Field of Schemes

May 31, 2005

Private benjamins, R.I.P.

The Washington, D.C., city council looks to be on the verge of abandoning its private-financing plans for a Nationals stadium, having decided that such schemes as selling off future revenue streams to private investors wouldn't really save the city any money. Not to say I told you so, but jeez, people, what'd you expect?

Assuming the private-finance plan really is dead - councilmember Jack Evans declared recently, "Nothing's completely dead yet," which is certainly the sort of thing politicians are likely to say when something's dead - then presumably D.C. would go back to its $600 million public-finance plan, nearly 90% of which would come from public coffers. Or it could do something really crazy, like figure out a way to renovate RFK Stadium - but nah, that could never happen.

Foot-in-Maloof disease

From a Sacramento TV news story on the Kings arena debate that just will not die:

The Maloofs believe for them to fund an arena would put them at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to signing players. Gavin Maloof said paying $40 million a year in interest and debt service fees on a $400 million arena isn't good business in a medium-sized market like Sacramento. "What's going to keep us competitive," said Joe Maloof, "Is making sure we sign the best players and you can't do that if you're paying interest on your facility. Interest costs eat you alive."

Note to Joe: Perhaps when asking taxpayers to plunk down $320 million for a basketball arena, "interest costs will eat you alive" might not be the best selling point.

Pay no attention to the money behind the curtain

Today's Newsday has a good overview of the state of the New York Jets stadium controversy. There won't be much new to FoS readers, but one tidbit does jump out:

Still another element of the plan is the state's $300 million commitment. After requests from state legislative leaders about the income required to back the bonds, Pataki's aides said last week that the stream may come from income taxes.

Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, the state's development agency, said revenue generated by the stadium would easily cover the city and state debt.

"Player salaries alone is a huge amount of income tax," Gargano said. "And then you have sales tax on tickets ..."

That's the first I've heard of state income and sales taxes being discussed for the state's share - recall that last fall, Gargano was talking of having the city pay the state's share and then reimbursing it under the table. Using income and sales taxes, by contrast, would require a legislative appropriation, and the legislature has wrapped up its budget for the year, so who knows what the governor's people are smoking on this one.

In possibly related news, the corporate-subsidy watchers at Good Jobs New York report that the city Industrial Development Agency has pulled a discussion of tax breaks for the greater Hudson Yards project (which would surround the Jets stadium) that had previously been on its June 9 agenda. Almost five years into this mess, and it's just as mysterious as ever just who the heck would be paying for it.

May 29, 2005

Duck season! Rabbit season!

The New York Jets stadium vote is back on again ... or maybe not. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that Gov. George Pataki will call a meeting for this Friday of the Public Authorities Control Board that controls the stadium's fate, though Pataki himself has been silent on the matter. While state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and state senate leader Joe Bruno have each used up their get-out-of-vote-free cards already, Silver told WCBS-TV yesterday that he could just not show up (PACB votes must be unanimous among all three voting members) or refuse to second the governor's motion to put the stadium on the agenda. (Presumably the latter would require Bruno's cooperation as well.) What Silver does could be determined by the result of this Thursday's court ruling on three lawsuits against the sale of state land for the proposed stadium - though the speaker has recently stressed that his problems with the stadium plan go beyond the unsettled legal situation.

Meanwhile, pro-stadium forces are turning up the heat on anti-stadium politicians, with the New York Building & Construction Trades Council, a construction union group, threatening to withhold its $1 million in annual campaign contributions from legislators who vote against the Jets project. (You'll note, by the way, that the union group currently gives its money to "Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans," the parties in power in each house - do you still wonder why incumbents are almost always re-elected?)

Finally, Cablevision, owners of Madison Square Garden, have launched a new series of TV ads against the stadium, including one that declares, "it's a football stadium, not an Olympic stadium" - something that the Daily News (in an "exclusive" - what, other newspapers don't get cable?) described as "stadium mind Games." Except, of course, that it's true: Converting the current stadium plans to an Olympic-sized facility would require a major expansion and additional state and federal approvals to build over the West Side Highway.

May 27, 2005

All me, all the time

For those of you looking for something wordier (and with more corn dog references) than my posts here on the Minnesota Twins stadium saga, you'll be happy to know that my latest Baseball Prospectus article on the Twins situation is free to all readers. Those living in the parts of New York City that carry the New York Sun can also drop 25 cents to read it in today's dead-tree edition.

(And yes, before you say anything: I know that it's I-94 that goes through Minneapolis, not I-90. Bowsprit, rudder - I always get those two mixed up.)

And for those of you who've always wanted to watch me type in real time, now that opportunity is yours: I'll be doing a live chat on BP's site next Wednesday, June 1, at 1 pm Eastern. (If you can't be around then, you can also pre-post questions via that link.) It's a baseball site, so try to stick to baseball questions, please, though general stadium-related queries are certainly always welcome.

Jets, Javits set split of space

At least the New York Jets have resolved one thing about their beleaguered stadium deal: The team and the neighboring Jacob Javits Convention Center have agreed to a memorandum of understanding on who would control the stadium on non-game days, which as you may recall has been an issue for some time now. Under the deal the Jets would "black out" four weekends of each football season years in advance so that the Javits can book conventions for then; otherwise, the team would have first dibs on the facility for football games and preparation, and would have the exclusive right to book it for "sports and entertainment" events. (Presumably this means the Jets would get all the revenue from these events as well, though the New York Sun article didn't say.)

State assemblymember Richard Gottfried, one of the leading critics of the stadium plan, immediately pointed out a potential problem with this scenario: "The Jets will want to book events that pay high rent, like concerts, but don't necessarily bring people from out of town, while the convention business is interested in low rents if they attract tourists that will boost the city's economy."

Meanwhile, WNYC radio reports that the state Public Authorities Control Board will hold its much-delayed stadium vote next week; it doesn't appear, however, that Gov. Pataki has set an exact date yet. A court ruling in the lawsuits against the sale of state rail yards to the Jets is also expected next week, likely on Thursday.

Zygi zags on Vikes stadium

New Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf (and yes, I just like typing "Zygi Wilf" - who wouldn't?) has declared that he'd cheaper open-air stadium for his team, rather than the $645 million domed stadium that Anoka County has been pushing, but hasn't yet found funding for. (Wilf is also seeking cheaper sites than the one in Blaine that's been proposed.) "Football can be played in any weather," county stadium czar Steve Novak told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "He doesn't see a roof as being a factor in a successful football team. All a roof is is cost."

May 26, 2005

Nets arena questions and answers (and more questions)

The Brooklyn Nets arena hearing was scheduled to start at 1 pm, and by noon, close to 300 people were outside: members of the community group ACORN and union members (SEIU, UFCW), chanting "Jobs, Housing and Hoops!"; and on the opposing side, members of the community group Develop Don't Destroy, bearing giant mock billion-dollar checks made out to Nets owner Bruce Ratner. At curbside, a man dispensed "Jobs, Housing and Hoops" t-shirts and pins from a box addressed to "Scott Cantone, Forest City Ratner."

I asked the city council security officer how many people the hearing room held. "Sixty seated. Another 10 can stand."

In the end, more than 100 people crammed into the tiny hearing room across the street from New York City Hall for four hours of testimony that made clear... well, not much, actually. Forest City Ratner revealed that it was considering cutting some office buildings and adding more housing to its development plan - a no-brainer, considering the white-hot housing market and the weak demand for commercial space in Brooklyn. Bertha Lewis, head of ACORN, discussed her group's recent agreement with Ratner to retain 50% of the housing for low- and middle-income residents (though Ratner has been insisting this would be the case for more than a year now). And George Sweeting of the Independent Budget Office, in a line sure to be quoted repeatedly by Ratner's forces, testified that after a preliminary analysis by his office, he was "pretty confident that the final results will show a fiscal surplus" for the city from the Atlantic Yards project - though most of the fiscal benefits would come from the accompanying housing and office space, not the arena, just as Andrew Zimbalist concluded last year.

Meanwhile, the list of unanswered questions about the Nets project keeps growing. Some of these can get a bit technical, but I'm going to go into them in some detail here, because they're an important example of just how difficult it can be to accurately calculate just who's paying for what in the convoluted world of sports facility finance:

1. Who gets the Nets PILOTs? Ratner's memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with the state-run Empire State Development Corporation states that the developer will pay ESDC payments in lieu of property taxes, or PILOTs, equal to the assessed value of the arena land. (The entire project site would be taken over by the state, and so exempt from property taxes.) These PILOTs would then be used to pay off the arena's tax-exempt construction bonds.

Meanwhile, the state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in somewhat of a surprise move, put out a request for proposals (RFP - take a deep breath, the acronyms only get worse from here) yesterday for bids to develop the MTA-owned rail yards where the arena would be built. And in that document, it states that the developer would pay PILOTs to the MTA. Who's right? It's anyone's guess, especially since neither the ESDC MOU nor the MTA RFP has the force of law.

2. Should the Nets PILOT payments be considered a public subsidy? This sounds straightforward, but in fact gets trickier the more closely you examine it. Ratner wouldn't be paying taxes on the arena property, which would generally be considered a subsidy. (The general term for this is a "tax expenditure.") However, much development in Brooklyn is already tax-free under a 20-year-old city program called the Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP), which gives 15-year tax breaks to anyone building industrial or commercial property outside of Manhattan.

Would a basketball arena qualify for ICIP? I buttonholed several development experts at today's hearing, and got three different flavors of "maybe" in reply. It's an important question, because it would determine whether Ratner's "pay his taxes and keep them too" plan is a special subsidy, or an "as-of-right" one available to all developers. (The IBO's fiscal analysis, for example, considers only special subsidies to be "costs" to the city, since whatever development took place on the site would be eligible for as-of-right subsidies like ICIP.)

3. What will the Nets pay the MTA for the land? This is a repeat of the New York Jets situation in Manhattan, where the team wanted to use its PILOT payments to pay off its own stadium costs, while simultaneously paying a land price that treats the PILOTs as taxes that make the property that much less valuable. Similarly, Ratner's MOU with the MTA says that the MTA "must take into account" PILOT costs "prior to the fair market value determination" on the land - which could result in a subsidy of hundreds of millions of dollars from the MTA to Ratner. The MTA RFP, meanwhile, makes no mention of this PILOT-discounted "fair market" price. Curiouser and curiouser...

4. Are there any additional public costs to the project? Beyond the $200 million in city and state cash for the project, the IBO identified less than $100 million in additional special subsidies, primarily $76 million from federal taxpayers by allowing the project to use low-interest tax-exempt bonds, and $13 million in lost property taxes that would be collected under ICIP (which phases out its exemption after 22 years) but not under the Ratner plan (which would get a 30-year exemption).

ICIP tax breaks, though, are undeniably a subsidy - it's just one that's available to anyone building outside Manhattan. (Many people have raised objections to whether this still makes sense in an age of booming outer-borough real estate, but then, screwing itself out of property taxes is the city's specialty.) Add those back in, and it's hundreds of millions of dollars more in public tax expenditures on the Ratner project. Moreover, when it comes to development projects, predicting the consequences of your actions can be a tricky business; one traffic study cited during testimony at today's hearing estimated that "the economic cost of the additional cars and density [from the Atlantic Yards project] is expected to be $76 million per year" - which, if true, could amount to an additional one billion dollar loss to the city.

The line of the day went to Mafruza Khan of the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development, an urban planning center at a school about a mile from the proposed arena site. Testified Khan, shortly before the hearing finally adjourned after 5 pm:

"Given the wide divergence in [subsidy] estimates, from $200 million to over $1 billion, we do want to emphasize that it is impossible for the public to know whether this project is a good deal without knowing how much it will cost to taxpayers. It is being asked to buy something without knowing how much it will cost."

And you know what they call that.

Jets backers go to two-minute offense

With less than two weeks before the International Olympic Committee's bid evaluation commission issues its final report, backers of a new New York Jets stadium continue to turn up the heat on the two state legislators who are the main obstacles to the project's approval:

A majority of the New York city council (28 of 51 members) signed on to a letter to state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and state senate leader Joe Bruno urging them to vote for the $2.2 billion stadium plan, calling it "a terrific economic engine for New York - creating thousands of permanent and temporary jobs for New Yorkers and generating millions of dollars in revenue." (Uh, yeah right.) It's another sign that the council doesn't mind spending a few hundred million dollars to subsidize a Jets stadium, so long as they're the ones doing the spending, not the mayor.
Gov. George Pataki's budget director sent Silver and Bruno an 11-page letter promising that "the $600 million cap on public investment will be protected," which would be more reassuring if the plan didn't already include another $400 million in property-tax breaks, subsidized land costs, and additional expenses that could drive the public cost well over $1 billion. A Bruno spokesperson replied that the Pataki letter raised more questions than it answered.
Pataki and Mayor Mike Bloomberg unveiled $830 million in new spending on parks and other redevelopment in Silver's downtown Manhattan district. Silver, though, was unmoved: "It has nothing to do with his plea to spur job development or lure new business to lower Manhattan," said a spokesperson for the speaker, who's apparently dead-set on getting more tax breaks for developers into this deal.

Speaking of the city council, it has a hearing scheduled today on the other big New York sports project, Bruce Ratner's Brooklyn Nets arena proposal that would cost taxpayers at least $500 million. (Local arena opponents say the true figure is more than $1.5 billion.) We'll see if this hearing is any more enlightening than the last one.

May 25, 2005

Full-text RSS subscriptions

Field of Schemes news updates are now available as a full-text RSS feed, for those who prefer to get their news via RSS readers. Subscriptions are available for $10 a year. (Anyone who's already donated $10 or more via the tip jar will receive an automatic one-year subscription.)

Jets on hold in two states now

New Jersey acting governor Richard Codey has called a halt to lease-extension talks with the New York Jets, noting that the state will have better leverage if New York, as expected, loses its bid for the 2012 Olympics on July 6. "I don't see the sense of signing a lease extension that gives the Jets the right to get out every year," Codey added. "It's like a tiger without claws or teeth."

In related news, New York state senate leader Joe Bruno said he's sending a letter to the International Olympic Committee saying that "if they vote to come, we will build specifically what it is that meets the requirements of the plan." Of course, there's no guarantee that would mean a stadium in Manhattan.

Dodgers dodge "L.A. Angels"

Someone asked a while back what's become of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim controversy, so here's where things stand: After a judge refused to grant the city of Anaheim's request for an injunction against the team's name change, most everyone has given in and starting called them "Los Angeles" - everyone, that is, except the team that actually plays in L.A. During last weekend's series against the Dodgers, the Angels were introduced as the "Angels of Anaheim," and listed on the scoreboard just as the "Angels" or by their haloed-A logo.

The California state assembly, meanwhile, has chimed in by passing the Truth in Sports Advertising Act, which would require the Angels to print a disclaimer on all tickets and advertising (in "at least 12-point Roman boldface type font") indicating that they don't actually play in Los Angeles. Yes, but what monitor resolution?

Indecent proposals

New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson dialed up the old non-threat move threat yesterday, insisting he's received a one billion dollar offer for his team, but that he doesn't intend to sell - not until the end of the season, anyway, when he has an option to buy his way out of his Superdome lease. Asked if he'd then consider moving the team to Los Angeles, Benson replied: "You consider everything. I don't want to leave New Orleans, and the people don't want us to leave New Orleans � the majority of them, anyway."

Of course, making his announcement on the day that the L.A. Times ran an article predicting that L.A. is unlikely to get an NFL team for several more years might not have been the best timing on Benson's part.

May 23, 2005

Meet the new session, same as the old session

The 2005 Minnesota state legislative session ends at midnight tonight - and its next session begins at 12:01 am tomorrow. Gov. Tim Pawlenty today ordered that the legislature reconvene in special session "one minute after either house adjourns," in order to get a state budget passed as soon as possible. Whether the special session agenda will have room for the Twins stadium bill - or anything else, other than the budget and sleep, precious sleep - is as yet unknown.

Jets to circle endlessly?

Scratch another New York Jets stadium vote from the calendar: State assembly speaker Sheldon Silver has called for the postponement of this Wednesday's scheduled Public Authorities Control Board meeting. This, you'll recall, is the meeting already rescheduled from last week after Silver's state senate counterpart, Joe Bruno, postponed that one.

The Associated Press reports that Gov. George Pataki's representative on the board, budget director John Cape, plans to re-reschedule the meeting "at the earliest possible date" - but also notes that "further delays are possible under the rules if a voting member is absent." This raises the specter of Silver and Bruno delaying a decision indefinitely by refusing to show up, perhaps by hiding out at a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma until after the Olympic committee vote in July.

In related news, the ninety economists are back, only this time there's 106 of them, and they're denouncing the Jets deal for $1.3 billion in "unnecessary" subsidies that "will not generate significant net economic or fiscal benefits."

LATE NOTE: This morning's New York Times adds: "State and city officials acknowledged at the time that they wanted to force Mr. Silver into using his postponement option, fully expecting him to ask for a second delay. That would set the stage for a showdown at the next meeting, where Mr. Silver and Mr. Bruno could be painted as potential villains for jeopardizing the city's Olympic bid." Like I was saying...

Silver unmoved by Olympic threats

More bad news for the New York Jets stadium plan, aka the Lobbyist Employment Act of 2005. State assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, who holds a veto over the project, says the city's 2012 Olympic bid is a "longshot" that shouldn't drive stadium construction, and insists that "no public incentives for commercial development should be provided" for the $5 billion-plus Hudson Yards development project of which the stadium would be a part.

Public incentives for commercial development in Silver's downtown district, now, that's another story. The speaker also issued his long-awaited demands for lower Manhattan redevelopment, which some have viewed as his price for backing a Jets stadium, and they're a doozy: a "Marshall Plan" that would provide billions of dollars in state and city bonds and tax breaks to spur commercial development near the World Trade Center site. If there's any way to make the Hudson Yards deal even worse, this would be it - the last thing New York needs is even more property tax breaks for developers.

MLB honchos: How long, o lord?

MLB mouthpiece Hal Bodley of USA Today is back at it again, providing a soapbox for commissioner Bud Selig and his right-hand man Bob DuPuy to sound off on the failure of the state of Florida to pump enough money into a Marlins stadium. From Bodley's Thursday column:

DuPuy on whether the Marlins could be "the next Expos": "I don't think so. But it's very bothersome for the commissioner that three ownership groups have tried unsuccessfully to get what is absolutely necessary � a new stadium for the Marlins."

DuPuy on his June 9 stadium deadline letter: "It wasn't an ultimatum. What was I supposed to do, say I'd like a report sometime when you get around to it? You have to put in a date. I gave them a month, asking where are you and where are you going?"

Selig on Miami: "This is clearly a major league market. It certainly has the demographics, and we want to be there. Without question, this team needs a new stadium. They've tried desperately to get one, and it's frustrating."

Adds Bodley: "Selig let the Montreal situation drag on for what seemed to be an eternity before finally pulling the trigger on the Expos move. If anything, he learned a lesson with that experience and probably won't be so patient a second time." One man's patience is another man's desperation.

The city of Carson, California, says it's dropping out of the running to host a Los Angeles-area NFL franchise, having decided a shopping mall makes better economic sense. "We looked at a financial assessment of how much revenue comes into the city with a mega mall as opposed to an NFL football stadium and a small mall," Carson Mayor Jim Dear told reporters. "The stadium will open only eight games a year as compared to 365 days a year with a mega mall." Actually, retail outlets make for pretty bad economic development projects as well - as with sports stadiums, the jobs are low-paying and the economic activity just tends to be shifted from one part of town to another - but with any luck at least Carson won't have to subsidize a mall quite as heavily as a stadium.

The Kansas City Chiefs' move-threat reflex has finally kicked in, as it was revealed Friday that team chairman Clark Hunt (son of owner Lamar) recently told local officials: "If there's no renovation of the sports complex, one or both of these franchises will be gone." (Royals owner David Glass insists he has no intention of trying to leave town.) If the goal was to strike fear among the populace, Hunt's words seem to have had their intended effect: County sports authority chief Mike Smith told the Kansas City Star, "It's got me real nervous. I would not take it as a threat, but as a message."

As if the New York Jets stadium plan didn't have enough problems, it's now the subject of yet another lawsuit. (That makes four, if you're scoring at home.) The Hell's Kitchen Neighborhood Association has filed a federal lawsuit charging that the Hudson Yards development plan would violate the Clean Air Act by including more than 10,000 parking spaces, double that allowed under a 1982 city agreement to combat air pollution. The more of these lawsuits are filed, the better the chance that one of them will turn up a striped bass.

In an abrupt change of pace, it now looks like the Minnesota Twins stadium bill will not be voted on by the state legislature by the end of session on Monday. What happened is that yesterday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislative leaders had what one local observer called a "meltdown" over setting the state budget; as a result, it looks likely that the legislature will accomplish nothing by Monday, and instead kick everything back to a special session later on.

Whether the Twins bill would even make it onto the agenda for a special session is unknown. (It's still waiting to be heard by the house tax committee, where the bill is expected to face its toughest opposition.) And if nothing else, a delay could cause the reanimated stadium campaign to lose momentum, as the Minneapolis city council is considering a resolution opposing the plan. The council's vote apparently would also be needed to approve zoning changes for the stadium, though it's unclear whether it would use that as leverage to block a deal that had already been approved by the state legislature.

If the New York Post's unnamed sources are to be believed, Gov. George Pataki is pissing off New York's legislative leaders by refusing to provide detailed answers about the $2.2 billion Jets stadium plan. "The questions, in my mind, have been answered," Pataki declared in response to state senate majority leader Joe Bruno's eight-point request for more information. "This has been the most discussed and debated public project in New York in decades, and people either know if they're for it or against it."

If that doesn't quite sound like Dale Carnegie material to you, you're not alone. As the Post reports:

Tea-leaf-reading madly, this could indicate that Pataki - by all accounts a more lukewarm supporter of the stadium than New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg - is more interested in forcing Bruno and state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver to vote on the stadium, one way or another, ASAP. If they vote it down, Pataki can pin the blame on them for killing the Olympics; if they give in and approve it, Pataki can take the credit for getting the stadium done. It would certainly be in character for the governor, who has so successfully ducked responsibility during his three terms in office that if you asked most New Yorkers to describe his main accomplishments, they'd likely say "he's really tall."

New Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff may not be any closer to getting a stadium deal out of Oakland, but he does have one thing his predecessors haven't got: a medal. No, wait, that's not right. I mean: a stadium committee. The new committee, which will be headed by A's team president Mike Crowley and Wolff's son, Keith, will, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, be given the mission to "gather information to be better prepared to design a new home, if it gets that far." Wolff also expressed his desire that the committee "think outside the box." That Lew Wolff, he's a man who knows how to actualize his core competencies.

So much for that month delay in the New York Jets stadium vote: After postponing yesterday's vote at the request of state senate leader Joe Bruno, Gov. George Pataki has called a special meeting of the Public Authorities Control Board for next Wednesday to again consider the $2.2 billion stadium plan. How much this will accomplish is unclear: Bruno, who'd asked for a one-month delay, snapped to the New York Times, "Deadlines are great. But what we need to do is deal in reality." And state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver still has an unplayed "Get out of PACB vote free" card that he could use to call for another postponement - though the governor could then call another special session. The risk would be that then Silver or Bruno could just vote to kill the deal outright - though from the ever-calculating Pataki's perspective, getting the stadium monkey off his back and being able to blame "losing the Olympics" on one of the state legislative leaders might not be the worst-case scenario.

And if you really want to play Kremlinologist, read something into this: The Times reports that Silver is set to announce his own plan to redevelop downtown Manhattan today - and the midtown stadium development's impact on his downtown district has been his main gripe about the Jets plan. Could this be Silver's declaration of his quid pro quo for allowing the stadium to go through? As the speaker recently told WNYC radio: "I've let them know the problems, let them come back and give us the answers to those problems." Hmm - who did you say was on the podium?

Meanwhile, at least one party to the proceedings doesn't seem too confident that the stadium deal will pass: The Jets, who are reportedly on the verge of signing a 10-year lease extension on Giants Stadium that would allow them to stay in New Jersey through the year 2018. The Jets could still get out of their Jersey lease if the New York stadium came through, but it'd make for a nifty nonexistent Plan B.

Miami-Dade County has extended its memorandum of understanding with the Florida Marlins, keeping their stadium plan on life support, if nothing else. And nothing else appears to be what they've got up their sleeve: Neither the city nor the county nor the team has shown any interest in covering the now-$45 million funding gap, and the governor hasn't shown any interest in recalling the legislature for a special session to reconsider a state subsidy for the project. Which leaves a stalemate. (They're going around.)

Meanwhile, even pro-stadium electeds in Florida didn't sound too happy with yesterday's nastygram from MLB COO Bob DuPuy threatening unspecified consequences if a stadium deal isn't approved by June 9. From the Miami Herald:

The Minnesota Twins stadium bill cleared another hurdle last night, passing the House local government committee on a 12-7 vote. As the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes, this sets up the $478 million stadium plan for "what promises to be its toughest hurdle - the Taxes Committee, headed by an outspoken critic of stadium public subsidies, Rep. Phil Krinkie."

Yesterday's committee meeting did tack on a couple of amendments, but they're relatively toothless. If owner Carl Pohlad sells the Twins, he must give first consideration to selling to a community ownership corporation; given that Major League Baseball has consistently barred this sort of ownership structure, you can imagine how long Pohlad would consider this for. The other amendment requires Pohlad to kick back 18% of his sale price to the state stadium authority if he sells the team immediately, scaling back to zero by year ten of the new stadium - something that had been previously reported was already in the bill.

Lawmakers did manage, though, to have more than ten hours of debate that left even their own colleagues bored out of their skulls. And for the true believers, this stadium bill remains as vital as, well, all the ones that went before it. "If we are going to maintain Major League Baseball in Minnesota, we need to pass this bill," declared state Rep. Debra Hilstrom, who apparently doesn't know her Aesop.

So reset your Jets stadium-watch calendar to June 22, which is the next time Pataki, Silver, and Bruno's flunky get together as the Public Authorities Control Board that gets to give this stadium the thumbs-up or -down. In the meantime, you can enjoy perusing photos of the dueling stadium rallies.

MLB designated threatmonger Bob DuPuy is rattling sabers in Florida again, sending a letter to Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria and to Miami elected officials setting a June 9 deadline for a stadium-financing pact to be in place. "Or else ... what, exactly?" writes the Miami Herald. "Baseball execs aren't saying." The Miami Herald clearly knows its Aesop.

Meanwhile, DuPuy's letter also places the funding gap for the proposed $420 million stadium at $45 million, up from $30 million last week; according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, this is "because officials say they expect the cost of property east of the Orange Bowl to exceed expectations." Which raises the question of what, exactly, the Marlins planned to do if their $30 million state-subsidy request had been approved last week - look for an extra $15 million under the sofa cushions?

The Minnesota Twins stadium bill didn't pass the House Local Government Committee last night after all, with the committee adjourning at midnight and deciding to continue its debate today. (Or, as the unbiased reporters at MLB.com put it, the bill was "stymied by legislative gridlock.") The committee did vote 10-9 to reject a proposed amendment that would have held Hennepin County to the requirement that it hold a voter referendum before raising sales taxes to fund a stadium.

It's all but certain now that Wednesday's scheduled vote of the New York Public Authorities Control Board on the Jets stadium will be postponed until next month, either by Gov. George Pataki or by state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver; all that's left is for Pataki to remember where he put the blame. Yesterday, Pataki's office declared that the governor won't postpone the vote because Silver hadn't put his request for a postponement in writing; Silver's office replied that previous postponement requests at PACB meetings have always been verbal, and the speaker wasn't about to change that now. Albany observers called it the biggest political catfight since Marcia Cross and Teri Hatcher almost came to blows over civil-service reform.

As Hennepin County's Twins stadium bill wends its way through the Minnesota state legislature, it's already managed to piss off some other Minnesotans: Namely, other neighboring counties, who don't see why Hennepin should get to duck a 1999 law requiring referenda for sales-tax increases when they can't. (Note that this is a separate issue from the one noted previously, wherein other counties are complaining that they have to get the legislature's approval for any tax increases.) Seventy-one percent of Hennepin County residents favor a referendum, and 58% say they'd vote against a stadium-funding proposal.

Meanwhile, elected officials within Hennepin County don't seem all that thrilled with the stadium bill either: Most of the Minneapolis city delegation opposes it, and two city councilors have introduced a resolution condemning it, with one, Green Party councilmember Dean Zimmermann, calling it "the most blatant example of corporate welfare that I've seen since George Bush invaded Iraq to fill the pockets of Halliburton."

As for the bill itself, it looks set to pass another House committee tonight, in the rush to get it to the floor before the legislative session ends a week from tonight. Interestingly, this appears to violate the legislature's own rules on committee deadlines, but hey, you can't build a stadium without breaking a few laws.

Still playing catch-up here from my trip to Baltimore to hear tales of corporate-subsidy hijinks from all corners of the country. (And play some Whack-A-Mole.) We'll go back to our regular news schedule tomorrow, but in the meantime, here's one last helping of mini-briefs:

There's a bunch more news today, but I'm headed out of town to the Good Jobs First conference, so abbreviated reports will have to suffice for now:

The New York Jets are turning up the heat on the state legislature for approval of their $2.2 billion stadium plan, sending Joe Namath and the Rev. Al Sharpton to talk up how cool the Super Bowl is and how the stadium would create jobs, respectively. (The Jets are really pushing the jobs angle hard, with a new website voteforjobs.com; for fun, try finding on that site the information that even by the Jets' own numbers, a stadium would cost 45 times more per job created than simply funding state job-training programs.)

If the goal was to sway state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and state senate leader Joe Bruno - the two men who, as we've discussed previously, have veto power over the project - it seems the QB and the rev might as well have stayed home. "At this point, [the stadium] doesn't make sense to me," Silver told the New York Times. To the Daily News, Silver added that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has "invested so much, it's why the thing [stays] on the radar screen, plain and simple. ... The mayor of the City of New York thinks it's very important for the city. That's why it's difficult to reject it out of hand on the merits. ... The fact that the mayor is so out for it makes it a very difficult decision." Bruno, who's mostly stayed in the background on the stadium issue, said he plans to take a "wait and see" approach - but reiterated that he would want equal spending on projects upstate, which could be a problem, since the state already passed a budget without any such quid pro quo items. (And without any funds for the Jets stadium, for that matter, though there could be ways around that.)

The likely scenario now: The Public Authorities Control Board puts off a stadium vote at its May 16 meeting, citing pending lawsuits over the sale of land for the stadium. If the ruling in those cases, expected June 2, goes in favor of the Jets, that would leave one more PACB meeting in mid-June before the International Olympic Committee picks a 2012 Olympic host in early July.

Of course, the losing parties in the lawsuits will likely appeal, so the court cases would still be pending in June either way. Still, all signs are for a June showdown between the Jets and the state pols over what's now a five-year-old stadium battle. Maybe next time the Jets will bring Emerson Boozer to sign autographs.

And in today's weird-but-true-according-to-anonymous-sources report, the New York Post is reporting that New York Gov. George Pataki is threatening to hold up the Jets' stadium plans unless the NYPD backs off of its demands for a redesign of the Freedom Tower planned for the World Trade Center site. Writes the Post's impeccably-named Fredric U. Dicker:

This would be an awfully weak threat, of course, given that the elected officials who control the other two votes on the PACB - state senate leader Joe Bruno and assembly speaker Sheldon Silver - have already indicated they'd table any stadium vote at the board's May meeting, which either of them can do with or without Pataki's permission. But, hey, it was in the Post, so it must be true, right?

The Minnesota Twins bill moves to the state legislature this week, but it has an expiration date: The legislative session ends two weeks from today, and lawmakers still to pass a budget, which might not leave time to deal with the stadium bill. (Or to look at it another way, it could give legislators an easy way to duck the issue until next year. Or still a third way, to vote on it really fast without much public debate.) State Rep. Brad Finstad, the lead sponsor of the bill in the state house, explained it to MLB.com this way:

Both Marlins execs and MLB officials were appropriately coy about any move threats: MLB COO Bob DuPuy proclaimed that "we will continue to work with the Marlins to try to keep major-league baseball in South Florida," while Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria would say only: "We will now review our options and will not comment further until this review is completed." This promptly made headlines, even though it's the exact same thing the Marlins and the league said last fall.

Vegas' dim stadium prospects notwithstanding, MLB seems eager to talk up Sin City as the destination-du-jour for the Marlins, and likely for any teams eager to scare their home towns into coughing up cash for new stadiums. This is the role that Tampa Bay filled for MLB in the 1980s and early '90s, when at least five different teams threatened to move to Florida's Gulf Coast (if you're scoring at home: the White Sox, Indians, Rangers, Mariners, Giants and probably a couple of others I've forgotten) as part of stadium-blackmail deals. But ever since the Giants' move was blocked by MLB, prompting a lawsuit from the state of Florida and the subsequent creation of the Devil Rays to make the lawyers go away, MLB teams have lacked a prominent move-threat target, so they're no doubt thrilled to have a city happy to play that role - and this time with showgirls!

The Florida Marlins stadium-subsidy bill is dead, according to state senate president Tom Lee. (Who would know, since it's his chamber that has yet to vote on it.) "This bill just didn't have the support of the Florida Senate," declared Lee as the legislative session entered its final day. "It will not pass."

With the state once again declining to kick in $30 million in sales-tax rebates for the stadium, it's likely to be back to the drawing board for the Marlins and their political allies. On the one hand, $30 million doesn't seem like a huge hurdle for a $420 million stadium (the team and city and county have agreed to roughly go halfsies on the rest). On the other, that was the case last year, too, and nobody came running up in the 12 months since to offer to fill in the gap.

"The Marlins are going to be in Miami one way or another," Miami Mayor Manny Diaz told the Miami Herald yesterday. "If our state representatives can't see the big picture, then we'll have to do things on our own." What, and give up show business?

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority has agreed to put off its sale of land for a Jets stadium until June 2, the date that a state judge plans to rule on lawsuits against the sale. (Yesterday's court hearing was apparently for all three anti-stadium suits, not just one as was initially reported.) Madison Square Garden also must post a $35 million bond against possible damages if the Jets and MTA successfully defend their case, then claim that they suffered monetary losses because of the delay.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has caught Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office in ... let's call it a contradiction, over the amount of City Hall time and energy the Jets stadium battle is taking up. "I think this notion that we're too busy somehow to focus on Lower Manhattan is unfounded," deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff told the Times this week, saying of the stadium: "I spend a relatively small percentage of my time on it; the mayor spends a tiny percentage of his time on it." In a letter to the city conflicts of interest board in January, meanwhile, Bloomberg wrote that the stadium "is far and away the most important land use initiative of my administration. As such, planning for the project occupies a substantial amount of my time and discussions with numerous high-level members of my administration." Shh - don't tell the voters.

A group of rural Minnesota legislators have thrown a twist into the debate over the $478 million Twins stadium plan: They'll vote for the Hennepin County sales-tax hike that would fund the park, they say, but only if the legislature first passes a law allowing their own home counties to raise sales taxes without going to the state for approval. It's unclear if this quid pro quo will fly - state legislative leaders seemed cool to tying the two issues together - but the gambit could play a major role in the fate of the stadium bill, especially in the state house, where a tighter vote is expected than in the Senate.

The Twins debate is shaping up as a battle between Minneapolis-area legislators and those from the rest of the state - with the city representatives overwhelmingly opposing the stadium bill, at least unless a voter referendum is included. A newly formed group called Citizens for a Stadium Tax Referendum - they don't appear to have a website yet, but those interested can e-mail organizer John Knight - is lobbying state legislators and Hennepin County city officials to press for a referendum on the plan.

Finally, I have a new article up at Baseball Prospectus on the Twins and Florida Marlins stadium proposals; you'll need to be a BP subscriber to read it, though. (It was also written before today's latest Twins news, when the prospects for a Minnesota stadium looked a bit dimmer, so adjust your conclusions accordingly.)

Much excitement from north of the border this week, with one Canadian team backing out of a new-stadium plan, and another launching one.

The Florida Marlins brought in Gov. Jeb Bush's former business partner to lobby for their $30 million stadium subsidy bill yesterday, but it still seems unlikely to go to a state senate vote before the legislative session ends on Friday. To rush the bill onto the floor would require a two-thirds vote of the senate, and most estimates are that less than half the senate is in favor of the bill.

After seven hours of public testimony, including former Minnesota Twins first baseman Kent Hrbek and local residents bearing signs reading "Referendum - Yes" and "Let Us Vote," the Hennepin County commission voted exactly as expected yesterday: 4 to 3 in favor of funding a Twins stadium with a county sales-tax increase. The measure will now go to the state legislature, where Twins stadium bills traditionally go to die.

Those shouting into the wind before the vote included both supporters of the plan. One local teacher had his kids bring jars with three pennies in them to represent the "three cents on a $20 purchase" sales tax hike. (Presumably he wasn't an economics teacher, or he'd have had them bring wads of twenties.) Minneapolis sports economist Kenneth Zapp, meanwhile, described the deal as a giveaway, noting: "For about 40 percent of what you propose to spend, you could buy the team."

As you may have noticed, there's now a large glass jar over there ---->, asking you for your hard-earned dollars. What's going on is this: When this site first started, it was envisioned as a mere adjunct to the book Field of Schemes, providing occasional updates on stadium controversies across North America.

Since then, however, fieldofschemes.com has grown into a full-fledged news site of its own, providing updates (in the memorable words of the New Yorker, which I've since tried to live up to) "almost every day - and sometimes several times each day." Fieldofschemes.com now breaks news stories, conducts interviews with sports-subsidy experts and key newsmakers, does media criticism of papers that are missing the story - well, if you read the site regularly, I'm preaching to the converted.

The point is that all this takes more and more of my time, not to mention the cost of hosting what's becoming an increasingly high-volume site. (Common Courage Press stopped underwriting the site's ISP costs several years ago.) So I'm asking you to dip into your pockets and chip in a bit towards helping make this website, if not self-sustaining, at least not a massive money pit.

As far as donating, you have two options. One is to just send a cash donation, via PayPal. This will earn you the warm gratitude that comes from knowing every penny you spend goes to support this site, as well as being thanked by name on the website, if you so choose. (If you feel that the information at fieldofschemes.com is worth $10 a year to you, say, you might send in $10, and plan on doing the same a year from now.)

If you prefer to get something tangible for your money, you can buy stuff instead, which helps the site less (Common Courage Press and CafePress take a large cut), but does get you some swag for your troubles. And if you're purchasing Field of Schemes merchandise as a gift - something that's highly encouraged, by the way - then it also helps spread the gospel of this website and the fight against stadium swindles, so you earn some good karma as well.

In any event, all donations or purchases are strictly voluntary - the site will always remain free to all, and I promise not to threaten to move to another internet if my funding demands aren't met. But if everyone just chips in a small amount - even $10 or less apiece - it would go a long way toward helping keep this site going, and thriving, for as long as there are stadium-grubbers on the loose.

Dueling headlines on Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak's role in the Minnesota Twins stadium battle: Sid Hartman's Sunday column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Rybak supports plan for stadium." Today's St. Paul Pioneer Press: "Rybak quiet in stadium debate; Observers think he's trying to keep ballpark foes' support by ducking issue."

The stories aren't quite as contradictory as they at first sound. Hartman, who's seemingly been stumping for a new Twins stadium since Johan Santana was in diapers, cites a radio interview where Mayor Rybak said: "I support the plan. I think it's what we set out to do 18 months ago. I think the county board should pass it. If I was sitting on the county board, I would vote for it. And I think it should be sent over to the Capitol." The Pioneer Press story, meanwhile, notes that while Rybak says he'd support the stadium, he doesn't want anyone to, you know, not vote for him because of it: "I'm on the phone every night with delegates and telling them this should not be an issue in the mayor's race. I'm as out front as anybody on this."

A new poll shows the reason for Rybak's fence-straddling: two-thirds of Minnesotans oppose using public money for a new Twins stadium. (Though strangely, only 54% oppose the current stadium plan, which makes one wonder if the others have actually read the proposal.) Furthermore, 77% want there to be a voter referendum on the county sales tax hike that would fund the new stadium; the Twins, needless to say, don't want voters voting on the plan, not if they're going to vote like this.

LATE NOTE: FoS reader Maury Brown of the SABR Business of Baseball Committee notes that there's yet another potential stumbling block for the Twins stadium plan: Nobody's yet negotiated a sale price with the owners of the land where the stadium would be built. The landowners have long been proponents of a Twins stadium on their site, so it probably won't be a huge obstacle, but it is one more unknown cost to toss into the stadium-debate hopper.

One of the basic principles of media analysis is "framing": How does an article lay out the basic parameters of a story, subtly steering readers toward seeing it in a certain way?

It's not quite "When did Jason Giambi stop beating his wife?" but it's close. The A's "need" for a new stadium - despite having won the division title three of the last five years and turning a nice annual profit - is presented as a given, and a link between new stadiums and economic development is strongly suggested. This despite the fact that - several paragraphs in - Stanford economist Roger Noll throws several buckets of cold water on that notion:

East Bay Business Times reporter Eric Lai does drop a few hints as to how Wolff might be thinking of paying for his dream stadium, but these only rise to the level of rumor, or perhaps trial balloon. Wolff, writes Lai, has "said the A's could foot about $100 million of a stadium's cost" and "hinted he could raise the rest from investors." He then drops any questions about private funding to mention such public sources as an airport rental-car tax, and tax-increment financing, which he calls "a more promising way to finance the stadium without pinching local taxpayers." Don't even get me started.

Thanks to Andrew Pate, Trevor Mills, Mason Brown, Brian Borawski, Diane Firstman, Josh Safran, Matthew J. Wiegand, Save Fenway Park!, the NYC 20-Never Campaign, and all our anonymous donors for their generous help in making this website possible. Drops of water turn the mill...