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.

This site written and maintained by Neil deMause. Copyright © Neil deMause, all rights reserved.

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...

Powered by Movable Type 3.2.