Field of Schemes

April 29, 2006

Weekend update

Once again, it's time for a roundup of stadium and arena news that didn't make the cut for this week's daily posts:

Alex Belth of the excellent Bronx Banter blog has a good overview at SI.com of the ways in which a new Yankees stadium won't measure up to the old one. Included is a quote from me, but hitting the nail most squarely on the head is author Glenn Stout, who summed up the Yankees' objectives thusly: "What they lack are the 'modern' amenities teams want. Today's ballpark is not a place to play baseball - that's completely secondary. It's just a delivery system for food, beverage and memorabilia, and a facility for business - luxury boxes and really expensive seats. The ballplayers are the equivalent of strippers on the stage to get people inside to pay extravagant cover charges and $20 for a light beer."
Pittsburgh Penguins president Ken Sawyer has thrown down another gauntlet on the subject of the team's slots-casino-funded arena plan today, telling a TV interviewer today: "The team will stay here if Isle of Capri [casinos] wins. And if there's no alternative that's viable for this team, then that's the risk the community will take." Under the proposed "Plan B" should another casino developer get the state slots license, the team would pay $4 million a year towards an arena; if Isle of Capri wins, they'd pay nothing.
The city of Los Angeles is set to pitch an $800 million renovation - yeah, you read that right - of the L.A. Coliseum in an attempt to lure the NFL back to town. As to who would pay for it, that's unclear: L.A. officials say it won't be the city, and the Associated Press reports: "City officials hope the NFL will agree to pay for the new stadium." Anaheim is also bidding for an NFL franchise, but aside from providing discounted land, it's unclear what if any funding they're offering.
Las Vegas has backed off on talk of building a new baseball stadium, and is instead thinking of a new basketball arena. Or maybe of luring the San Diego Chargers. Hopefully not to a basketball arena.
On New York City's Staten Island on Thursday, they held a community forum on a proposed NASCAR track and a hockey game broke out. (Click "Eyewitness News Video" for the not-all-that-shocking video, which doesn't include any city councilmembers getting put in a headlock.)

April 28, 2006

Fish trouble in River City

That May 15 deadline for the Florida Marlins to decide on moving to San Antonio has worked out about as well as expected: Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff says he hasn't heard from Marlins execs since then, and that "every day that goes by, I think there is less and less chance of getting anything done." Wolff also canceled an upcoming meeting with the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce to discuss luring the Marlins, explaining, "I don't think there is any reason to meet until we know if this thing is going to go any further."

The dalliance with the River City may have paid off for the Fish, though: The city of Hialeah and Miami-Dade County are now floating the idea of a tax-increment financing district to skim off property taxes from new development and redirect them to pay off a Marlins stadium. I've harped on the pitfalls of TIFs before, so suffice to say this is one battle that San Antonio could end winning by losing.

MN Senate: Let a thousand stadiums bloom

The Minnesota Twins stadium bill abruptly ran into trouble in the state senate last night, with the entry into the debate of one of the only forces powerful enough to sway a legislative body: another sports franchise. Senate tax committee chair Larry Pogemiller, chief senate sponsor of the Twins' $373 million sales-tax subsidy bill, and fellow committee member Steve Kelley threw things into disarray by instead proposing a different funding scheme that would impose a 0.5% sales-tax hike in all seven counties around the Twin Cities - with money going to fund new stadiums for the Twins, the Vikings, and the University of Minnesota football team, along with regional transit projects.

If you're wondering why Twins backers would risk grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, look no further than the Vikings, who were apparently desperate not to miss out on the Minnesota legislature's moment of stadium largesse. "Splitting the Twins' bill and the Vikings' bill kills the Vikings' bill and kills the Vikings' chances this session," Vikings VP Lester Bagley told the tax committee today.

In addition to inspiring the most strained sports-related article lede ever, the prospect of a new tax plan put Twins execs and their backers on edge. Twins president Jerry Bell stold the committee aid that while the team isn't opposed to a Vikings stadium, "you might understand a little bit of nervousness on our part." Meanwhile, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, on his weekly radio show, warned against inserting "poison pill amendments or general tax increases that they know aren't going to be acceptable to me or to many legislators."

The logic of pumping close to a billion dollars in tax revenue into a pair of sports stadiums aside, replacing a one-county tax with a seven-county one is actually a bad idea from an economic perspective, since the "substitution effect" is more acute the wider the area you look at. In other words, while Hennepin County might see a mild economic gain from fans visiting from elsewhere in the state for Twins games (likewise Anoka County for Vikings games), the economic impact across the entire metro area is likely to be minimal, since most fans are from one of those seven counties, and would already be spending their money there anyway. But then, on these grounds, there's really no reason for state to want a Hennepin County tax, either, since if more people drive into Minneapolis for Twins games, it will only end up cannibalizing spending from elsewhere in the state.

Normally I'd make a snide remark here about all this talk of "substitution effects" being beyond the comprehension of elected officials - except that someone who was watching today's hearings just wrote in to inform me that during today's committee debate, state senator Warren Limmer cited me as a source on why stadiums bring limited economic benefits. Only problem is, I haven't been able to find out whether he was using my writing to support an argument for or against a multi-county tax (his district is within Hennepin County). Sen. Limmer's office, if you're reading this, you know where to reach me if you want more on the specifics of stadium economic impact - I bet Basic Books would even be happy to Fed-Ex over a copy of Baseball Between the Numbers.

April 27, 2006

Yanks, Mets, Twins stadiums move forward

As expected, the New York city council voted yesterday to approve $1.56 billion in financing for new stadiums for the Mets and Yankees; the full votes were 48-1 for the Mets, and 46-3 for the Yankees, with Brooklyn councilmember Charles Barron playing the Barbara Lee role. (According to one eyewitness, the most heated debate was between two councilmembers arguing over which of them was a better baseball player.) The twin projects, which include about $800 million in taxpayer subsidies, have cleared their final legislative hurdle, and now face only a pending IRS verdict on the use of tax-exempt bonds, and in the case of the Yankees stadium, a ruling by the National Park Service and an all-but-certain lawsuit.

(One interesting note: Mets COO Jeff Wilpon tells Metro New York today that even if the tax-exempt bonds are disallowed, "We'll be fine if it doesn't go through." In arguing before the city council earlier this month for the use of city-sponsored tax-free bonds, though, city Economic Development Corporation VP Seth Pinsky declared that "without tax-exempt debt, the Bronx project, like the Queens project, would be substantially more expensive and potentially infeasible," while EDC president Andrew Alper warned that "if it gets too expensive, the project wouldn't happen." So either Wilpon is putting on a brave face, or the tax-exempt bond subsidies - worth a combined $216 million to the teams, according to the city Indepedent Budget Office - weren't actually necessary in the first place.)

Meanwhile, in St. Paul, the Minnesota state house gave its blessing, by a surprisingly comfortable 76-55 margin, to a $522 million Twins stadium in Minneapolis, three-quarters of which would be paid for by a hike in Hennepin County sales taxes. (Not editorializing at all, Pioneer Press beat reporter Aron Kahn called it "a triumph as vital to the Minnesota Twins as a World Series victory.") Most Hennepin County representatives voted against the bill - which exempts the stadium from the normal state requirement for a countywide vote on any tax hikes - with most out-of-county lawmakers voting in favor, leading Rep. Ann Lenczewski to decry it as a "tyranny of the majority." The state house did attach an amendment to force Twins owner Carl Pohlad to share a greater chunk of the proceeds from any sale of the team, but Twins president Jerry Bell called this "a problem for the owner,'" and team execs have hinted that they'll attempt to get this overturned when the bill moves to the Senate.

With two dinosaurs of the stadium-grubbing age seemingly about to get their way - Twins owner Carl Pohlad has been stumping for taxpayer funds for a new stadium for a decade, Yankees owner George Steinbrenner for twice that long - yesterday's events are a clear sign that reports of the stadium boom's death have been greatly exaggerated. (Neither the Minnesota nor New York deals are notably better for taxpayers than similar proposals five years ago.) Keep plugging away long enough, it seems, and you (and your lobbyists) can wear down any opposition - as Twins stadium-funding opponent Rep. Phil Krinkie sighed earlier this week, "The public's interest in opposing this has waned."

Of course, in neither Minnesota nor New York have polls shown public support for spending tax money on stadiums - but in neither case will the public get to have a say, either. Twins stadium backer Rep. Steve Sviggum told the Pioneer Press that a majority of Minnesotans might well oppose the Twins bill, but "that's where leadership comes in." Personally, I preferred the original.

April 25, 2006

Queens pols: Pound of flesh almost complete

Looks like I'll be spared lunching on Julian Tavarez' cap: The New York Daily News reports that Queens politicians are nearing an agreement with the Mets on a "community benefits" package in exchange for supporting the teams' stadium deal. Councilmember Leroy Comrie told the News: "It's not done, but we're rounding third."

The side agreement would clear the way for the city council to approve $1.56 billion in Mets and Yankees stadium bonds tomorrow, as originally scheduled. Though as I discuss today on the Village Voice website, just because the council okays it doesn't necessarily make it legal.

We don't need no stinkin' voters, Sacramento edition

The city of Sacramento is quietly exploring ways to finance a new Kings arena with public funds, with the latest scenario being a sales-tax hike in Sacramento County. Because an arena-specific tax would require a two-thirds vote of county residents, some legislators have suggested floating two separate referendums, one for the tax, one to fund the arena - each of which would only require a simple majority. Sacramento political consultant Jeff Raimundo told the Sacramento Bee, "It's a way to avoid the two-thirds vote, but it's perfectly legal."

Twins bill heads to House floor

The Minnesota Twins stadium bill cleared another legislative hurdle yesterday, as the state house ways and means committee approved it on an 18-16 vote. The Pioneer Press reports that the vote was only this close because some Hennepin County legislators, afraid of retribution from constituents, deferred their votes until it was clear the bill would pass, then voted "no."

The bill, which would allow Hennepin County to raise $373 million for the stadium via a 0.15% sales-tax hike without going through a (normally required) voter referendum, now goes to the floor for a full vote tomorrow or Thursday. If it's approved, it then goes to the state senate, where it's expected to face less opposition.

April 24, 2006

Funny math in Seattle

Here's a creative argument from the owners of the Seattle Sonics: That $18.3 million they've offered to put towards a $220 million renovation of KeyArena, they claim, actually represents a 35% team contribution to construction costs. And how do they arrive at that math? The Sonics want credit for $21 million they contributed to the arena's last renovation a decade ago, plus $77 million in ticket sales, naming rights, admission taxes and parking revenue that the city has collected since then. Everyone who tried that argument with the IRS last week, best of luck when the men in shiny shoes come to your door.

As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer notes, the Sonics' inventive calculations stem from a desire to meet Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' demand that the team put in about the same share as the Mariners and Seahawks did for their stadiums, which Nickels puts at 25-30%. The P-I article is well worth reading, as a reminder of just how tough it is to get an arena project to pay its own bills: Those back arena taxes that the Sonics now want credit for were supposed to be going toward paying off $73.4 million (in 1994 dollars) in city debt on the previous renovation - but have fallen well short, according to city officials. Concludes the P-I:

A decade ago, some insiders questioned the unusual math behind the promise that fans - and not taxpayers - would be on the hook to pay off the renovations to what is now KeyArena.

The skeptics were right.

If you're curious whether funny numbers will win the day again, the Seattle city council parks committee meets this Wednesday at 2 pm at City Hall to debate the KeyArena re-renovation. As always, eyewitness accounts welcome.

April 22, 2006

Saturday morning special

Something about it being springtime - or maybe legislative season - has the stadium and arena news coming faster than even your devoted webmaster can shake a stick at. So without further ado, let's go spanning the globe:

The city of Ottawa is considering raising the Senators' property-tax bill from $700,000 a year to $1.8 million a year. (Under normal commercial tax rates, they'd be paying $5 million.) Team owner Eugene Melnyk was "incredulous" at the looming hike, according to one team exec, while team president Roy Mlakar declared: "A buck is overtaxed to me." Funny, he doesn't look American.
One of the competing bidders for a Pittsburgh casino slots license lashed out at the Penguins for refusing to commit to the state's "Plan B" arena plan. if the team's preferred arena partner isn't awarded the license: Forest City Enterprises co-chair Albert Ratner accused the Pens of refusing to chip in more for the arena in order "to sell the hockey team at a higher price." The irony: Albert Ratner's cousin Bruce is currently seeking public subsidies to build a new Nets arena in Brooklyn, to help justify the inflated price he and his partners paid for the team.
The Seattle Sonics owners have announced that they'd be willing to put up $18.3 million, plus $1 million a year in rent, toward their requested $220 million renovation of KeyArena. To which the Seattle Times editorial writers replied: "Ooooooooooooooooo. Eighteen million dollars." (Really. Follow the link if you don't believe me.)
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has declared that he "would not be able to support the use of any public funds toward the construction of a new [Chargers] facility," and that "the only way that I would be able to support the use of public land is if there is a positive revenue stream back to the City from the use of that land." Apparently knowing what the Chargers' response will be to that, Sanders says he'll seek a lease amendment allowing the team to look elsewhere in San Diego County for a new stadium site, in advance of the January 2007 date when it can legally begin negotiating with other cities, including those outside the region.
The Indianapolis Colts stadium cost has just gone ... how many people thought I was going to say "down"? Anyone? No, it's up, of course: an additional $15 million or so to pay for a settlement of its eminent-domain dispute with a neighboring bean plant. (No, not that kind of bean plant.) The Indianapolis Star reports drily that "there's no room in the construction budget for this extra cost, so a solution will have to be fashioned to address the shortfall." Gee, ya think?

April 21, 2006

Old Yanks deal would have let city share revenues

Writing at baseballprospectus.com back in February, I admitted that the current New York Yankees stadium plan, no matter its flaws, was at least "a step forward" from the last one floated then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2001, which would have stuck the city with half of the $800 million construction tab.

Now, though, I'm not so sure. That's because, while paging through the lease agreement signed by Giuliani and the Yankees in December 2001, I ran across a provision that in the new stadium planned at the time, the team was to share 4% of total home-game receipts (the lease actually says "Total Game Home Receipts" - damn budget cuts in the Department of Proofreading) with the city, along with 35% of net revenues from non-baseball events. Given that annual Yankees revenues are upwards of $200 million, that would have come to $8 million or more in rent payments a year - as opposed to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan, where the Yankees pay bupkis. (In Giuliani's plan as well as Bloomberg's, the team would be responsible for operations and maintenance costs, though not capital improvements.)

Add it up, and the lost Giuliani-era rent payments could have paid off about $120 million worth of stadium bonds - or just about the difference between Rudy's $400 million in public funds and Mike's $282 million in state and city subsidies. With hardball negotiators like these, who needs Yankees stooges?

MN house committee gives Twins get-out-of-vote-free card

Last night's Minnesota state house hearing, ostensibly for opponents of the Twins stadium deal, began amidst tailgating and chants by season-ticket holders bused in and outfitted with Twins caps by team management. Three hours later, it ended with the house taxes committee allowing a stadium sales tax hike to move forward without a local referendum, as would otherwise have been required by Minnesota law. Twins president Jerry Bell called the vote "a huge step forward" that "provides us momentum."

In between, 33 Minnesota residents spoke out against the plan to help fund a new Twins stadium with $373 million in sales-tax money. Referendum campaign leader Laura Lehmann noted that new school buildings need approval by referendum, while Minneapolis resident John Zimmerman countered a guy who showed up with a jar of pennies by estimating that that "three pennies on each $20" sales-tax hike would add up to $600 per family over 30 years. A few stadium supporters also spoke - their official time to testify had been the previous day - including former Twins outfielder Tony Oliva, who declared, "I come from Cuba. Taxes for me are no big thing." Does that mean he'd also endorse public ownership?

In related news, the Forbes magazine estimates of baseball team value were released yesterday, and the Twins' value had gone up 21% since last year, from $178 million to $216 million. While stadium-subsidy opponents argued that this shows that Twins owner Carl Pohlad can afford to pay for his own stadium, Forbes associate editor Kurt Badenhausen argued that "although the Twins have a small profit, in order to keep up with the rest of Major League Baseball, they need a new stadium. The Twins have one of the worst stadium deals in all of baseball."

Badenhausen is half-right: The Twins' lease at the Metrodome is indeed lousy for the team by baseball industry standards, with the team's public landlords collecting half of gross concessions revenues, one-quarter of stadium ad revenue, and 100% of parking fees. But that should make the Twins more willing to cough up their own money for a stadium, not less: They get so little revenue from the Metrodome that the marginal revenue from a new stadium - the difference between what they earn now and what they'd bring in from a new home - would be enormous, making a privately funded stadium more feasible.

That Pohlad is instead offering to kick in only about one-quarter of the $522 million price tag - and most of that "private contribution" would come from naming-rights fees on the publicly owned stadium - shows both the degree to which he's a cantankerous old coot, and that he knows that the local newspaper are never going to try explaining "marginal revenue" when there's a jar of pennies to write about.

April 20, 2006

City budget watchdog: Mets stadium a net loss

The New York City Independent Budget Office issued its fiscal analysis of the proposed New York Mets stadium deal today (PDF here), and its findings pretty much confirmed what I've reported here: The IBO found that the project would cost the city $177.3 million and the state $89 million, while saving the Mets $298.4 million off their stadium costs. [NOTE: The IBO has since revised the cost figures to $155 million city and $89 million state, with the Mets benefits at $276 million.] As for new tax revenue, there's "little reason to expect a large gain in local economic activity" since "most of the spending at the new stadium will directly replace spending that would have occurred at the existing stadium"; even using the city's own figures for projected new tax revenue, however, hidden subsidies like the loss of city parking revenue "would switch the fiscal impact from a net positive to a net negative," writes the IBO.

Moreover, the IBO uses a very conservative definition of "costs," including only money that the city would be out that it wouldn't if the Mets stayed put at Shea Stadium. But that ignores the opportunity cost of failing to charge the Mets what other developers would in a similar situation: The team's 100% property-tax exemption, for example, isn't counted as a cost to the city (though it is as a benefit to the Mets), because the team doesn't currently pay property tax - but by not demanding property tax (or rent), the city is leaving additional money on the table that it could be collecting.

(The best analogy for this type of opportunity cost that I've been able to come up with: Say you're a house painter, and a client asks you, "Hey, can you come over and paint my house next weekend? I won't pay you anything, but I know you don't have any other work lined up by then - so really, it won't cost you anything." Compared to not taking the job, there's no net cost to you - but compared to charging your usual fee, you're screwing yourself out of a boatload of money.)

The IBO report also reveals one significant new subsidy - or more accurately, a subsidy higher than previously reported - that the Mets would be getting from this deal. It's been known for almost a year now that under their new lease, the Mets would get to keep the first $7 million a year in parking fees, though it would be using the same Shea Stadium parking lots that the city currently gets the revenues from. But the IBO notes that "the $7 million figure will be adjusted for inflation each year" - making the subsidy worth not the $96 million that I'd reported, but more like $135 million. (The IBO uses a lower figure, again mostly because it looks only at how much in parking fees the city is collecting now, not how much it would be getting with a new stadium.)

In any case, the IBO report was clear: The new Mets stadium would be a net loss for the city, even in strict fiscal impact terms. Hiram Montserrate, the city councilmember who'd requested the analysis from the IBO (and who is one of the Queens councilmembers trying to arm-twist the Mets into tossing more money his borough's way), issued a statement blasting the stadium project as a "sweetheart deal" where "without a promise to give anything back to the community, it's clear the costs and benefits of this deal do not weigh in the favor of our residents." He also called on the council to delay its scheduled April 26 vote on the Mets and Yankees stadium bonds until "the many negative impacts on the local community have been resolved."

Meanwhile, Queens councilman John Liu declared yesterday that Mayor Michael Bloomberg was "duplicitous" in saying no public money was being spent on the stadium, noting that most of the city's $90 million in "infrastructure" costs would be spent on sinking pilings to support the new ballpark. What, he only just noticed now?

LATE NOTE: The IBO also released an update (PDF here) of the Yankees stadium analysis it presented to the city council last week (PDF here). According to the revised report, city and state costs came out at $154.9 million and $92.8 million respectively, while the Yankees would save $361 million; the IBO didn't attempt a determination whether the city would lose money as a whole on the Yankees project.

Queens pols: No baksheesh, no stadium

The haggling continues over the New York Mets stadium deal, with Queens councilmember Tony Avella saying, "I don't think we're close to an agreement" on community perks, while his colleague Hiram Montserrate declared that without a package like the Yankees coughed up, the Queens delegation is prepared to delay the stadium project "until it's dead." Crain's New York reports that next Wednesday's scheduled vote on the stadium bonds is "likely to be delayed"; as of now official word from the council is that it's still on, but we've seen before how quickly these things can change.

Twins backers back Twins

The Minnesota state house taxes committee held the first of two public hearings on the Twins stadium proposal yesterday, in advance of the committee's vote on the plan. Perhaps in some sort of bizarre attempt at Midwestern decorum, yesterday's hearing was set aside for stadium supporters, while tonight's is for opponents; the pro-stadium arguments on display yesterday ran the gamut from... well, let's just let them say it in their own words:

"[Twins owner Carl] Pohlad is 90. I'm 65. It takes four years to build the ballpark. Do the math." --Twins president Jerry Bell, arguing that the stadium issue is bigger than any one team owner, or something
"I feel the vibrations of my father.'' --Twins fan Sally Mars, describing the feeling she gets at ballgames

The Twins also delivered miniature baseball bats to committee members, each with the inscription: "Take the bat off your shoulder and swing." So does that mean the Minnesota legislature should be making productive outs?

There are also indications that "stadium fatigue" is taking its toll on more people than just Doug Grow: state Rep. Paul Thissen explained his intent to vote for the stadium bill by telling Minneapolis Public Radio: "This issue sucks all of the oxygen away from all of the other legislative proposals that come before it. It just takes up so much time. I think that's a factor. ... We've had this issue in front of the state for a decade now."

Meanwhile, the Hennepin County Commission, as expected, has reiterated its support for the $373 million Twins sales-tax subsidy, by the same 4-3 vote as last year. And once again, it was all four men in favor, all three women opposed, leading to accusations that girls don't get baseball; retorted county commissioner Gail Dorfman, a Twins season-ticket holder, "I would love to see us have a new stadium. But the 80 percent public, 20 percent private [financing] is backwards."

Added her colleague Gail Koblick: "We're tired. We're worn out. People who oppose it feel that they are just one voice without powerful lobbyists, and we're tired."

April 19, 2006

What price gnats?

Minneapolis Star-Tribune readers doubtless choked on their cereal this morning to see that columnist Doug Grow, long one of the the paper's most prominent public-stadium-funds critics, had, as he put it "switched to the dark side" and come out in support of the Minnesota Twins' stadium proposal. Not that Grow sounded at all happy about it, delivering what has to be the weakest-ass pro-stadium argument in the history of journalism:

Why my change of heart?

I do still care about school kids.

And I don't even mind watching baseball in the Dome. Hey, most days, it's more comfortable inside than outside.

Still, I understand some people want to mix sunshine, a full moon, flurries or gnats with the game.

Go for it.

As if aware that $373 million sounds like an awful lot of tax money to spend on the joys of bugs, Grow goes on to hope that "perhaps construction of a stadium will serve to re-energize Minneapolis" and "maybe it will help get Minnesota out of its 'just say no' slump" and "start to get back in the game again." But even he didn't sound convinced, turning over much of his column to longtime stadium-funding opponent Rev. Ricky Rask to chide him for his malfeasance. The Minneapolis City Pages speculates that Grow "finally wore out" in the face of the endless Twins stadium debates - which, unless you think Carl Pohlad has incriminating photos of Grow with a crappie, is as good an explanation as any.

(As an aside, Grow also notes that Rask - who figured prominently in Chapter 6 of Field of Schemes for her activism against a previous generation of Twins stadium subsidy demands - is recovering from surgery to remove a brain tumor. If anyone reading this is in touch with her, please send her my best wishes.)

Speaking of the City Pages, it notes that the big test for the Twins stadium plan could come tomorrow night, when the Minnesota house tax committee takes up the bill after two days of public testimony. Committee chair Phil Krinkie tells the paper that he plans to introduce amendments requiring a voter referendum and repealing the team's proposed construction sales-tax exemption - a subsidy I hadn't even heard the Twins were applying for, though it's certainly been used elsewhere - while fellow committee member Ann Lenczewski has "about 40 amendments" she has ready to submit. Krinkie also notes that "human nature being what it is, there is a chance it might pass because 86 counties are able to skate on this without paying the cost," but it sounds like he and other stadium-tax opponents aren't going to go down without a fight - at least, not unless someone finds them in a compromising position with a fish.

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff has turned the tables on the Florida Marlins' compulsive deadline-setter David Samson, issuing an open letter that the Fish need to "fish or cut bait by May 15" if they want a stadium built in San Antonio. Wolff further told the San Antonio Express-News:

County Commissioner Lyle Larson then let loose with the other barrel, telling the Express-News that "all of this groveling cheapens our stature as a community. We need to show more pride." At which point Wolff went all Dick Cheney on his fellow Texan, saying: "Nobody's groveling. Where did he get that [expletive, but you can guess which one]? What have we groveled about? The Marlins approached us about moving."

Wolff added that the May 15 deadline was necessary to get a stadium-funding referendum on the November 15 ballot, and that if the Marlins don't commit to move by then, "as far as I'm concerned, it's over." Your move, David.

The three cents on every $20 meme is back in the Minnesota Twins stadium debate, with Pioneer Press columnist Bob Sansavere the latest to drink the Kool-Aid. Sansavere doesn't bother to add up all those pennies, though, which over time would come to $320 (in present dollars) per Hennepin County resident - actually more like $339 with the recently increased public price tag.

In Florida, meanwhile, South Florida Sun-Sentinel columnist Dave Hyde argues that the state should be willing to spend $30 million to "keep the Marlins in South Florida forever," because the state spends money on even dumber things. Of course, it's actually $100 million that the Marlins are demanding now. And that's on top of $198 million in money they've already been promised by the city and state. Or as Bob Sansavere would no doubt prefer to think of it, 30 billion pennies.

NBA commissioner David Stern, not usually one for the sort of franchise-relocation saber-rattling popular with his cohorts at MLB and the NFL, delivered a world-class hissy fit on Friday, telling the AP that Seattle is "not interested in having the NBA there" and that the city's unwillingness to fund renovations to KeyArena for the Sonics is "a pretty strong signal and I think that the existing ownership has said they don't want to own a team that's not in Seattle, so I know what they're in the process of doing. ... I would say that the city is making it pretty clear of what they want us to do, and we'll accommodate them." At least one local columnist thinks that Stern is only pissing locals off with his antics.

Add the Calgary Flames to the list of teams looking for a new arena: "Who pays the bill is a key consideration," Flames president Ken King told the Calgary Sun last Thursday. "It's a public facility, so I think you could conceivably have a combination of private and public funding." Don't add Calgary to the list of cities eager to build one, however, as the Sun reported the next day:

Louisville's plan to create a six square mile tax-increment financing district to fund a new basketball arena is stalled after the state legislature failed to pass a bill authorizing TIF districts before its session ended last Wednesday night. (In a TIF, all increases in area property-tax receipts are siphoned off to repay a project's construction bonds; this has been widely criticized as a really, really bad idea.) Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher is now considering calling a special session to address the TIF bill and other proposed tax law changes.

The 11-year-old-and-running scheme to build a football stadium next to the Birmingham, Alabama convention center could be up for a vote again tomorrow in the the city council; Birmingham's WSFA reports that a majority of council members "would vote for the project if Mayor Bernard Kincaid found a way to pay for it." Kincaid, in turn, says he hopes the county and state will come up with a funding plan; Jefferson County Commission president Larry Langford says to ask him again after the July elections.

Common Cause/NY has totaled up the New York Yankees' lobbying expenses since 2003, and found that the team spent $1,049,621 on lobbying state and city officials to approve their new stadium. At the same time, team officials have donated $25,600 to state and city electoral campaigns, including $500 from Yankees president Randy Levine to state assemblymember Jose Rivera, who spearheaded last summer's stadium push in the legislature; execs of the YES cable network, meanwhile, which is 60% owned by the Yankees, donated $270,850 in that time, including several officials from as far away as California who gave $1,000 apiece to the election campaign of Bronx borough president Adolfo Carrion.

These numbers pale in comparison to the more than $3 million that the Jets spent pushing their doomed stadium plan - but then, the Jets faced a more deep-pocketed opponent (Cablevision, owner of Madison Square Garden) than the ad-hoc group of Bronx residents fighting the Yankees plan. "With the West Side stadium, we saw two companies with an amazing capacity to engage in political spending raging a loud and expensive public debate over the issue," said Megan Quattlebaum of Common Cause/NY in a news release. "With the Yankees, you have one company lobbying quietly but consistently in Albany and New York City, and no other voice in the debate." In other words, pretty much just what I was afraid of.

The Minnesota stadium skirmishes continue to be waged in the state legislature, with the Vikings pouring $1 million into pro-stadium ads this session alone. The Twins, have reportedly agreed to split $30 million in increased stadium costs with Hennepin County - no, not evenly. What are you thinking? Rather, the Twins would kick in an extra $10 million, the public an extra $20 million, bringing the total cost shares to $135 million team, $373 million taxpayers.

Minnesota residents who feel like chiming in on the Twins plan, and don't have $1 million to burn on campaign ads, can stop by the Minnesota House Tax Committee's public hearing on Thursday, April 20, 6 pm, at Oak Grove Middle School, 1300 W. 106th St. in Bloomington. (It's a bit of a hike for me, so if anyone goes and can give an eyewitness report, drop me a line.)

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick crushed last month's dreams that Tiger Stadium might soon be saved, telling the Detroit Free Press: "We're looking at all proposals. None of the proposals have a stadium on it. I guess that's the best way to say it. Everybody that wants that spot, they want it without the stadium."

Kilpatrick said he expects to make an announcement in May, which should make the premiere of the documentary "Stranded at the Corner" - set for April 24 at Detroit's Gem Theatre - even more timely.

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff is reportedly "close to completing negotiations" with Cisco Systems for that plot of land in Fremont where he's considering building a baseball stadium plus a surrounding condo development. Once Wolff has the land, of course, he still needs a financing plan, plus a signoff on development rights and environmental permits from the Fremont city council. Though Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz declared today that "we are the lead candidate for the new home of the A's," and "if there's a deal to make for both the A's and the city of Fremont, then we'll find it and make that happen," we'll see what happens when and if the two sides get down to brass tacks - assuming, that is, that the whole plan isn't just a stalking horse for a site elsewhere in the Bay Area.

The New York baseball stadium saga has taken a weird turn, as Queens city councilmembers are now threatening to hold up the Mets stadium bonds unless the team gives their borough the same sort of "community benefits" plan that the Yankees used to grease the wheels of power in the Bronx. Councilmembers Hiram Monserrate and Tony Avella - who, you'll remember, has previously shown his predilection for demanding to be bought off - are asking for $1 million a year for youth sports in Queens, plus job guarantees for borough residents; the Mets countered with an offer of $200,000 a year, leading Montserrate to exclaim to the Daily News: "Shame on them if they think that's okay! Shame on them! Our kids are worth more. They have not - double underline, exclamation point - they have not done enough for my community or for the borough of Queens, and they need to."

Despite all the excitable punctuation, it's not really all that much money at stake: Even $1 million a year over 40 years is going to be worth less than $20 million in present-day dollars, which is chump change on a $632 million project. (The Daily News and other outlets keep insisting that the Yankees' deal is worth $50 million, but it's really more like a third of that.) If this dispute ends up killing or even delaying the Mets deal, I'll eat Julian Tavarez's cap, but in the meantime it all makes for great spectacle.

With the New York Yankees stadium land-use plan officially approved, the city council today moved on to consideration of the $930 million in bonds the team wants sold to finance construction costs. (The Mets bonds were discussed as well, but unfortunately I had to leave before that point.) There was no earth-shattering news from the council finance committee's hearing - most of the questioning was along the lines of majority leader Joel Rivera's query whether "about 80% of new stadiums have been built within the last ten years" - but a bunch of interesting tidbits did emerge:

Mostly, though, it was a day for confusion, as councilmembers with only the dimmest grasp of economics tried to figure out how the Yankees' payments could be both "tax money" and a private contribution. As the IBO's Lowenstein explained it: "Part of what makes this so difficult to get your mind around is that these guys aren't paying property taxes now, but we're structuring something to look like a property tax so that it meets the Internal Revenue Service code test that allows them to do the tax-exempt financing."

Further confusing matters were statements like the one by Yankees president Randy Levine, who insisted under questioning: "The revenues from the Yankees, not a dedicated tax, are paying for [the new stadium]." That may have sounded good to the city council; whether the IRS agrees when it comes time to certify the tax-exempt bond scheme, we'll have to wait and see.

FoxSports.com's Ken Rosenthal has called on MLB to dip into its Central Fund and help pay for a new Florida Marlins stadium, a la the NFL's G-3 loan program. Writes Rosenthal: "If MLB helps the Marlins, it must be ready to help other clubs in similar circumstances. But the Miami market - the gateway to the Americas - is too important to lose at a time when MLB is trying to grow internationally."

More notably, Marlins president David Samson didn't laugh off Rosenthal's proposal, telling the columnist: "To imagine baseball getting involved is not far-fetched. How the involvement will end up looking is not yet determined." Of course, some would note that by allowing revenue-sharing deductions for stadium costs, MLB is already subsidizing new stadiums. And given that MLB just spent a year and a half playing chicken with Washington, D.C. just to avoid setting a precedent that teams should have to pay anything towards stadiums, this seems like an even unlikelier scenario. Still, it's a nice thought - especially if you're David Samson.

San Francisco Chronicle columnists Matier and Ross report that the 49ers have quietly begun making stadium plans that don't include the $100 million in city funds approved way back in 1997, but never used. "We know that the people of San Francisco don't have an appetite for taxpayer-backed debt,'' team spokesperson Lisa Lang told them. "What the 49ers want to do is finance the stadium without using the $100 million that was going to come out of the city's general fund."

Why would the Niners suddenly be offering to give back an IOU for a hundred thousand large, nine years after voters approved it? Here's Matier and Ross's explanation:

So score one for the city that successfully waited out the Giants' stadium demands, right? Mmmmaybe. The website BeyondChron notes that while the 49ers may be giving up on the cash grant, the city's Bayview-Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan includes a commitment to "assist with the development of a new San Francisco 49ers football stadium" - language that BeyondChron worries could allow unlimited tax-increment financing (i.e., the siphoning off of tax revenues from new development) to fund the stadium project. Sound crazy? I've heard crazier.

Not even four weeks after the Washington state legislature failed to approve the Seattle Sonics' demands for a state-subsidized $220 million renovation of the KeyArena, the pressure is on the city of Seattle to resolve the situation soon. Not pressure from the Sonics, mind you. Rather, it was Gov. Christine Gregoire who this week sent a letter to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels insisting: ""The Sonics and Storm deserve to know their status with the city so the team can decide whether or not to pursue other options. If the city intends to pursue a future for the area that does not include Sonics and Storm, it is time to communicate that to them so they may consider alternatives within Washington before contemplating a long-distance move."

That penultimate phrase - "alternatives within Washington" - is key to why Gregoire is suddenly playing bagman (baglady? Bagelady?) for the Sonics' arena demands. The team's co-owner, Starbucks chief Howard Schultz, has claimed he has a "blank check" offer to move to an unnamed city (Oklahoma City and Kansas City, which have newly built, empty arenas to fill, are the rumored leading candidates, along with Las Vegas), and Gregoire is pushing for suburban Bellevue to head the out-of-towners off at the pass.

The Sonics would be fine with that, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, so long as Bellevue starts construction "almost immediately to build an arena in time to meet the Sonics' needs." (Somebody needs a primer on the meaning of "need.") "It's in the realm of possibilities," team spokesperson Valerie O'Neil told the paper. "But it needs to be on the fast track." To drive the point home, team president Wally Walker broke new ground in the art of oblique move threats, telling the Seattle Times: "The sale of the franchises has never been our preferred option, but given time running short on our current lease, we must contemplate all scenarios. This ownership group has no interest in owning professional basketball franchises outside of the state of Washington." And to think, he just saved himself 6.99 Euro!

So far, the attempted hurry-up offense doesn't appear to have had much effect, with Bellevue city leaders saying they haven't talked to the Sonics lately, and Seattle officials saying they're prepared to find other uses for KeyArena if the team insists on relocating. "The governor is an important political figure. Her statements always carry some weight," Seattle city council president Nick Licata told the P-I. "But I'm not sure it's enough to change the reality of people's resistance to subsidizing the Sonics hundreds of millions of dollars. ... I think [Gregoire is] trying to prod the city to agree to subsidize the Sonics and I think she's going to find opposition to that in the state Legislature - not just in the city."

Given that this is the council that yesterday saw one member gush about how the project would mean "a $135 million investment in Bronx parks" - money that will go in part to demolish Yankee Stadium, in part to replace parks that already exist, and all of which will come out of the council's own capital budget - you can't say it's exactly a surprise that the council speaker traded approval of a stadium for her own pile of magic beans.

With no city council land-use vote needed for their new stadium - the mayor decided he could just skip that step - the New York Mets spent today unveiling computer renderings of their planned new stadium, which look pretty much like every other new baseball stadium built in the last 15 years. (Pictures here, courtesy of Maury Brown.) Skipping past the stenography journalism being practiced by the regular sports media (sample text from Newsday: "the Mets said the new design would create 'unprecedented' sight lines and allow for more legroom and wider seats"), here are a few elements that immediately jump out, particularly from the cross-section view provided:

In all, the new Mets plan looks like a standard modern stadium design: a few gratuitous quirks, lots of premium seating and concessions areas to pump up team revenues, and some nod to nostalgia in the form of an Ebbets-Field-inspired facade (and sections with names like "Coogan's Landing"). If there would be fewer bad seats than at Shea, that's mostly a function of there being fewer seats overall, with a capacity of just 45,000 vs. 57,000 for the Mets' current home.

Or, as Newsday put it, "The Mets' new stadium will feature enhanced fan conveniences, more efficient parking, improved sight lines and a facade reminiscent of Brooklyn's old Ebbets Field." Hey, who am I to argue with a press release?

Okay, so turns out the suspense didn't amount to much after all. This morning, as an overflow throng of Bronx residents and construction workers sat waiting in a City Hall hearing room, staring out the windows at a freak spring snowstorm, the New York city council huddled behind closed doors for two hours to decide beforehand how the vote would go on the Yankees' $1.2 billion stadium project. The answer when the council finally emerged: The stadium's land-use plan was swiftly approved (or at least, swiftly after much speechifying by councilmembers) by a 44-2 vote, with two abstentions.

The reasons given for supporting the plan by councilmembers - nearly all of whom gave nods to the "community concerns" over the project - were all over the map, from fears that the Yankees would leave town to the desire to "revitalize" the Bronx, and many sounded unconvinced even by their own words. Inez Dickens asked: "Is it the answer to all [the community concerns]? Absolutely not. But there must be a beginning somewhere." The project "will bring 18 acres of parkland to the Bronx," enthused council chair Christine Quinn, carefully not mentioning the 22 acres of parkland that would be displaced. Gale Brewer gave a speech detailing the dangers of trusting corporations to live up to community benefits agreements, and decrying the rushed taking of parkland last summer, then voted yes anyway. And Tony Avella, who'd penned a strongly worded letter on Friday detailing the many reasons he was opposing the stadium deal, announced that the deal was "much better" now, specifically citing Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki's last-second declaration of support - but no funding commitments - for a new Metro-North station near the stadium. "Is it perfect?" Avella told me. "No. But you have to balance these things out."

In the end, the only two "no" votes came from Helen Diane Foster, the Bronx rep who's been an increasingly vocal opponent of the plan to drop a stadium on the doorstep of many of her constituents, and who gave a speech practically begging her council colleagues' forgiveness for voting her conscience and not the will of the Bronx leadership; and from Brooklyn's Charles Barron, a frequent Bloomberg critic who likely has bigger things on his mind than possible council retribution, if the "Barron for Congress in 2006" pin he wore to a morning press conference is any indication. (Barron even dared question why Yankee Stadium couldn't be renovated or rebuilt in place, insisting, "When you have the power to tell the Yankees that they cannot have the park, that they have to build somewhere else, you still can get jobs - you can get everything that you want, if you use your power.") Two others, including Brooklyn Nets arena foe Letitia James, abstained; one other voted for the stadium but against the accompanying parking garages.

And that was the ballgame. The Yankees stadium bonds still must be voted on by the council on April 28, but given today's events, it's nearly inconceivable that they'll be defeated. That means the best hope for the House That Ruth Built to avoid the wrecking ball - and taxpayers to avoid $420 million in stadium subsidies - is for the National Park Service to ride to the rescue with a ruling that the replacement parkland doesn't meet federal requirements, or to win the same judgment via a lawsuit. The fat lady may not be singing yet, but Frank Sinatra is warming up his pipes.

Jackson County, Missouri will now raise sales taxes by 0.375% for the next 25 years, funneling the money to the two teams, mostly so that they can expand concessions areas at Arrowhead and Kauffman Stadiums; all the new revenues from the expansion will go to the teams. Depending on your perspective, the vote marked "a great day for Kansas City" (Royals owner David "it depends what you mean by 'child labor'" Glass), or "a quarter of a loaf" (opposition organizer Richard Tolbert).

Most of all, the whole Kansas City stadium controversy shows the danger of team leases requiring "state-of-the-art" stadiums, which is what allowed the two teams to threaten to bolt the region if the public didn't front the money for upgrades. As part of the renovation agreement, the Chiefs and Royals are now locked into their homes for another 25 years - one hopes that this time, Jackson County negotiators were smart enough not to give them another "state of the art" clause that could let them play the move-threat game again before 2031.

So much for Charlotte as a potential Florida Marlins relocation site: "We're not ready" for a third major-league sport, Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory told the Charlotte Observer yesterday. "If [the Marlins] see the same numbers we have, you question why they're interested. I want to make sure we're not being played." Gosh, who would do a thing like that?

Speaking of rites of spring, the Minnesota Twins stadium debate has flared up again in the state legislature, as the senate state and local government committee approved a bill to allow Hennepin County to raise sales taxes to pay for a stadium without holding a voter referendum. Working in Twins owner Carl Pohlad's favor this year: the February court ruling that the team is no longer bound by its lease to remain in the Metrodome. Working against Pohlad: It's an election year for every state office, which, according to the AP, "could cause skittishness among incumbents when the stadium votes come." State rep Brad Finstad, House sponsor of the stadium bill, told the AP: "Every day we get a step closer to elections some of my colleagues are more and more afraid of their shadows." Or, as the rest of the world calls them, their constituents.

It's a baseball Opening Day tradition: the throwing out of the first franchise relocation threat of the season. This year's entry, it will come as no surprise, came from the Florida Marlins, whose owner Jeffrey Loria declared yesterday that while the team is "still looking at all our options ... our talks with San Antonio are serious." How serious? Loria has invited San Antonio officials to join him today at the Marlins' season opener "to learn more about San Antonio." You think Jerry Reinsdorf gets royalties for this?

With Loria handling the saber-rattling for once, it was left to Marlins president David Samson to talk about what the Fish would actually need in order to relocate. And the bottom line, he told the San Antonio Express-News, isn't the luxuriousness of their corporate suites, but the size of their cable contract. "Naming rights, suite deals, season-ticket sales, corporate support - without all of that there is no franchise," said Samson. "But TV revenue is the engine that keeps the train rolling. ... The biggest issue we are having right now as we go through the numbers in San Antonio is trying to figure out where we fit in the broadcast market."

That'd be #37 in the U.S., according to the Nielsen figures. But the bigger problem is that the Houston Astros currently view San Antonio, even though it's not technically their MLB-designated "territory," as part of their media market, with Astros games being broadcast there on Fox Sports Southwest. Admitted Samson: "A TV territory would have to be carved out and then monetized." In other words, last year's Baltimore Orioles-Washington Nationals deal has set the precedent: Either the Marlins or MLB would have to indemnify the Astros for encroaching on their media domain, adding tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to their relocation costs. Add in that San Antonio officials aren't offering any more public money than Florida has (the Marlins' share would go down, but only because of a crazy-low $300 million stadium price tag - sound familiar?) and that the whole deal would be contingent on a November referendum of San Antonio voters, and this move still sounds like a longshot - sorry, make that a "serious" longshot.

As promised, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell issued his backup plan for funding a Pittsburgh Penguins arena last week, and it was one that made no one happy. Under Rendell's plan, the annual construction debt payments would be divided up: $7.5 million from the operator of Pittsburgh's slots casino, $7 million from the state, $2.9 million in rent from the Penguins, and $1.2 million from arena naming-rights fees. While the casino operators Isle of Capri have said they'd fund the bulk of arena costs if they win the slots license (that's Plan A), their competitors said they weren't ready to agree to fronting $7.5 million a year toward a hockey arena out of their revenues. The Penguins ownership, meanwhile, balked at the naming-rights fees, which it has hoped to use towards its own rent payments on the new arena. Consider this Exhibit 374 in why "public-private split" is next to meaningless when discussing sports facility financing: Nobody can even agree which side of the ledger gets the credit when the right to slap a corporate name on the building is sold.

The New York Giants and Jets have resolved their differences with new New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, with the three parties announcing yesterday that they've agreed to a revised deal on the teams' planned $1 billion stadium complex. After all the posturing, the changes to the agreement are pretty anticlimactic: The state will get out of $30 million in up-front infrastructure costs, but will both give up its claim to a share of naming rights revenues and allow the teams to sell naming rights to the entire Meadowlands sports complex, which could be worth even more than that. As Gary Rose, chairman of the state's Economic Growth Council, hastily backtracked: "It's pretty hard to go back to the dawn of time, when this whole thing seemed to have started. In fairness, you have to pick it up where it is and make judgments on whether you think it should go forward. And we decided that yes, it should."

On an even bigger issue, meanwhile - how much of a property tax break the teams will get on the 520,000 square feet of commercial development they plan to build next to the stadium - Corzine punted, saying only that the Jets and Giants need to reach an agreement with the city of East Rutherford on property taxes before the deal can be finalized. While East Rutherford Mayor James Cassella called this "a step in the right direction," it's still possible that legal action will be needed to resolve the tax dispute - or that it could yet derail the project altogether.

One noted New England-based sports economist opined to the New York Times that "in a fairer world, the deal would have been sweeter for New Jersey. But you've got to give Corzine credit for the way he stuck his neck out and said, 'Hey, wait a minute, I know a deal has been negotiated, but we need to look at this.'" Or to look at it another way: Corzine made some headlines as being tough on stadiums, but ultimately didn't get much in the way of a better deal for his state's taxpayers. Sound familiar?

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...