov. George Pataki and one former Democratic deputy mayor to aid their stadium push; in response, Madison Square Garden - owner of the Knicks and Rangers, and opponent of a new publicly funded sports venue on its doorstep - has hired its own lobbyist to work on West Side development issues, to go along with its existing contracts with the top Albany lobbying firm and with a former aide to State Assembly leader Sheldon Silver. MSG is also part of the new New York Association for Better Choices community coalition, which officially launched yesterday to oppose the stadium as "a terrible waste of precious public resources."

As for the hoi polloi, they'll have their next opportunity to weigh in on the plan at a city council hearing on June 3.

May 25, 2004

Yankees stadium rumor watch

This one snuck by, given that it was in the wafer-thin freebie paper amNewYork, but: Attendees at a sports convention in San Diego report that stadium architect Earl Santee of HOK was bragging of working on designing a new stadium for the Yankees, and said an announcement is due later this summer. File this one under wild rumors, but if you're a New York taxpayer (or a competing American League team), hold onto your wallet.

More renovations for Fenway?

Boston Red Sox owner John Henry made his strongest statements yet in favor of remaining at Fenway Park in the long-term, telling the Associated Press, "I love Fenway. I can't imagine us playing anywhere else," and saying that while tearing it down and replacing it "is certainly an option, on my list, it's at the bottom."

Club architect Janet Marie Smith said future projects could include expanded clubhouses, renovations to suites, and moving team offices out of the ballpark to make room for more concessions space. While the Sox have added seats and renovated some bathrooms and concessions concourses in recent years, more substantial renovations would be seen as a sign that the team intends to abandon any new-stadium plans for the time being.

Sound familiar?

In non-sports-related corporate giveaway news, the subsidy-watch group Good Jobs First reports that Wal-Mart has received more than $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies for its stores and distribution centers, via land grants, job-training funds, sales tax rebates, and other tax and infrastructure subsidies. "That a company with $9 billion in profits can wrest job subsidies from state and local governments shows that the candy store game has gotten out of control," said GJF director Greg LeRoy.

Wal-Mart spokesperson Mona Williams retorted: "We think the report in fact shows that the subsidies are a great thing for us. Do the math and you will see that every dollar invested with Wal-Mart has returned more than $30 for the community." In an e-mail to fieldofschemes.com, LeRoy called this calculation "an astonishing display of Orwellian chutzpah," noting that sales at stores such as Wal-Mart are generally pirated from existing retailers. "There is no net fiscal benefit to the states. People do not have more disposable income because they have more places to shop."

May 23, 2004

You gotta believe!

Friday's opening rally by the stadium-booster group Baseball San Jose was long on enthusiasm and short on such specifics as where a stadium would be built, who would play there, or who would pay for it. "We have no idea what the final number is going to be," said city councilmember Ken Yeager of public stadium expenditures, which by city law would require a voter referendum. Another of the seven councilmembers to throw out symbolic "first pitches" for the booster group, Forrest Williams, stuck to enthusing: "I believe in baseball. We want a baseball team now."

Toronto gives tentative nod to football stadium

Toronto is moving ahead with plans for an $80 million stadium for the CFL's Argonauts, almost half of which would be paid for with public funds, on one condition: the Canadian Soccer Association must first win its bid to host the 2007 world under-20 championships, which would be held at the new facility. If soccer's governing body, FIFA, approves the bid as expected this October, the federal and provincial governments would front $35 million for the new 20,000-seat stadium on the University of Toronto campus; the school would finance an additional $30 million itself (to be repaid by the Argos in rent) and raise the remaining $15 million from private donors. The Argos would operate and manage the facility; it's unclear what assurances have been made for community and student access to the stadium.

Newark arena referendum?

Community activists in Newark have started a petition drive for a public referendum on the city's plan to spend $210 million on a new arena for the Devils. Organizers will need signatures of about 2,300 registered voters to get the issue on the ballot.

Expos relocation train goes nowhere fast

And on with the news... Details are trickling out about Virginia's latest plan to lure the Montreal Expos to a new stadium near Dulles Airport: Jerry Burkot, part of an investment group that wants to purchase the team, says that one-third of the cost would be paid by the team via lease payments, the other two-thirds by the public. "If you do not go to the ballpark, it will not cost you a penny," said Burkot. "The revenues are entirely self-generating." That's what they all say.

In other from the Stadium Extortion Across North America Tour, the Antipappas told reporters he feels "comfortable" the Expos will be moved for next year, and that a decision will be made "By the All-Star break? I hope so." MLB COO Bob DuPuy, asked if he was confident of a resolution soon, was less circumspect, saying: "Ha! I was confident last year!"

May 21, 2004

Rest in peace, Doug Pappas

The news is still sketchy, but it's apparently confirmed: Yesterday, while hiking through Texas' Big Bend National Park, baseball writer Doug Pappas was apparently stricken with heat prostration, and died. He was in the midst of a week-long vacation, collecting material for his other labor of love, the website RoadsidePhotos.com. He is survived by his mother, Carolyn.

I only met Doug in person twice, both times at Pizza Feeds organized by Baseball Prospectus, the website where he did some of his best writing. We'd spoken on the phone and via e-mail many times, though, usually when I had a question about some piece of baseball business esoterica, and knew that Doug would surely be the one to know the answer. He was a brilliant writer and analyst, a bitingly funny critic of baseball owner buffoonery, and a genuinely kind soul. To say he will be missed is an understatement; Doug Pappas was irreplaceable.

Goodbye, Doug. That Bud Selig still walks the earth and you do not is unfair beyond all imagining.

Note: Other remembrances of Doug Pappas are being posted to a thread at Baseball Primer.

Everybody loves arenas

The Kansas City council has approved putting a $250 million arena (60% of which would be publicly funded) up for a voter referendum on August 3. Councilperson Charles Eddy said of the hotel and rental-car surcharges that would fund the public share of the arena, which as yet has no prospective tenants: "In this instance, this was the best of our choices. There wasn't another funding source we could look at to make this huge asset for us."

Meanwhile, in the burgeoning burg of Albuquerque, a study by consultants KPMG have reported that a 10,000-seat, $50 million arena would generate nearly $1.2 million a year in taxes and create more than 700 jobs. "We have known that having this type of multiuse facility would have a positive impact," said Luisa Casso of the Downtown Action Team, which commissioned the study. "We were truly, truly excited to see the numbers come out." Let's see: $1.2 million a year on a $50 million project is a return on investment of 2.4%; and 700 jobs would mean a public cost of more than $70,000 per job created. Do we need to say that word again?

May 20, 2004

Jays exec: Our ballpark sucks!

Toronto Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi may be a maverick in terms of using advanced statistical analysis of players, but when it comes to stadium politics, he's old-school all the way. The 15-year-old SkyDome, he tells the Toronto Star, is "obsolete," the artificial turf field "may have been state of the art 15 years ago, but it's old now," and the 50,000-seat capacity is "too big for baseball now." Added Ricciardi: "If the dome's open and it's a nice night, it's doable, but that's about it." Perhaps the Jays, who are negotiating to buy SkyDome off its present owners, think that by dissing the dome in public they can knock a million or two off the purchase price, but you have to wonder if it'll cost them just as much in lost ticket sales.

D.C. gets boost, hit from DuPuy

So we were all set to anoint Washington, D.C., the likely new home of the Montreal Expos for 2005, after reading this in the Washington Times:

"It is not a prerequisite for all the financing to be passed for us to make a choice," said Bob DuPuy, MLB president. "It is a prerequisite before the team is transferred and the franchise is sold. We have relied on the representations from the various areas on the availability of financing can be produced as necessary. We believe those representations are achievable."

Since D.C.'s mayor and key city council members (though not a majority of the council) have promised to build a stadium entirely with public funds once MLB awards them a team, this would seem to make Washington a lock to get the Expos, right? But hold everything - over in the Washington Post, DuPuy had this to say:

"From day one, [Bud Selig] has stated . . . that he has grave concerns about the impact that locating a franchise in a particular community might have on other franchises in other communities. And obviously putting a team in Northern Virginia or Washington would have an impact on the Baltimore franchise and the commissioner has expressed his concerns about that."

Baseball owners met yesterday to discuss the Expos situation, but didn't eliminate any candidates from consideration. All told, it seems that Selig and Co. are determined to muddy their signals enough to keep the bidding war going until the last minute, in hopes that someone will sweeten the pot with a more lucrative offer. Yesterday Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority head Gabe Paul Jr. announced that he'd completed a financing plan for a stadium near Dulles Airport, but didn't provide any details of how much it would cost or who'd pay for it - that's the kind of offer MLB has plenty of already.

K.C. hotels, car renters oppose arena funding

With the Kansas City council due to vote today on a plan to help finance a new downtown arena (no teams have been identified yet that would play there) with a $1.50-a-night hotel surchange and $4-a-day rental-car surcharge, the proposal is facing opposition from, you guessed it, hotel owners and car rental operators. They point out that the added fees would give K.C. the highest rental car costs in the nation, and among the highest hotel costs: "A dollar-fifty increase will not be looked upon favorably by meeting planners," said Tom Holden of the Greater Kansas City Hotel and Lodging Association. If approved by the council, the plan would likely be headed for an August 3 public referendum.

All about the revenue streams

In a remarkably candid moment, Kansas City Wizards - yes, that's another soccer team - owner Lamar Hunt explained why he doesn't plan to seek a new soccer-sized stadium for his team, even as other clubs flee oversized football facilities for cozier homes: "It's a fact that Arrowhead is there and has a lease that's year-round. The downside is Arrowhead is way too huge for soccer at this stage. But it would be difficult to justify building a new stadium while such a deal is in place with the stadium we have."

Translation: Because Hunt controls the lease to Arrowhead Stadium (he also owns the Chiefs, who are the building's prime tenant), he gets to keep concessions, parking and other revenues from Wizards games, unlike other teams in the league. What's driving the push for new soccer-only stadiums - and public subsidies for the same - is the desire for new revenue streams, not more fan-friendly environments.

May 19, 2004

Louisiana to default on Saints' lease?

It seemed like a bad idea at the time: In 2001 the state of Louisiana agreed to pay the New Orleans Saints $186 million over ten years to remain in town. (Paying the team to play at the Superdome, so the argument went at the time, was cheaper than building a whole new stadium as the Saints wanted.) Now, with shortfalls in the hotel/motel tax that was supposed to provide the money, and with naming rights for the Superdome still unsold, the state could be risking defaulting on the Saints' lease, at which point the team would be free to skip town after the 2004 season.

Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District chair Tim Coulon has suggested several options, including paying the Saints out of general fund revenue, or restructuring the team's deal in exchange for a $150 million renovation of the Superdome (Coulon didn't say how this would be paid for).

Worse yet, the state is also facing possible default on a $1.5 million "incentive" payment to the New Orleans Hornets, who only came to town from Charlotte two years ago, but who could leave again if the state doesn't come up with the cash. Like we said, this sounded like a bad idea at the time...

Jets stadium cost now near $2B?

After months of speculation, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority chief Peter Kalikow may have finally let slip how much he expects his agency to be paid for development rights to the Manhattan rail yards where a proposed Jets stadium would be built: $1.2 billion, according to the New York Observer's Blair Golson. Assuming a roughly even split between the stadium site and a similar site a block east that would be used for more of the city's Hudson Yards plan, that would raise the total cost of the Jets stadium alone to a staggering $2 billion, and send the full Hudson Yards price tag in the direction of $7 billion.

"That figure has the potential to wreak havoc with Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff�s financing proposal for the stadium," notes Golson, who cites one "prominent stadium supporter" as saying: "This is the main weakness of the West Side plan, and it always has been. There�s lots of other stuff you can waffle on, but the M.T.A.�s cut for its air rights? There�s not much wiggle room."

Expos update

The latest scuttlebutt on the future of the Montreal Expos, with MLB's relocation committee set to meet today:

Norfolk's Wonder Twins say they've already sold more than 40 luxury suites and more than 1,000 season tickets for a new stadium, and delivered cancelled checks to MLB.
The Washington Times notes that the new four-year, $30 million contract signed by Expos second baseman Jose Vidro can be voided by the player if the team is not moved by the end of 2005, or if it is eliminated or moved outside the continental United States, which could spell bad news for Bob Nightengale's favorite candidate city.
As for D.C., the presumed front-runner, city council finance chair Jack Evans reiterated that he'll move ahead with stadium legislation only after MLB tabs his city as the Expos' destination - but concedes that he hasn't yet lined up the votes to approve a stadium plan. "A deal is a deal. They don't have a deal," sports economist Andrew Zimbalist told the Post. "They don't have to put a shovel in the ground, but they have to have legislation and a financial plan in place. . . . There's not going to be any ink on a franchise proposal until then."

Miami mysteries

Michael Putney in the Miami Herald runs down a list of the unanswered questions in the Marlins' $367 million stadium plan. Among them:

"How much in cash will the Marlins contribute to this deal? Does the $20 million in equity that Samson mentions include the cost of new architectural and engineering plans for the Orange Bowl site?"
"If the Legislature doesn't agree to a $30 million sales-tax rebate, where will the money come from?"
"Has anyone surveyed owners of homes and apartment houses needed for the stadium site about their willingness to sell?"
"What kinds of highway and road infrastructure would the stadium require, and who would pay for them?"
"What guarantees are there that the Marlins will be able to pay the rent and meet other financial obligations, which total $157 million, over 32 years?"
"If the Marlins, who would control stadium construction, make unacceptable cuts in design, construction or materials to meet their unrealistic $325 million price tag, who would have the power to stop them?"

Putney notes that none of the city and county commissioners who voted for the stadium deal this month asked these questions; they'll get another shot at it when the plan comes up for a final vote in the fall.

May 18, 2004

Fool me twice...

The city of Miami has signed a deal to sell the 16-year-old Miami Arena for $25 million to a local parking magnate, who said he may turn the vacant structure into a shopping mall. (Both the Miami Heat and the Florida Panthers fled the arena for still-newer publicly subsidized homes in the 1990s.) The city, which still owed $34 million in unpaid bonds on the building, now hopes to divert the $6 million a year in hotel-tax money that was going to pay off the bonds to a different purpose: paying off new bonds for a proposed Florida Marlins stadium. You know, there's a term for this.

Cowboys tax plan dead for this year

The Texas state legislature adjourned its special session without acting on a bill that would have allowed hotel and rental-car taxes to be used for a new Dallas Cowboys stadium, meaning it looks like the team's hopes for a November public referendum on the plan are dead for now. The team may now consider other funding sources, but don't hold your breath waiting for one of them to be the pockets of the 283rd richest American.

Earthquake shakedown

The San Jose Earthquakes - that's a soccer team, people - are telling the city of San Jose that they want $50 million in public funding toward a new $65 million, 20,000-seat stadium, or they'll skip town. The San Jose Mercury News is on board with the plan, editorializing that to let the Quakes leave would mean "losing a source of inspiration for thousands of children playing youth soccer in the Valley." Hey, at least they'll always have Michael Anthony Bradley.

May 17, 2004

Portland stadium finance update

It looks like that "stadium district" that is supposed to contribute $75 million towards Portland's baseball stadium plan isn't a TIF at all, but rather a tax surcharge on area businesses, similar to what D.C.'s mayor has proposed for his own stadium plan. Notes the Washington Times' Eric Fisher: "Unresolved is the basic means to gather those funds." We vote for something involving bumper stickers and trading cards.

More public money for Brewers?

The state of Wisconsin is considering developing publicly owned land around Milwaukee's Miller Park - and giving the proceeds to the Brewers. Because the state-owned land was leased to the team under a 30-year agreement when Miller Park was built, the Brewers would get to pocket any development revenue - this on top of the $324 million in public funds Bud Selig got for the stadium in the first place.

Everybody's an economist

According to items in the New York Post and Daily News, a report by Tishman Construction claims that a Jets stadium in Queens would cost just as much as one in Manhattan, while bringing in $30 million a year less in city revenue. These seem like awfully bizarre conclusions: for starters, the $1.4 billion estimated cost of a Manhattan stadium includes a $400 million platform over the West Side rail yards, and land in Queens is likely to be cheaper than in midtown Manhattan. More on this if and when we track down the actual report.

May 16, 2004

Ratner buying buildings, silence

It's been reported for a few days now that would-be Brooklyn Nets owners has been quietly offering lucrative buyouts to homeowners on his planned arena site. Now comes word that in exchange for their $1 million payments, apartment owners in the nine-story Atlantic Art Building must also sign a gag order that, according to Brooklyn Papers reporter Deborah Kolben, "prohibits them from speaking out against the arena or attending anti-arena rallies and public hearings. Residents are also required to take down anti-arena signs from the building's entranceway and doorway and are forbidden from donating money to any groups opposing the project." Former New York Civil Liberties Union head Norman Siegel, who is serving as the lawyer for residents fighting eviction for the arena, called this development "extremely offensive and troubling."

May 15, 2004

Land of 10,000 Groundouts

With the Minnesota legislature about to go home for the year, the Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial writers threw a hissy fit yesterday about the defeat of a $1.2 billion stadium bill:

It's fun for legislators to beat up on big-time sports. It makes them feel macho and morally superior. But no Minnesotan should take the Twins and Vikings for granted. They are not big employers or big direct contributors to the economic pie. But more than anything else, the teams imprint Minnesota's name on the national consciousness. The state's return on its Twins and Vikings "naming rights" is enormous - just as its refusal to reinvest in these assets is troubling.

Ah, that all-important "imprint on the national consciousness." So when can the Coen Brothers expect their $1 billion check from the state of North Dakota?

In one pocket, out the other

You want to understand the substitution effect? Here's the substitution effect: the Sacramento Business Journal reports that unnamed "players" in the Kings arena debate have proposed building "an auto mall whose taxes [would] help finance a new sports and entertainment arena in downtown Sacramento." A few paragraphs later, the Journal writes that the county government opposes an auto mall because "it could threaten dealerships on Fulton Avenue - a significant source of tax revenue for the county."

May 14, 2004

Nightengale watch

Another blind item from USA Today Sports Weekly's estimable Bob Nightengale, in its entirety: "MLB's relocation committee recently received a positive report on Monterrey, Mexico, making that city the front-runner to land the Montreal Expos for 2005." USA Today Sports Weekly really needs to come with a cover warning "For Entertainment Purposes Only."

Portland makes new Expos pitch

Doug Pappas is on the ball again, noting that Portland has put together a new $340 million stadium financing plan cobbling together $125 million in player income taxes, $75 million from a 10% ticket tax, $25 million from an 8% stadium sales tax (Oregon has no state sales tax), $75 million from a "stadium district" (presumably TIFs of some sort), and $40 million in "miscellaneous," including charter seat licenses and more TIFs.

We covered the questionable projections behind the player income-tax figure previously; Pappas further notes that since the team owner would be on the hook for any shortfall in tax revenues, or overruns in construction costs, "those are potentially huge contingent liabilities which are likely to worry prospective owners, and MLB, more than if Portland had simply requested the owner pay $X toward the cost of the ballpark." Add in that ticket and concessions taxes, as well as charter seat licenses, would essentially come out of the revenue streams MLB is counting on to boost the team's profits, and this doesn't sound like a plan likely to warm the cockles of Bud Selig's heart, assuming it has cockles.

Never say never

At the tail end of a good (if somewhat fawning) Boston Globe overview of Camden Yards designer Janet Marie Smith's recent work for the Red Sox on improvements to Fenway Park, Smith responds to a question about whether the Sox are still considering leaving the 92-year-old baseball shrine: "My assignment has strictly been on improving Fenway and making it the longtime home of the Red Sox. [But] I don't think we're bold enough to say it's the forever home of the Red Sox." The Red Sox strategy is looking pretty clear: spruce up Fenway to squeeze out more revenue for the short term, but keep on hedging in case they find someone willing to drop money in their lap for a new place. Save Fenway Park! and its fans can take pride in the recent changes at Fenway - which now has, the Globe excitedly reports, the largest men's room and two largest women's rooms in Major League Baseball - but they probably shouldn't be throwing any victory parties just yet.

Two more stadiums for NYC?

As if New York didn't have enough new stadiums in the hopper, there are now reports that Sean Kelly, head of Ireland's Gaelic Athletic Association, will be traveling to Manhattan to kick off a drive for a 10,000-seat Gaelic football facility and accompanying 3,000-seat stadium, to be sited on a "25-acre prime Manhattan real estate site which was donated by the city of New York." (For those unfamiliar with Gaelic football, it's a lot like Aussie Rules football, only with fewer Aussies.)

The Irish Examiner clarifies: the "prime Manhattan real estate" is actually Randall's Island, best known for being the plot of land that holds the Triborough Bridge up. "We have been granted a license by the city, we have the land and it's a matter of developing the funding necessary to do it. At this stage we're looking for the money for the initial phases, basically to get the field, dressing rooms and stands together, and we're talking in the region of $5m," New York GAA president Liam Bermingham told the Examiner. Bermingham also said the whole project would cost $45 million; he didn't say how it would be paid for.

Wanted: Mayor-to-English dictionary

The latest from New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg on his $5-billion-plus Hudson Yards Jets/Olympic-stadium-plus-expanded-convention-center-plus-new-business-district thang, as reported by Newsday:

When asked whether he had a backup plan for the Olympic bid if the West Side site were ruled out, Bloomberg said if that were the case, it would raise questions about the public's commitment to the games. "You have to have a venue," he said at a Manhattan news conference. "I know of no ways we would finance a facility any place else. It just happens to be that if we do it - because the city needs it - it would also help our [Olympic] bid."

It was unconfirmed at press time that the mayor's statement also appeared as a reading-comprehension question on the city's new third-grade exams.

May 13, 2004

Getting up-to-date on Kansas City

More on Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes' arena plan: that even split between public and private sources would actually be 60% public, 40% private, and Sprint's naming-rights fee is still uncertain - the company would likely agree to pay more only if the arena can land an NBA or NHL tenant. Also unclear is what will happen to Kemper Arena, on which K.C. still owes $19.3 million for a 1996 expansion; Mayor Barnes has suggested it "become a full-time venue for horse and livestock events" (and if you think we're going to make fun of her name at this point, think again).

Meanwhile, the Missouri House has approved a new bistate sales tax to fund renovations to the Royals' and Chiefs' stadiums. If approved by the proper legislative bodies - and the Kansas City Star's reportage is maddeningly unclear about who exactly needs to approve the plan, so please write in if you know - the tax would be put before voters in Missouri's Clay, Jackson and Platte counties and Kansas' Johnson and Wyandotte counties, with both Jackson and Johnson having to approve the plan for it to go into effect.

Vegas shuffle?

Hold everything - Las Vegas may not need state legislative approval of its $450 million baseball stadium plan after all. The latest reports have Clark County's redevelopment agency using - yes, you guessed it - tax-increment financing to redirect property taxes to a stadium project, though the details are still sketchy, and Clark County Manager Thom Reilly has indicated a TIF plan might require a state vote anyway.

In other Expos-wooing news, that Washington Times story from yesterday also let slip that "several industry sources say a city may not be decided upon until late this summer or the fall." Isn't this where we came in?

MN post-mortem

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty says it will be "almost impossible" to revive a stadium bill this year, while Twins exec Jerry Bell says state budget woes could keep stadiums off the legislative calendar until 2006. Meanwhile, thanks to Carl Pohlad's pal Sid Hartman, the Twins-to-Portland rumors have officially begun.

May 12, 2004

Clock running out on Vegas

Las Vegas could be the latest casualty in Survivor: Expos: the city's projected $450 million stadium (another data point, incidentally, in why no one believes the Florida Marlins can build a retractable-roofed ballpark for $325 million) would require public funding, and public funding would require a vote of the Nevada legislature, and the Nevada legislature isn't in session. A special session is possible, but, notes Doug Pappas, it "couldn't possibly meet and approve such a tax before Las Vegas's final proposal to MLB is due on Friday."

Pappas adds that both Las Vegas and Portland "are casting covetous eyes at the Oakland Athletics." The end of the Expos saga could yet lead to an unexpected side effect: a renewed frenzy of stadium-grubbing by teams like the A's and Twins, as the Expos also-rans begin wooing other existing franchises. Maybe Bud Selig isn't quite as dumb as we thought.

Sacramento targets mall for arena site

Not to be outdone, Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo has proposed knocking down part of the K Street Mall to make way for a new Kings basketball arena. "This is more than worth supporting," enthused Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, despite the fact that no one has said how much the plan would cost or who would pay for it. "My reaction was like a light bulb went off - it makes so much sense to me."

K.C. mayor pitches $250m arena

Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes promised last week that an announcement about a new downtown arena was "coming soon," and today she dropped the other shoe: a plan for a $250 million arena, paid for half by private sources, half by taxpayers.

Details are still sketchy, but Barnes' plan calls for $50 million to be invested by billionaire Philip Anschutz - owner of the L.A. Kings, shares of the L.A. Lakers and Staples Center, and a whole mess of Major League Soccer teams - another $10 million by the National Association of Basketball Coaches, and an unspecified amount by Sprint in exchange for naming rights to what would be the Sprint Center. The rest would come from "tax credits," a $1.50-a-room hotel-tax fee, and a $4-a-day surcharge on rental cars. Barnes will ask the City Council to schedule an August 3 referendum, which is required by law for the tax hikes.

Still unknown: How revenues from the arena would be divvied up between the private and public partners, and - oh, yes - who the heck would play there, since Kansas City's last NHL team skipped town in 1976, and its last NBA franchise eight years later. "I can assure you that there will be an anchor tenant," said Anschutz Entertainment Group VP Timothy Leiweke. "We have had conversations specifically with those leagues' franchises. I don't think there's a better time to get involved with a National Hockey League team than now." That sound you just heard was the ka-ching! of cash registers in the souls of NHL owners, smelling a move threat to wave in the faces of local elected officials come August.

MN legislator: "My vote's for sale"

As lobbyists for the Minnesota Twins and Vikings press for a revival of the stalled stadiums bill, one member of the state ways and means committee, which killed the bill on a 13-13 vote Friday, says he'll switch his vote - for a price. "I'd be happy to switch my vote if they give me something for a better International Falls - like a casino," Rep. Irv Anderson told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

House Speaker Steve Sviggum retorted that open horse-trading for votes is "just wrong," though the Pioneer Press noted that it's commonplace behind closed doors. Anderson's vote sale ends next Monday, with the close of this year's legislative session.

May 11, 2004

County okays Marlins stadium

Miami-Dade County commissioners voted 8-3 today to approve the Florida Marlins' $367 million stadium plan, joining the city of Miami, whose commissioners approved the deal last Friday. Otherwise, all remains status quo: the finance plan is still $30 million short, and still no one knows how the gap will be filled, or whether the team can begin construction until it is.

MLB nixes CT as Expos site

We have our first official loser in the Montreal Expos sweepstakes: Connecticut, where developer John Alevizos has been officially informed that his bid to move the team to a new stadium alongside I-91 in Wallingford (heretofore best known as "the stop on Amtrak before Meriden") is out of the running.

Reports the Hartford Courant: "Alevizos said he believed MLB was intent on moving the Expos to one of three sites - Monterrey, Mexico; Las Vegas or Washington - perhaps before the 2005 season." What those three cities have in common: they're the three Expos suitors with some semblance of a major-league-ready stadium in place (though Vegas' Cashman Field is stretching it). Putting on our Kremlinology caps, then, we could conclude that MLB's main concern is to find someplace to send the Expos ASAP, to avoid any more lame-duck embarrassment in Quebec; or, that Alevizos has no idea what he's talking about, which, given his stadium plans, seems equally reasonable.

There are certainly signs that MLB does seem to be moving ahead on deciding what to do with the Expos, though, so maybe those reports of an imminent short list were true after all...

Non-profit sales staff yields big bucks

Here's another reason to doubt those rosy job-creation numbers that stadium consultants always seem to roll out: Concessionaires for pro sports teams are increasingly turning over food, drink and souvenir sales to local non-profit groups, in exchange for a cut of the proceeds. Food-service giant Delaware North is at the forefront of this trend, reports the San Diego Union-Tribune, with 90% of vendors at the Cincinnati Reds' Great American Ball Park and half of those at the Dallas Mavericks' American Airlines Center being volunteers. Critics charge that volunteers are providing poor service and violating health codes, as well as displacing paid workers. Donald Cohen of San Diego's Center on Policy Initiatives told the Union-Trib: "This is essentially a way to increase profit margin for the operators and a way to put downward pressure on wages and benefits."

K.C. teams: You pay, we'll stay

The Kansas City Royals and Chiefs have signed agreements to extend their stadium leases, currently set to expire in 2015, until 2030 - but only if voters in Kansas and Missouri approve a 0.25% sales-tax hike that would raise an estimated $700 million for stadium renovations. (Presumably that's $700 million in 2020s dollars, which is more like $270 million in present value.) It's unclear as yet the odds on the tax getting on the November ballot, let alone voter approval; the Missouri state senate has already blocked passage of a bill that would have redirected a share of the state's "athlete and entertainer" tax to stadium maintenance, after legislators opposed it as a "pork wagon" for sports team owners.

May 09, 2004

NFL reconsidering L.A. Coliseum?

The NFL is reportedly in discussions with Los Angeles Coliseum officials about bringing either an existing or expansion franchise to a renovated Coliseum, according to the L.A. Times. If the two sides agree, notes the Times, one holdup would be that it's "unclear" who would pay the estimated $400 million cost. Yeah, that's pretty much the only thing keeping me from buying the Ark of the Covenant, too.

May 08, 2004

Unemployment-lover!

So New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, an opponent of the city's planned Jets stadium in Manhattan, is instead backing a cheaper stadium site in Queens. And so Local 580 of the Ironworkers' Union protested this perceived threat to possible employment by setting up a ten-foot inflatable rat outside Weiner's office. At which point Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in his weekly radio address, chimed in: "There's a congressman who's allegedly running for mayor who was picketed yesterday, 'cause he's against jobs! This is a jobs issue."

For the record, the Jets project 6,700 new permanent jobs from the stadium, which would cost the city and state $600 million in taxpayer money. That's about $90,000 in public expense per job created, or in economic development terms, pretty craptacular: the federal government limits economic development funds to projects coming in at no more than $35,000 per job created, while state job training programs have been found to cost an average of $2,300 per new job.

D.C. council: We'll pay

It might be time to start reading Associated Press stories backwards, just like the recommendation has long been with the New York Times. Stuck at the very end of a long story about D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams meeting with MLB officials in charge of relocating the Montreal Expos was this statement by D.C. councilmember Jack Evans: "If they decide to put a team here, we will build them a stadium. They don't have to pay for it."

That's the boldest commitment yet that the council has made to a stadium financing plan, and seems like it'd be hard for MLB to pass up, despite Bud Selig's desire to have a stadium check in hand before tabbing a winner in the Expos sweepstakes. A third incarnation of the Washington Senators is far from a sure thing, but D.C. is certainly inching its way up our Relocation Odds Chart.

MN stadiums bill "dead"

The $1.1 billion Twins/Vikings stadium bill, after squeaking through the Minnesota House Taxes Committee last week, ground to a halt yesterday when the House Ways and Means Committee failed to pass it on a tie vote. Though the bill could be revived before the legislature adjourns May 17 or even in a special session later in the year, it doesn't look likely: House Speaker Steve Sviggum declared the bill dead, and added, "I have no plans to put any efforts into resurrecting this bill. It was given a fair hearing, it was given a fair vote."

The final nail in the bill's coffin, it appears, was opposition to the tax-increment financing plan that would have raised the state's share of stadium costs by kicking back sales and income taxes to pay off construction debts. The Ways and Means Committee had scrapped the TIF plan, replacing it with an extension of liquor and car-rental taxes in the Twin Cities, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty opposed such a plan, and several legislators insisted those taxes should go to help balance the state budget instead.

No real response from the teams themselves yet, except to say they hoped to continue talks, etc. It's likely only a matter of time before the Twins-to-Portland and Vikings-to-San Antonio rumors start up again, though at this point - the Twins threatened to move to North Carolina back in 1997, remember - it's hard to see why anyone would take them seriously. There could yet be a lot of life left in that old garbage bag.

May 07, 2004

Dallas hotels oppose Dallas hotel tax

To no one's surprise, the Hotel Association of Greater Dallas has voted to oppose Cowboys owner Jerry Jones' plan to raise hotel taxes by 3% to help fund a $650 million football stadium. "We're not opposed to the stadium," said association chair Frank Naboulsi. "We just don't want to pay for it." Can't argue with that.

Added Steven Hacker of the International Association for Exhibition Management: "The worst possible thing you could think of, short of SARS, would be to slap an additional 3 percent on those hotels at this time." Okay, that you might be able to argue with.

Portlanders love the long ball

In a recent poll of 600 "likely voters" in Portland, 67% said they would like to see a major-league baseball team in town, while respondents were split 35-38% (with the rest undecided) whether they thought getting a team would require public money. And if it did require public money, would Portlanders still support getting a team? Uh, er, it seems the pollsters neglected to ask that. Hey, anybody got another 600 likely voters handy...

Selig-bot set on 'grub for stadiums'

Fresh from the Spider-Man on the bases debacle, MLB mastermind Bud Selig returned to an evil scheme he's more familiar with: Telling Oakland it needs to cough up stadium dough for the A's. "Clearly for this club to be competitive in the future it needs a new venue," said Doc Octopus of the team that's won three division titles the last four years. With the New York press in town to cover the Yankees-A's game, the commish added a shout-out to his homies in Flushing: "The Mets need a new stadium and they believe they need a new stadium." Spider-Man was not immediately available for comment on how he would combat this latest threat to his hometown.

Miami city commission okays Marlins stadium

The $367 million Florida Marlins stadium proposal cleared another hurdle yesterday, when the Miami city commission unanimously voted to approve the project, agreeing to supply free land at the Orange Bowl site and $28 million in tourist taxes. Next up would be a vote by the county commission on $120 million in public subsidies.

The bizarro part: Marlins execs say they hope to break ground for the stadium's foundation this fall, then go back to the Florida legislature to fill a $30 million funding gap. Even if the city and county go along with spending money on a project before it's fully funded, it's hard to see any banks lending the Marlins money to begin stadium construction under the same circumstances - so unless the team just plans to break up some concrete in the Orange Bowl parking lot and call it a "groundbreaking," it's hard to see how this can go forward until the legislature reconvenes next spring. "It's a mathematical formula that's missing some numbers," admitted Miami city commissioner Joe Sanchez, who gave the plan a 65% chance of succeeding.

May 06, 2004

NYC to RPA: Lay off our stadium

The board of New York's Regional Plan Association, which last month issued a report strongly criticizing the city's plan for a $1.4 billion Jets stadium, has put off a vote on taking a formal stand against the project, according to the New York Times, after city officials and business leaders bombarded them with calls. "It didn't change my mind," one board member told the Times of his phone call from deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff. "But whenever somebody like that calls, you have to pay attention because there are serious potential consequences. He makes important business decisions for the city."

When is a TIF not a TIF?

More fallout from Tuesday's New York City Council hearing on the Brooklyn Nets plan: Andrew Alper, president of the city's Economic Development Corporation, says that while the intent is to have the public contribution of "we don't know how much" taxpayer money be repaid through increased sales and income tax revenues, that doesn't mean it will be a tax-increment financing (TIF) plan. Setting up a TIF district has "never been discussed," Alper told the council.

Apparently, then, the city and state just plan to informally estimate the new tax revenue that would come from the arena, then sell bonds - again, no one's saying how much, though reports have ranged from $250 million to $435 million - backed by the general fund in that amount. The pro for arena backers: They wouldn't have to go to the state legislature to get a TIF district approved. The con: They would instead have to go to the city council to get city money allocated, as well as to the state legislature for any state allocation. With a financing plan like this, "we don't know" is looking more and more like an honest answer.

Obligatory "Do you know the way to San Jose?" reference

The city of San Jose, according to Mercury News writer Mark Purdy, is ready to "step up and be counted" as a candidate to host the Oakland A's. Why? Because a group in the works called "Baseball San Jose" will have on its board - wait for it - the CEO of the local Chamber of Commerce. And soon it will have a website and hold a rally!

"We will find a site, and we know there will be discussions about financing," says Jim Cunneen, the aforementioned Chamber of Commerce guy. "But first we need to establish a fan base and let baseball know about the interest here." Get in line, Jim.

May 05, 2004

Hurry up, it's an arbitrary deadline!

Dallas County officials released a memo yesterday outlining legal changes that would be required for the Cowboys to get $425 million in tax money for their proposed $650 million stadium project: several sections of state law would need to be amended to allow redirection of taxes on seating, parking and concessions, or on car rentals at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which isn't actually even in Dallas County. The Cowboys have said they want to have a stadium bill in place by June; replied County Commissioner Jim Jackson: "I hope they weren't serious, because I'd have to question their sincerity." To which Cowboys spokesman Brett Daniels responded: "June 30 � that's our target goal. Part of it is to create a sense of urgency." Reports didn't indicate whether he then added: "Wait - did I just say that out loud?"

Marlins stadium plan in limbo

The Florida Marlins say they could go ahead with groundbreaking for their $367 million stadium project (up from $325 million with the inclusion of an accompanying parking garage) even with a $30 million funding gap remaining, but it sounds more like that the team will hunt around first for someone else to pick up the remaining tab. "There are things that need to get resolved before we can even think about a groundbreaking. We have a $30 million gap that needs to be addressed," said Marlins VP P.J. Loyello, stunning observers who hadn't realized the team had any front-office employees other than David Samson.

The city and county's $158 million subsidy to the project may not be decided so quickly, anyway - the city and county commissions may wait until after May 17, when more info will be known about the sale of the Miami Arena (which is supposed to raise money for the stadium, though it's still not exactly clear how), to vote on the stadium plan.

May 04, 2004

MN stadiums bill passes house committee

The good news for boosters of the Twins/Vikings stadiums bill: It passed the state's House Taxes Committee today. The bad news: Pretty much everything else. The vote was as narrow as possible, 15-13, and none of the legislators from the communities bidding to host the stadiums voted for the bill. And the committee tacked on several new restrictions:

Capping the state's sales-tax TIF contribution at $100 million for the Twins and $185 million for the Vikings. The Vikings say they won't pay any shortfalls in incremental tax revenue.
Requiring the teams to kick in at least one-third of the total cost, with at least 25% of that amount in upfront cash. Twins execs had previously said they'd pay one-third of construction costs, but not infrastructure.
Any new taxes funding the local share of stadiums must be approved by voter referendum. Polls show Minnesotans overwhelmingly opposed to stadium subsidies.
The Twins don't get any public money until they've settled their cable-TV dispute.

Next stop: the House Ways and Means Committee. The Senate will also get first crack at the bill tomorrow.

An actual item with no Bruce Ratner content!

Meanwhile, in Newark, New Jersey: The Newark Star-Ledger reports that the projected cost of the city's planned New Jersey Devils arena has grown "murky," with the city's written financing plan coming in at $360 million, while the team says it's only $310 million. Part of the issue: Whether to count $30 million in state improvements to roads in the area as part of the arena cost. Newark Business Administrator Richard Monteilh says the road work was scheduled even without the arena; State Sen. Paul Sarlo, whose district includes the Continental Airlines Arena where the Devils currently play, says the road work appears "completely earmarked" for the arena.

City on Nets arena costs: Dunno

The New York city council's initial hearing on the Brooklyn Nets arena proposal generated more heat than light - and believe me, a council chamber packed to overflowing with New Yorkers can generate plenty of heat. Members of the council's economic development committee hammered representatives of the Economic Development Corporation and developer Forest City Ratner fairly hard, particularly on issues of community benefits and on the overall costs and benefits of the project to the city. The answers, though, were generally less than illuminating:

EDC president Andrew Alper, asked how much the city and state would be asked to contribute: "We don't know yet."

What city and state legislative oversight would there be for the project? "It depends in part on the nature of the financing."

What benefits would the city be getting from the project? "Dramatic benefits ... The public will know [how much] as soon as we have it."

How many of the jobs created would be expected to go to community residents? "The ultimate answer is hard to say."

Alper did let slip two new pieces of information. The arena alone, he said, is now projected to cost $630 million (previous estimates were in the $400 to $500 million range). Furthermore, Alper promised that the total public subsidy will be limited to "the fiscal impact of the arena and the team." Given that Andrew Zimbalist's report has the fiscal impact of the arena limited to $12.8 million a year ($257 million in present value), this would barely cover infrastructure costs to clear land for the project, let alone make a dent in a $630 million arena bill.

Mostly, though, it was a day for exchanges like the following, between Manhattan councilperson Christine Quinn and Forest City VP Jim Stuckey:

Quinn: Could you give me a range of [how much public money is] being proposed for this? Is it more like one to ten million? Is it the billions? Is it the hundreds of millions?

Stuckey: It's certainly not in the billions, and it's certainly not in the one-to-ten.

Q: Would you say it's more like in the tens of millions or the hundreds of millions?

S: I don't really know the answer. I don't think it would be in the tens of millions.

Q: So probably the hundreds of millions.

S: I think that's fair.

Arena study confusion

Andrew Zimbalist's study of the proposed Brooklyn Nets arena hasn't even been on the streets 24 hours, and already the New York Post has gotten it wrong. In an article headed "NETS GOOD SPORT$," Gersh Kuntzman reports that "developer Bruce Ratner's proposed arena for the New Jersey Nets in Downtown Brooklyn would pump more than $800 million into city and state coffers over the next 30 years" - in actuality that's Zimbalist's net public revenue figure from the entire project, not just the arena. (The arena site also isn't in Downtown Brooklyn, but never mind that for the moment.)

(Late note: Kuntzman writes to say he understood Zimbalist's findings, but was just using "shorthand.")

Other oddities in Zimbalist's report, as pointed out by Prospect Heights Action Coalition activist Gustav Peebles: Lacking data on the state of residence for Nets single-game ticket buyers, Zimbalist substituted figures from the Jets instead, an odd choice, given that New York City sports fans must travel to Jersey to see football, but have a basketball team of their own in the Knicks. (49% of Jets single-game buyers live outside New Jersey, as opposed to 32% of Nets season-ticket holders.) Also, Zimbalist notes in a footnote that Ratner's revenue projections for the arena assume "the eventual closing of the [Continental Airlines Arena and] no new arena in Newark," which raises the question of where the New Jersey Devils would play under this scenario - unless Ratner is forecasting one heck of an NHL lockout.

May 03, 2004

Brooklyn arena study, at the buzzer

With the New York city council set to begin hearings tomorrow morning on Bruce Ratner's planned Brooklyn Nets arena, Ratner late this afternoon released sports economist Andrew Zimbalist's long-awaited economic impact study of the project. (For those just coming in, Zimbalist is a longtime critic of sports subsidies who was hired by Ratner in December to study his plan.) Zimbalist's report is available for download in either full text or summary form; the quick and dirty breakdown is as follows:

Assuming a Nets payroll of $65.5 million, and that 30% of players will live within New York City, Zimbalist projects $6.33 million a year in new city and state income tax revenue, for a present value (PV) of $136 million.
Assuming that 30% of current Nets-game attendees who live in New Jersey, plus all those who live in New York and Connecticut, would go to games in Brooklyn, he projects new city and state sales tax revenue of $6.43 million a year, for a PV of $121.5 million.
The project's 4500 new units of housing and 1.9 million square feet of office space, estimates Zimbalist, would draw new residents and business to New York City, generating additional new tax revenues of $870 million PV (housing) and $214 million (commercial).

That's economic benefits; now for the costs. Reached at his Smith College office, Zimbalist explained to fieldofschemes.com that Ratner did not provide figures for public costs, but did "vet" numbers that Zimbalist provided from media reports, assuring him that the public cost would not go above those figures. They are:

$9 million a year apiece from the city and state for arena construction costs, for a PV of $261 million. (Note that this is far lower than the $28 million a year figure reported by the New York Times in January; none of the arena-watchers I've contacted can recall seeing the lower figure in print, but Zimbalist insists it has appeared "all over the place," and was vetted by Ratner as accurate.)
$162.7 million to relocate Long Island Rail Road tracks, build a platform over the rail cut, and take private land by eminent domain, to which Zimbalist added a $25 million "contingency fund".
$219.2 million PV in new ongoing costs, including operations and maintenance of buildings, and sanitation, education, police and fire services to the new development.

Phew. Looking at the totals, it's clear that Zimbalist's study considers the project a net gain for the public - at around $1.5 billion in new revenues and just under $700 million in new costs, he writes, "the fiscal impact of the Atlantic Yards project is a significant plus for the New York City and New York State treasuries." It's equally clear that the vast bulk of the public benefits - $870 million, or 58% of the total - comes not from the arena, but from the associated housing development. The arena, in fact, would be a money-loser according to Zimbalist, bringing in $257.5 million to city and state coffers while costing the public substantially more - exactly how much more depends on how you divvy up the land and ongoing costs, but even assigning one-fifth of them to the arena would mean the basketball portion would leave taxpayers with more $90 million in red ink.

The obvious question: Given that the arena is a net loss for the public and housing a net gain, why not just cover the Atlantic Yards with housing, then - either built by Ratner or by someone else lured by the offer of hundreds of millions in public dollars - and skip the Nets entirely? As a side benefit, the need to find room for the arena's bulk is the only reason for the controversial plan to demolish a block of row houses and condos; with housing alone, both evictions and eminent domain costs could be avoided.

If anything, Zimbalist's study raises easily as many questions as it answers. Are his estimates correct as to how many current Nets fans would shlep to Brooklyn to see the team there? Is it legitimate to assume, as Zimbalist does, that 30% of the businesses renting office space from Ratner would otherwise not come to New York, or that 4500 new housing units would mean 4500 new families moving into the city? Would there be additional public costs to subsidize rents for office tenants, as has been the case at other Ratner projects in Brooklyn? If the public share of arena construction is really only $18 million a year and not the $28 million a year the Times had reported, who's fronting the other $200 million or so in construction costs? Who's paying for the acquisition of development rights to the LIRR land? And if, as Ratner has suggested in the past, Atlantic Yards would be a "phased construction" built as the market demands, what guarantee is there to taxpayers that the developer won't simply ditch the housing element if the rental market is soft, and leave taxpayers holding the bag for the money-suck of an arena?

"I would never have undertaken this exercise," Washington State University sports economist Rod Fort tells us. "In essence, Andy is trying to forecast 33 years hence, and he's forecasting housing markets, which there are other people spending all their waking moments on. What you see is assumption after assumption after assumption after assumption."

More on this tomorrow, after the hearings. They should certainly be interesting.

With friends like these...

Fort Worth Star Telegram columnist O.K. Carter writes that even though the Dallas Cowboys can't legitimately threaten to leave town, and their proposed stadium at Dallas' Fair Park would likely require demolishing homes as residents fear, he still hopes Dallas voters approve $425 million in subsidies for the project. Why? Because if Dallas raises its hotel tax to the highest in the country to fund the stadium, Carter foresees "an enormous shift in hotel bookings, conventions, trade shows and general tourism" to Arlington and Fort Worth, where his readers live. Don't hold your breath waiting for that argument to be used in Jerry Jones' referendum ad campaign...

May 02, 2004

Les folies des Expos

You know, the Expos Relocation Odds chart seemed like a good idea at the time, but at this rate it'll soon be down to "Montreal," "D.C." and "Other," as cities keep effectively taking themselves out of the race. The latest to go all Carol Moseley Braun looks to be Norfolk, which has revealed its latest scheme, a plan to house the Expos in a minor-league stadium with 6,000 temporary bleacher seats until a new stadium is ready. (As Montreal found out, that can take a while.) The local wunderkinder have also debuted a website that proclaims the Hampton Roads region to be "the largest metro area in the United States without a major league baseball team" - as Doug Pappas points out, it's actually seventh.

Meanwhile, the Expos' other erstwhile suitors have been stuck in neutral, at best. We covered Las Vegas last week; Portland's stadium boosters claim they're getting nearer to a financing plan, but admit that "we have so much work to do in the next six to eight weeks that it's not even funny"; and no one's heard from Northern Virginia, Monterrey, Connecticut, or San Antonio in ages, though the same Las Vegas Sun article that claimed a short list of finalists was imminent also quoted a "Bud Selig confidant" as saying that if the Expos move to Vegas, they'd split time between San Antonio and Monterrey until a stadium had bloomed in the desert - a notion that even San Antonio sports reporters have a hard time taking seriously.

And about that rumored cut-down of MLB's candidate list, here's David Kahn of the Oregon Stadium Campaign dropping some science: "I asked that question, and they don't know. I don't think I'm alone in saying I don't know." Not alone at all!

Voting with their feet

"How many people flee North Texas because the sports facilities are lame?" That's one of many questions posed by Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Mitchell Schnurman about the Dallas Cowboys' $425 million stadium-subsidy demand. Schnurman suggests that education or public hospitals would be higher on most residents' priority list, and notes that the last time Jerry Jones asked for public stadium funds - a 1996 referendum where he pressed the city of Irving to pull out of the region's DART mass-transit system and instead use its 1% sales-tax hike to renovate Texas Stadium - voters overwhelmingly rejected it.

May 01, 2004

MN stadium bill tweaked

The $1.1 billion bill to build new stadiums for the Twins and Vikings underwent more changes in the Minnesota State Tax Committee yesterday. Among them: Requiring the teams to pay one-quarter of their one-third contributions (that'd be one-twelfth, unless the one-third turns out to be less than one-third) up front; and having the teams pay rent and be reimbursed by state TIF rebates, rather than having the TIFs go directly to construction costs. "I've never seen a more confused bill," said Rep. Tom Rukavina, noting he'd never seen a piece of legislation get this much committee time in his nine terms in St. Paul. A vote is expected Tuesday, and is still too close to call.

Marlins still $30m short

As expected, the Florida state legislature declined to give the Florida Marlins a sales-tax rebate on the final day of its session yesterday, leaving the team's $325 million stadium plan short by $30 million. Team president David Samson implied he'd go back to local governments to make up the shortfall, saying only: "We will now discuss with the county and city all possibilities remaining which will enable us to complete a retractable-roof facility by opening day 2007."

The $148 million in city and county stadium subsidies agreed to on Thursday are not final, either: the city and county commissions still must vote to approve them. Dade County tax collector Ian Yorty also said the Marlins must provide contractual guarantees that the team will make rent payments estimated at about $8 million a year (likely by pledging TV rights revenue), and will shield the public from any cost overruns (good luck on that one).