September 30, 2005
K.C. to fund Chiefs, stiff Royals?
A member of the Jackson County team working on new lease proposals for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals has let slip that negotiators are considering a referendum next year to approve $300 million in renovations to the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium, and just $40 million for the Royals' Kauffman Stadium. That would give the Chiefs everything they asked for, and the Royals a mere fraction of their $200 million renovation request.
Royals execs, as you might imagine, were less than thrilled by the statements of county negotiator Thomas Stewart, but it actually makes some sense: NFL teams, by virtue of their lucrative national TV contract, are far easier to move than MLB franchises, which must rely on local TV revenue for income; while Kansas City is one of the smallest current baseball markets, other options such as Portland, Oregon would be even smaller. [Ed. note: Actually not so much, as several readers point out.] (And in any case Royals owner David Glass has insisted the team won't leave town.) Stewart also indicated that it helps that Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt has offered to pay $100 million toward stadium upgrades, while Glass offered to kick in just $20 million in his own megabucks; this could yet be just the opening salvo in a bitter three-way negotiation the likes of which hasn't been seen since, well, yesterday.
Jets, Giants strike Jersey stadium deal
It's official: The New York Jets and Giants have signed an agreement to share an $800 million stadium to be built in the New Jersey Meadowlands. The announcement, made yesterday, finally puts a stake through the heart of five years of talk of the Jets moving to a city-subsidized stadium in New York City.
Under the terms of the deal, the two teams will be responsible for all construction costs of the stadium; NFL rules allow them to apply for as much as $300 million in league funds to help out. The state of New Jersey will kick in 75 acres of free land for the stadium complex, and 40 acres for new practice facilities for the two teams, plus $30 million for road improvements and $120 million to pay off existing debt on Giants Stadium, which would be demolished. Previous reports had the Giants paying the state $6.3 million a year in rent, which would at least defray some of the costs; I've been unable to ascertain what the rent will be in a two-team stadium, or whether the state will share in such things as naming-rights proceeds or concessions and parking.
There has been talk of adding a $200 million retractable roof so that the stadium can play host to Super Bowls, but that seems unlikely now, since the Jets and Giants would gain little from it, and New Jersey Gov. Richard Codey insisted yesterday: "The current design is roof-ready, but the state will not pay one penny for it." New Jersey sports authority chief George Zoffinger, who had criticized the Giants deal as too costly for the state, said yesterday that a roof could allow the state to bring in moneymaking events like the NCAA Final Four - can't argue with that - but that it's too expensive for the state to pay for - or that - and concluded that there could yet be a coming battle between the state and the teams over the roof issue. But then, New Jersey's greatest sage could have told you that.
September 29, 2005
Who built BUILD?
Seemingly from the moment that developer Bruce Ratner announced his plans to move the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn, his main community ally has been Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development, or BUILD. (Okay, ACORN got all smoochy with him, but that was later.) The question most Brooklynites have had on their minds since then: Who the heck is BUILD, and where did they come from?
The answer, apparently, is out of Ratner's pocketbook. The Daily News' Juan Gonzalez reports today that BUILD "reported to the IRS in January that virtually all its $5 million budget for 2005 and 2006 was coming from Forest City Ratner," the Nets owner's development company. BUILD COO Marie Louis, while insisting that her group is a "grass-roots organization," didn't seem to dispute the fact that its only source of income is the developer it was supposedly formed to butt heads with: The $5 million, she said, is still being negotiated with Ratner, and until then none of the group's staff is drawing a salary. In the meantime, BUILD will have to make do with its new offices in a Ratner-owned building right next door to anti-arena activist Dan Goldstein's apartment.
Jets, Giants deal on again?
It's been a rollercoaster ride of a week for New Jersey's plans for a combined New York Jets/Giants stadium, coming into today's state-imposed deadline for a deal. Yesterday, word was that the talks were going nowhere, that the Jets were looking hard at building in Queens instead, and that Gov. Richard Codey was threatening to go it alone with the Giants and cut the Jets out of the deal. If that was all just last-minute posturing, apparently it worked: Codey now says the two sides have worked out most of their differences, with the Jets dropping requests for development rights to nearby state land and for their sales taxes to count as rent payments - man, would that have been a bad idea - while the Giants agreed to rework their project design in consultation with the Jets and the NFL. Talks could presumably still break down again, but it's looking more and more likely that New York's two football teams will be sharing a New Jersey home for the foreseeable future.
September 26, 2005
D.C. land costs keep rising
The lawsuit to block land taking for a Washington Nationals stadium may have been tossed - sorry for neglecting to mention that at the time, incidentally - but there'll still be plenty of work for D.C. lawyers. According to eminent domain law, landowners who don't like the district's offer for their land can't say no, but they can sue for a bigger award - and that's just what they're doing, in bunches. "North of my property, things are selling for $350 to $400 per square foot," but the city offered only $188 per square foot for her art studio, local property owner Patricia Ghiglino told the Washington Post. "The city's offer is not fair compensation." One likely key to the cases is how the court rules on the reasons for skyrocketing land values in the Navy Yard area - eminent domain law allows the city to disregard any increase in land values from the stadium project, but locals insist that values were on the rise anyway.
Even more interesting is that the latest batch of city offers totals $97 million, according to the Post - $20 million more than the previous estimate, which had already pushed the estimated stadium cost within $4 million of its legal limit. If my math is right, that means that the stadium budget is already $16 million over the "trigger" amount that's supposed to halt construction while the council seeks a cheaper site. But surely if this were the case, someone in the D.C. council would have noticed first, right? Right?
Special session in MN still in doubt
With three stadium proposals now on the table - Twins, Vikings and University of Minnesota, for those scoring at home - the popular response by Minnesota state legislators seems to be to close their eyes and hope the whole mess goes away. At a recent legislative meeting, none of the six legislators present backed a special session to tackle stadium issues before next spring, with Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba insisting: "If the governor calls us back, I think those of us in Greater Minnesota should refuse to come, and deny him a quorum!" (Session moderator Lori Sturdevant of the Minneapolis Star Tribune huffed that "surely after five terms, Otremba knows that her election certificate does not oblige her attendance only when the business before the Legislature is to her liking," but clearly Sturdevant has never been to Texas.)
Even House Speaker Steve Sviggum, who was the guy who called for a special session in the first place, now says: "We should try to move ahead incrementally, maybe Gophers and Twins first, and the Vikings in two years. Otherwise they all die under their own weight. I'm not saying I'm against a Vikings stadium, but they're a step too far, as far as public financing burden." In other words: Sit down and shut up, Zygi, before you ruin it for everybody!
September 24, 2005
Follow the money, Louisville edition
The Louisville Arena Task Force financing committee, an appointed body made up of local and state officials, has proposed a financing plan for a new $299 million basketball arena that, they say, could end up paying for itself.
Sounds intriguing, no? Especially considering that Louisville has no pro basketball franchise, and would have to rely on the University of Louisville as its anchor tenant. So how would the public earn back its money?
The answer is: It depends what you mean by "earn back." The task force anticipates that arena bonds would cost between $25 million and $29 million a year to pay off, while the arena would bring in $34 million in annual revenues. But that includes $15 million a year in rebated state and local taxes - in other words, the government would kick back tax money, then let the arena managers count it as "new revenue" when they paid would they would have anyway. Take out this "tax increment" - I hope I've explained well enough before why TIFs are bogus - and the Louisville arena promises to be a money-loser, as is usually the case.
NJ gov candidate: Stop Devils arena
Doug Forrester, the Republican candidate for governor of New Jersey, has called for an immediate halt to construction of a New Jersey Devils arena in Newark, to give time for the state inspector general to conduct an audit of the project. (The Devils arena, which has seemingly been in the works forever, is scheduled for an October 3 groundbreaking.) A spokesperson for Democratic candidate Jon Corzine, who leads in the polls, replied that Corzine "denounces the use of $210 million" in public money on the arena, but didn't echo Forrester's call to halt the project.
Jets play the Queens card
Whether it's serious or just a negotiating ploy is anybody's guess, but the New York Jets have notified the NFL that they're looking into building a $1.35 billion stadium in Queens' Flushing Meadows Park in lieu of negotiating to share a new stadium in New Jersey with the Giants. The New York Times' Charles Bagli reports that New Jersey officials are "infuriated" by the Jets' announcement, which came just one week before a state-imposed deadline for a stadium deal.
We also have a number for the Jets' subsidy demand for a Queens stadium: $300 million for "road work, parkland and other infrastructure projects." And that number could go even higher if the Jets want similar tax breaks and rent subsidies to what the Mets and Yankees are seeking.
While Queens Borough President Helen Marshall has backed the Jets plan, local community leaders are strongly opposed, with Queens Civic Congress president Sean Walsh calling it "absurd" to take public parkland for a private project. Gosh, where have we heard that before?
September 23, 2005
What we need is a Super-duper-dome!
It's official - now I've heard everything:
MIAMI (Reuters) - Local officials are proposing that south Florida governments build a super-strong baseball stadium for the Florida Marlins that could double as a shelter during major hurricanes.The stadium, as envisioned, would be able to withstand storms as strong as Hurricane Rita, now bearing down on Texas, and equipped to provide lodging and meals for tens of thousands of people for 10 days or longer.Funded with private and tax money, the proposed domed stadium should be located centrally in south Florida and would draw broader political support than a tottering campaign to build a Marlins stadium in Miami, according to Mayor Eric Hersh and City Manager John Flint of Weston, Florida.
According to the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, the Weston duo will also "suggest President George Bush consider the concept nationally to help sports teams fund venues while avoiding future problems similar to what happened during and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans." Because surely there's nothing else FEMA should be better spending our tax money on.
September 22, 2005
OK okays Hornets pay-to-play
The New Orleans Hornets have announced that with their home city uninhabitable, they'll play 35 home games in Oklahoma City this season (their other six will be played in Baton Rouge). Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett called the move, which the Hornets have an option to renew for the following season, "a validation" of the city's MAPS program, which instituted a 1% sales-tax hike to pay for an NBA-quality arena, convention center, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Actually, though, it's even more a validation of the principle of throwing good money after bad. To lure the city's first big-league franchise - the publicly funded Ford Center has been making do with the Blazers minor-league hockey team as its only tenant - the city council agreed to let the Hornets play there rent-free. On top of that, the city will pay all arena operations, housing, office, training-camp costs, and will reimburse the Hornets up to $10 million if team revenues fall short of their $40 million goal - which is five percent more than the team made last year, when it actually had a real home.
"I think it's real dangerous when we start guaranteeing revenues for the NBA," City Manager Jim Couch told the Oklahoman newspaper. "On the other hand, this is a unique deal" because Oklahoma City "hasn't proven itself at all." ("Did I mention that we suck?" Couch didn't go on to add. "I mean, fer chrissakes, we're Oklahoma City - who would want to play here?") Mayor Cornett, meanwhile, indicated that he agreed to subsidize the Hornets' revenues because, in the words of the Oklahoman, "the Hornets are missing out on income the team normally would get from a permanent host city." In other words, not only did OKC officials feel they needed to outbid other prospective temporary host cities like Louisville and Las Vegas, they wanted to make sure they outbid a city that doesn't exist anymore.
Tallying up the Vikings' pillage
The St. Paul Pioneer Press provides some clarification on the latest Minnesota Vikings stadium proposal: It would cost a total of $790 million, $510 million of which would be paid for by taxpayers ($280 million from an Anoka County sales-tax surcharge, $115 million in kickbacks of existing sales taxes, and $115 million in state cash). As expected, state legislators aren't exactly thrilled about being stuck with a large share of the tab - the Twins, you'll recall, were smart enough to leave the state treasury out of their proposal - with house speaker Steve Sviggum saying, "My initial reaction is that's a lot of money. Does that mean I've got to go to Worthington and say 'Guys, the reason you're not getting Highway 60 is because of stadium issues'?" Sviggum said he'll oppose including the Vikings in any special session to discuss new stadiums for the Twins and University of Minnesota - something that's growing unlikely in any case.
Machine politics
I don't know who's writing the headlines over at the Indianapolis Star, but I still want some of what they're smoking. Today's entry is "City hopes new stadium is start of economic machine," which sits atop an article that features the following highlights:
The project will cost nearly $1 billion and is expected to generate nearly $2.25 billion in revenue and 4,200 permanent jobs over a 10-year period, said Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson.The city hopes to regularly host the NCAA men's basketball Final Four and possibly a Super Bowl after 2010, said [NCAA President Myles] Brand, who praised the bi-partisan political leadership."I promise I will throw a lot of touchdowns in the new stadium," [Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton] Manning told the crowd of 1,500. Then Manning grabbed a shovel and joined five other dignitaries in digging dirt.
Things not noted in the article: Where Peterson got that $2.25 billion revenue figure; that $1 billion to create 4,200 jobs would come to $238,000 per job, which is truly dismal; and that Indianapolis already regularly hosts the Final Four. Apparently digging dirt is only for quarterbacks in Indianapolis, not newspaper reporters.
September 20, 2005
Zygi asks for $630M or so
Reason #437 not to believe everything you read: The headline says "Vikings to get new stadium," but the fine print is considerably less certain. What Vikes owner Zygi Wilf has is a financing plan, and it's one that would require even more public money than the team's last one: $400 million in stadium costs to be paid by a 0.75% Anoka County sales-tax hike, plus $115 million in new roads to be funded by the regular state sales-tax money collected at the stadium. (Yes, that's a TIF, for those of you who've been following along.) Or maybe the TIF would actually be more like $200 million. Oh, and did I forget to mention the $115 million retractable roof?
Minnesota political leaders haven't publicly responded yet, likely because they're still coughing and sputtering, but it seems unlike that Zygi will get his way when a similar Twins plan, only without the state money, currently remains in legislative limbo. For his part, Wilf gave this sales pitch: "Yes, the Vikings are privately owned, but as I have found, it's something that we have to protect. It's part of our fiber." This is perhaps not the image he was looking for.
September 15, 2005
Giants hope to buy time
What'd I tell you about deadlines? With today the drop-dead date for the New York Giants and the state of New Jersey to finalize plans for a new stadium, team owners are expected to submit a revised plan today, with which, according to Newsday, they "hope they can buy more time to resolve the matters." No details yet on what the revisions will look like, but the "matters" still unresolved include negotiating game-day parking and traffic with the Xanadu entertainment complex going up nearby, and figuring out what role, if any, the Jets will play. More on this as it becomes available.
September 14, 2005
Nets win MTA land
Ending one phase of a now two-year-long battle, New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner has gotten the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's nod to develop the Brooklyn rail yards where he hopes to build a basketball arena, office and residential towers, and, apparently, an homage to 9/11. Ratner's $100 million bid was judged to have beaten out a $150 million bid from rival developer Extell, not to mention the MTA's own $214 million appraisal of the property - apparently it was Backwards Day at the MTA.
The Associated Press got some things backwards in its story, as well: Not only does Ratner still need to "wait for environmental approvals and a vote by the state's Public Authorities Control Board," as the AP reports, but $200 million in state and city subsidies still must be approved by the legislature and city council, unless Mayor Michael Bloomberg finds some more money under the sofa cushions. And lastly, the proposed Nets arena site is not where the Brooklyn Dodgers almost built a ballpark, already! (That was across the street, where a Ratner mall now stands.) Listen, AP, don't make me go all Snopes on your ass...
Marlins gap grows
If the Twins stadium plan is on life support, the Florida Marlins should be calling for last rites. Miami-Dade county manager George Burgess says he's "not optimistic" about moving forward with plans for a $400-million-plus stadium next to the Orange Bowl, as the funding gap has increased from $30 million to $100 million, the team is "reluctant to further expend money," and the county has "reached the limits of our ability to contribute in a responsible manner to this project." Concurred county commission chair Joe Martinez: "It looks bleak and there has to come a time where we have to say, we're not going to continue. Instead of closing up the financial gap, it's getting worse all the time."
Among the dwindling options for closing the gap: Scrapping the planned retractable roof (the Marlins and MLB insist they need one, though apparently not enough to actually pay for it themselves), or passing a one-year sales-tax hike to raise the additional money - though that likely couldn't be put on the ballot until November 2006, and even then it's not like South Florida voters are crazy about the idea.
No more "Gettin' Zygi" headlines, I promise
With hopes dimming of a special Minnesota legislative session to fund stadiums for the Twins, Vikings, and University of Minnesota - Gov. Tim Pawlenty seems to think it'd be better to focus on that hurricane thing - stadium backers are turning up the heat. Today's contestant: Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, who said that all three stadiums were necessary "projects that move the community forward." Other supporters of a special session include state senate majority leader Dean Johnson and Goldy Gopher.
Hennepin County commissioner Mike Opat, architect of the Twins' "three-cents-on-every-20-dollars" plan, is also pushing for a quick resolution, telling the Star Trib: "The economics are time-sensitive - steel prices, oil prices, construction, inflation. That's going to change." Normally I'd just dismiss this as the typical hurry-up offense that stadium boosters go into at lobbying time, Opat may have a point here: Not only are prices on oil and steel (much of the latter is imported through New Orleans) expected to rise in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but it's hard to imagine that the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast won't suck up construction materials and workers for some time to come, driving up costs industrywide. It's something to watch, not just for Minnesota, but for any city mulling stadium spending.
K.C. split on stadium tax
A telephone poll of "frequent voters" in Missouri's Jackson County found that a slim majority, 51-45%, favors a 0.375% sales tax hike to pay for $450 million in renovations to the Chiefs' and Royals' stadiums. (Since the poll's margin of error was 5%, it's actually a statistical dead heat.) Other poll findings include that 57% of respondents said taxpayers are responsible for maintaining the stadiums - apparently people in Jackson County can read the newspaper - but according to the Kansas City Star, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, which commissioned the poll, "declined to release the entire survey," saying only the half the results it released were "important."
September 13, 2005
More bad news for N.O.: Hornets coming back
Some New Orleans residents might be allowed to return next week, but the city's sports teams won't be following quite so fast. The Saints have already announced they'll split home games this season between San Antonio and Baton Rouge, while awaiting repairs to the Superdome; estimates are the dome will require $50 to $100 million in repairs, leading to renewed speculation that the city would instead demolish it and build a new one. The Hornets, meanwhile, could return to the New Orleans Arena by February, assuming there's enough people living there to watch them.
And in other stadium-related hurricane recovery news, our pals at the Heritage Foundation have included in their wish list for the rebuilding of New Orleans that the feds "repeal or waive restrictive environmental regulations that hamper rebuilding a broad array of infrastructure from refineries to roads and stadiums." Then they go on to say that the Clean Water Act was responsible for Katrina's devastation. And here I thought it was the decline of piracy...
September 12, 2005
MSG V redux?
Just three months after announcing plans to renovate Madison Square Garden, building owner Cablevision (which also owns the Knicks, Rangers and Liberty) is now in talks with developers about incorporating a new Garden into the rebuilt Farley Post Office across the street, while tearing down the old one - the fourth such building by that name, if you're keeping count - to make way for new office towers. (If you think you've heard this idea before, you have.) Unanswered questions include how much Cablevision would pay for the land, whether there's enough room within the historic post office building's walls to construct a modern sports arena, and just why anybody would name a post office after Farley.
Miami pol: Raze Orange Bowl? No? Lemme see what else I got...
Miami City Manager Joe Arriola, no doubt frustrated that his attempts to arrange a new home for the Marlins have gone nowhere, has proposed a new plan: Tear down the Orange Bowl, move the University of Miami's football games to Dolphins Stadium, and build a new baseball stadium on the Orange Bowl site. Even Arriola apparently had trouble keeping a straight face at this one, telling local reporters: "I get paid to come up with ideas and that's one of the ideas I came up with."
Arriola also said that Marlins president David Samson has begun turning up the heat to get a stadium deal done, saying that the estimated price tag is now up to $425 million. Of course, a year ago it was already $420 million, so if so the cost has actually gone down after accounting for inflation. Sounds like somebody needs to work on his hardball negotiating skills.
Obligatory Hank Williams Jr. reference
The NFL season kicked off yesterday, and appropriately enough, so did the NFL stadium-seeking season:
- The Minnesota Vikings are reportedly on the verge of getting from Anoka County what the Twins got from Hennepin County: the promise of a three-quarters-of-a-percent sales tax to help fund a new stadium. Like the Twins, the Vikes would still need for the state legislature to sign off on the deal; unlike the Twins, they'd also need state money - according to Anoka County board chair Margaret Langfeld, somewhere between $100 million and $240 million worth of it, to build a retractable roof. While admitting a flippable lid would be "pricey," Langfeld insisted that "the state is the big beneficiary if there is a roof on this building. Without a roof, you lose the potential for the huge conferences, the Billy Graham crusade, the Final Four." Isn't this where I came in?
- The New York Giants and New Jersey Gov. Richard Codey are facing a September 15 deadline to finalize plans for a $800 million replacement for Giants Stadium (the team would pay for the building, the state would provide the land), and according to the Newark Star-Ledger, talks don't seem to be going well - "I'm wishing and I'm hoping and I'm praying" for a deal, said Codey last week. Of course, nothing's stopping the two sides from negotiating a new deal after the deadline, but with stadium fan Codey leaving office in January, the clock is likely starting to run out.
- So is San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium really a dump, as Chargers COO for Stadium Grubbing Jim Steeg said last week? Fan opinions differ, while stadium managers say they haven't received any complaints, and such items as broken TVs have been recently replaced.
- The Indianapolis Colts and the state of Indiana have finally reached an agreement to begin construction on the team's new retractable-roofed stadium, after the state essentially caved on demands that the Colts help foot the bill with a $3-a-head ticket tax. State officials now say "they should have enough of a cushion to cover expenses" without the ticket tax; maybe this is why the stadium, which is part of a larger development to expand the city's convention center, is now being described as costing $500 million instead of $687 million like it was last December.
September 10, 2005
The sixth day is for football
A couple of soccer stadium news items this week, so let's get to it:
- When is a subsidy not a subsidy? The Chicago suburb of Bridgeview has approved the sale of $155 million in bonds to build a new soccer-only stadium for the Chicago Fire. But is this really a public cost, or an investment that taxpayers will earn back? Bridgeview Mayor Steve Landek says the bonds will be entirely repaid by the city's share of stadium revenues, including ticket sales, concessions, parking fees and naming rights; other reports, though, have the stadium receiving tax increment financing, which would effectively divert city tax revenue to pay for the project. More on this as the financing details become clearer.
- No sooner had the Canadian Soccer Association selected federally owned Downsview Park as the new site for its stalled Toronto stadium than Toronto Mayor David Miller declared that'd happen over his dead body. Added city councillor Maria Augimeri (York Centre), whose district - okay, riding - includes Downsview: "It's a total shock to me and my constituents. They haven't been consulted on this at all. It's 20,000 extra people coming into a community that doesn't have the infrastructure to handle it. I'd be willing to go to court on this issue, I really would."
September 08, 2005
Net loss or Net gain?
New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner has upped his bid from $50 million to $100 million for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority railyard land in Brooklyn where he wants to build a new basketball arena and housing development. That's still less than the $150 million offered by rival developer Extell, and even more less (more less?) than the $214 million that an MTA appraisal said the land was worth. Nonetheless, reports the New York Times, "the board of the transportation agency could hold a special meeting as soon as Tuesday to approve the deal."
Meanwhile, the city Independent Budget Office issued a report (PDF file here) projecting that, after accounting for $224 million in public subsidies being sought by Ratner, the arena would generate a net fiscal benefit to the city and state of $107 million in present value. The New York Post immediately declared the Nets project to be "a surprising slam dunk for taxpayers."
There are two potential gaps in the IBO study, though, that could easily turn that benefit into a public loss. First of all, the IBO's conclusions result primarily from assumptions of how many current Nets fans would accompany the team from Jersey to Brooklyn, bringing their sales tax dollars with them - assumptions that, according to the IBO report, were provided by Ratner himself. Ratner's figures assume that "about half of those attending Nets games at the Atlantic Yards arena will be from the ranks of those attending now" - a debatable assumption given that it's quite a shlep from New Jersey to Brooklyn, not to mention that the proposed arena would hold 18,000 fans, and the Nets currently average fewer than 15,000 fans per game. Tweak the assumptions to have only 30% of Nets attendance represent new spending instead of 50%, and the arena would be a net loss.
Finally, while the IBO deducts the $224 million in direct cash subsidies (plus sales- and property-tax deductions) that the arena would get from the city and state, the actual public subsidy would be significantly greater - more like $451 million according to my estimates, though that could go down a bit once Ratner's increased bid is taken into account. Needless to say, tacking on an extra $227 million in costs would turn a $107 million windfall into a whole mess of red ink - so don't enter that "slam dunk" in your scorecard just yet.
September 06, 2005
Superdome to be razed?
Maybe this is why Tom Benson is now talking about the Saints staying put in New Orleans. According to CNN.com:
The Louisiana Superdome was so heavily damaged during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath that it likely will have to be torn down, according to a spokesperson for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.Katrina sheared away much of the roof's covering, and rainwater began leaking into the stadium when it was being used as a shelter of last resort for thousands of residents stranded by the storm.
It's conceivable that a new home for the Saints could end up being build with federal disaster recovery funds. If so, let's hope that the feds insist on negotiating a better lease than the state did last time.
California stadium bill: Bark or bite?
Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a series of news reports about a pending California bill that would, in the words of the San Jose Business Journal, "raise millions of dollars for the construction of sports and entertainment venues in California, providing a windfall for communities trying to build such facilities, especially if their voters are not inclined to pay for one." The California Public Performance Facilities Act would give the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank the power to sell bonds to build stadiums and entertainment facilities, potentially providing a way to evade local laws requiring voter approval of sports subsidies.
As end runs go, though, it's less than (sorry, but journalistic metaphor regulations require this) a touchdown. Since the bill would prohibit the use of state funds to pay back the bonds, they'd need to be repaid out of facility revenues - seat licenses, naming rights, etc. But if teams want to pay for stadiums with venue revenues, they can do that right now without voter approval - heck, they could just go to a bank and securitize those future revenue streams, without involving the state at all. So unless there's more to this bill than meets the eye - perhaps "facility revenues" could include payments in lieu of property taxes? - it's likely more smoke than fire.
Saints not to march out just yet?
It looks like New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson may not be using the deaths of thousands as an excuse to move his team - permanently or temporarily - to San Antonio. Team VP Arnold Fielkow, who had said Saturday that Benson was leaning toward a permanent relocation to San Antonio, now says that it's the "collective hope of our organization that the Saints will return to New Orleans as soon as possible"; added team GM Mickey Loomis: "We are still the New Orleans Saints, and our commitment to our city is stronger than ever." Fielkow even promised that Saints ticketholders will be allowed to get refunds if they're unable to attend games this year. It's not quite the promise that the Times-Picayune asked for, but then, it's better than they're doing with their other request.
Chargers: This place is a dump!
With the start of the NFL season, the San Diego Chargers are kicking off their annual campaign for a new stadium. This year's theme: decrepitude! "I'm embarrassed about [Qualcomm Stadium] because it's not clean, and it hasn't been cleaned on a regular basis for a long time," Chargers COO Jim Steeg told the San Diego Business Journal. "The TVs don't work, the power's out, the lights don't work." Steeg didn't indicate if this meant he was also in favor of throwing out the entire state of Louisiana.
September 03, 2005
Louisville mayor pledges arena bucks
The mayor of Louisville, Kentucky has pledged to use city money for one-third of the cost of a $350 million downtown arena. "We can do it without raising taxes, without additional fees," Abramson said on Thursday; a city arena consultant, meanwhile, suggested using either ticket taxes or car rental taxes to pay for construction. Nice to see everybody on the same page.
If you're wondering who would play in the proposed arena, that would be the University of Louisville basketball team, who currently must make do with historic Freedom Hall. There's also been talk of luring an NBA franchise, but so far it's gone nowhere. How long, you think, before someone revives the idea of the Louisville Hornets?
September 02, 2005
They didn't "loot" the team, they "found" it
The New Orleans Saints (and Hornets) are still mulling their options of where to play this season - and possibly for several seasons, if Mary Comerio's dire predictions come true - but San Antonio officials don't believe in leaving anything to chance where bribery will do:
San Antonio officials, meanwhile, are making a concerted push to host the Saints' games all season. City officials have discussed offering the team an incentive package that would include a guarantee that all eight Saints' home game would be sellouts if they play at the Alamodome."We believe that easily can be done," San Antonio City Councilman Chip Haass said. "We would find a way to contractually put something together where a certain portion [of the crowd and gate revenue] was on the private sector."
FoS reader Andrew Ross remarks: "This has got to be the lowest thing I've ever seen in the history of relocating sports franchises." I can't add anything to that.
September 01, 2005
Fork: stuck
The New York Jets have officially notified New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority that they're no longer interested in buying land on Manhattan's West Side for their stadium project, which was effectively killed in June. (Though Reuters calls it the end of a "roughly 10-year-old fight," in fact the plan was first proposed by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani in early 1999.) Local stadium opponents were so excited by the news that they forgot to pay their ISP bill.
