August 29, 2006
Twins stadium tax approved
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved a 0.15% sales-tax hike to fund a new Minnesota Twins stadium today, by the same 4-3 vote that gave initial approval to the tax last year. With the state legislature having granted the county an exemption from a voter referendum on sales-tax hikes back in May, this was the last step necessary to approve the tax, which will now go into effect next January.
According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "county officials have said a married couple with two children earning $60,000 a year would pay $25 annually." But, but ... what about the pennies?
NYC stadiums cost city an extra $46m
In this week's Village Voice, I revisit the revelation that the New York Yankees billed city taxpayers for their lobbying and front-office costs under a lease clause allowing them to deduct "stadium planning costs" from their rent. (Info on the Mets' deductions should be forthcoming shortly.) The latest documents show that those on the public payroll included three members of George Steinbrenner's family, plus the lawyers who wrote up the giveaway lease clause in the first place.
It also turns out that those rent deductions - $46 million in total between the Mets and Yanks - were, under the original deal arranged by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2001, supposed to be recouped by the city as credits against public stadium construction costs. But when Mayor Mike Bloomberg reworked the deals last year, the teams were covering all the stadium construction, in exchange for getting free land, free rent, and tax breaks - leaving nothing for the city to use those credits against.
In my Voice article, I called this "leaving $46 million on the table," which isn't quite right - as I subsequently confirmed with a city official, the rent credits were bargained away during negotiations for the new stadium deal, meaning the city did presumably get something in exchange. But it does mean that New York City's twin-stadium subsidy is now not the $371 million previously reported, but rather $417 million, since Bloomberg effectively tore up $46 million in IOU's along with the cash he handed out. Total federal, state, and city subsidies: $847 million. That's quite the "investment."
August 28, 2006
Oops, we spent it again
The good people of Indianapolis, already on the hook for $635 million towards a new stadium for the Colts, got an unexpected surprise yesterday when it was revealed the legislators who passed the stadium deal neglected to figure out how to pay to operate it once it's built.
As a result, the public Capital Improvement Board will be on the hook for about $10 million a year in new maintenance and operations costs - which in present value comes to something like $140 million in additional public cost, bringing the total stadium subsidy to $775 million. And if neither the state nor the city steps forward to fill the gap with greenbacks, what happens then?
If [CIB head Fred] Glass' plan doesn't win support or doesn't work, it is unclear what will happen next."There's no real Plan B," Glass said. "There's no Plan B, period."Without a cash infusion, he said, the CIB would be insolvent by 2010.
And we all know there's nothing that says Happy 2nd Birthday like bankruptcy court.
August 26, 2006
Sonics mulling arena-for-stadium swap
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that the new owners of Seattle Sonics are looking into building a new arena on the site of Seattle's Memorial Stadium, at the other end of the Seattle Center; the existing KeyArena would then be remodeled into a smaller, open-air amphitheater to host the concerts that now take place at Memorial Stadium. However, the P-I notes that "substantial questions remain, regardless of possible sites":
First among them is who foots the bill for an arena that could cost $300 million to $400 million. Unlike the team's former majority owner, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Bennett has indicated that the owners should help pay for a new center. How much is unclear.Polls suggest that the public has little appetite for a new arena or stadium taxes. Support for a new arena within the Seattle Center is unknown. And potentially looming on the November ballot is an initiative restraining the use of public money for stadiums.
Yeah, those'd be substantial, alright. Yet another lesson that the dilemma with building new sports facilities isn't figuring out where to put them, it's figuring out how to get them to make money.
August 24, 2006
They're not booing, they're yelling "Hooooooooops!"
The proposed umpteen-billion-dollar Atlantic Yards project had its only scheduled hearing for public testimony yesterday, and well over 1,000 people turned out to give elected officials an earful about the plan, which would include a Brooklyn arena for the New Jersey Nets. The assembled speakers - those who got to speak, anyway, as the moderators cut off testimony after seven hours - mostly shed more heat than light on the topic, with union-t-shirt-clad construction workers and placard-waving local opponents trading boos and cheers throughout the evening.
You can read all about it in the Times, or in my report for the Village Voice "Power Plays" blog, or in Norman Oder's epic recap at Atlantic Yards Report. My favorite, though, might be Matthew Schuerman's 60-second version.
With dozens if not hundreds of people left waiting to testify, the state-run Empire State Development Corporation announced a second hearing on September 12 - which just happens to be the day of New York's primary elections. More booing is anticipated.
August 22, 2006
Miami stadium: Reality or stalking horse?
Surprise, surprise: After the Florida Marlins announced plans to meet with MLB officials about a new stadium in Hialeah comes word from the Miami Herald that:
Reigniting hopes for baseball in downtown Miami, Major League Baseball is targeting a long-ignored patch of land south of the Miami Arena for a new Florida Marlins stadium.
There are reasons to be suspicious of this report, though. First off, the Herald notes that "it remains to be seen how construction of a stadium would be funded," which is sort of a key omission, given that the last Miami stadium proposal died in the face of a $100 million funding gap. Also, the Herald's sources for the story are unnamed "sources familiar with the proposal" - which means it's likely they're either MLB officials looking to scare Hialeah into thinking it has competition, or Miami officials looking to keep their stadium bid alive in the papers, or both.
As for next week's Marlins-MLB meetings, Miami-Dade county commissioner Jose Diaz said hopefully on Monday, "We have a funding gap, and we want to see how Major League Baseball can help us on that." As Maury Brown notes at Baseball Prospectus:
My prediction for the meeting in New York?Miami-Dade and Hialeah reps: "What can MLB do to help? Would you be willing to pitch in?"MLB: "You're doing fine. We have faith in your efforts. Keep trying. We'll get back to you."
August 18, 2006
MSG V on hold
That plan to squeeze both a new Madison Square Garden and a new Penn Station entrance inside a landmarked post office building is apparently on hold, as state assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and presumptive governor-elect Eliot Spitzer have put the entire project on hold for now. For how long, exactly? Until "unanswered questions are resolved," said a Spitzer spokesperson - which almost certainly translates to "until we're in the governor's mansion, fool."
The question at that point will be whether the Democratic duo tries to put the kibosh on the whole train station project, which has broad support, or the move-MSG-and-build-office-towers-in-its-place addendum, which, not so much. Silver, you'll recall, is the man who killed a proposed West Side Jets stadium because he feared it would draw development away from his lower Manhattan district - though he then signed off on tax breaks to promote midtown development, so who knows what his true motivations are. At this rate, we likely won't find out until January at the earliest.
Cavs: Can we have seconds yet?
For all those of you who've been asking me - and you know who you are - how long it'll take before the first teams to get new stadiums and arenas come back around and get on line for more subsidies, here's a news item for you: Cleveland Cavaliers execs have met with city officials to discuss a plan to spend $30 million in public money on upgrades to Quicken Loans Arena that would, in a team spokesperson's words, "enhance the fan experience and the arena's function." The Cavs' home court, then known as the Gund Arena, cost taxpayers $73 million when it opened - way back in 1994.
Yankee Stadium: The eulogies
Now that the construction crews have gotten to work on the new New York Yankees stadium - latest reports are that they've begun cutting down trees in Macombs Dam Park, and breaking up a rock formation that is in the way of the planned main entryway - people are coming out of the woodwork to say how they feel about the pending death of the House That Ruth Built. A sampling:
The new Yankee Stadium, or whatever it winds up being called, will be better for George M. Steinbrenner III, former shipbuilder from Cleveland who 33 years ago pulled off the biggest heist in this town since Peter Minuit stole Manhattan from the Lenapes for a handful of beads.But better for the fans?Do you like the idea of paying even more for your seat than the already league-high ticket prices at Yankee Stadium? Do you not mind the prospect of being shut out of a game because the new park will have between 5,000 and 7,000 fewer seats? Are you OK with the idea of cozying up on the couch in front of the TV set because that is now the only seat for a Yankees game you can afford? Have you grown accustomed to seeing one precious bit of New York history after another fall to the wrecker's ball?If you answered yes to any or all of those questions, then The Boss is right. The new Yankee Stadium will be better for you.
Real Yankee fans will remember the Babe's house warmly. But they will burst with pride that the best Boss in baseball has given them the best new ballpark in the USA. It will outscore the old one in every way.
You don't just level Yankee Stadium, the same way you don't just level Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. You paint them, renovate them, equip them with new bathrooms and modern, fan-friendlier ways of watching the game.But you don't reduce them to dust and ash for an extra 40 luxury boxes and a happier bottom line....Baseball's richest team will get richer, at least in the pocketbook. But tearing down Yankee Stadium makes the world's most celebrated ballclub poorer in every other way.
George Vescey, New York Times:
The current Yankee Stadium, opened in 1923 and rebuilt in 1974-75, is an outmoded dump. It does not work on any level, except to inspire awe. The physical plant does not handle contemporary XL hips - or egos.With all due respect to museum pieces like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park (and I cannot wait to go back to quaint, refurbished Fenway this weekend), the Yankees need a new stadium. So do the Mets, who are also getting one, Shea Stadium being worse than a dump - a nondescript dump. But these enterprises take money and energy and land and priorities. And sometimes the people wind up jogging on the sidewalk instead of on a track.Until all this Yankee progress gets done, the folks who live near old or future Yankee Stadium can go play in the street, and try not to get hit by the visiting limos and Hummers.
Filip Bondy, New York Daily News:
It was a great celebration, except that when you looked past Steinbrenner's shoulders, into the distance, the sights were downright mournful on the 58th anniversary of Babe Ruth's death. This was a funeral, too, not just a birthing.There were regal, graceful trees that would soon be gone, and a very famous stadium that would be chopped down to a watermelon slice. On the streets, there were neighborhood residents protesting the loss of McCombs Dam Park. There were fans, such as Tina Lewis from Section 39, making nervous phone calls, worrying already about ticket prices and how the Bleacher Creatures will have to move from right to left field.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
This is one of those projects that is a win-win-win for everybody unless you just don't like anything.
Hey, it is named after me, after all.
August 16, 2006
No dog, no pony, no service
The New York Yankees held their stadium party today in what until this week was Macombs Dam Park, with a big stage and loudspeakers and a fake grass lawn and more elected officials than you can shake a stick at. George Steinbrenner said the $1.3 billion project was for "you people," and MLB commissioner Bud Selig called the soon-to-be-demolished Yankee Stadium to be "one of the most revered, the most famous arena in the country if not the world," and invited guests cheered as schoolchildren waved Yankees flags.
And you can read about all that in tomorrow's Times or wherever, As for me, my subconscious cleverly left my press ID at home, so I was left outside with the unwashed, catching only an occasional snippet of Yankees broadcaster Michael "baseball tradition is like the Holocaust" Kay welcoming various and sundry dignitaries. ("...Yogi Berra! Billy Crystal!...") Behind the police barricades that lined all of River Avenue, local residents and curious Yankee fans drawn by the hoopla strained futilely to catch a glimpse of the festivities, while several dozen protestors from Save Our Parks were swiftly herded into pens on the next block. One demonstrator pointed out that the Macombs Dam Park trees that will soon be cut down for the new stadium had been supplied with fresh mulch for the occasion; cleaning crews pulled down Save Our Parks flyers before supplying a fresh coat of paint to lampposts. A passerby on River Avenue complained to his neighbor: "These kids [at the groundbreaking] aren't from the neighborhood. They brought them in from Kips Bay in Manhattan. The real kids are up there" - pointing to the northern end of Mullaly Park, which remains open to the public - "playing football in the dirt."
The protest received plenty of media attention, as did the official ceremonies inside, and probably anyone who made the mistake of wandering too close to a camera crew outside the Court Deli on 161st Street. The coverage that's resulted so far has ranged from sloppy (Karen Matthews of the Associated Press saying that the Yankees will "offset the loss of the parks by building new parkland including three ballfields at the site of the current Yankee Stadium," when in fact city taxpayers who will foot the bill for this) to excellent (Newsday's Wallace Matthews, no relation, running down the reasons why "this deal as as dirty as anything ever found in a puddle of black water in the subway"), but that's almost beside the point. Where the media dropped the ball here was in waiting to report the story until there was a press release telling them it was time to - if even half the news crews that swarmed Macombs Dam Park today had showed up in the Bronx last summer, maybe this project could have been subjected to some public debate instead of being rushed through in back-room deals.
At least one report has the bulldozers starting in earnest on demolishing Macombs Dam Park tomorrow, which should make for an interesting backdrop for Yankee games the rest of the season. Bronx residents say they'll battle on, with state and possibly federal lawsuits, but barring a dramatic come-from-behind rally, both Yankee Stadium and the parks that have been its neighbors for 80 years look destined to join Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds as New York city landmarks lost to the insatiable maw of Progress.
August 15, 2006
Yankees groundbreaking okayed by court
As widely expected, New York state judge Herman Kahn today rejected a request for an injunction against the start of construction on a new Yankees stadium, saying "the entire project could become non-viable if construction is delayed." The team is now free to go ahead with its official groundbreaking ceremonies tomorrow morning at 9:30.
As for actual breaking of ground, that's already been going on since last Friday; the Yankees started fencing off Macombs Dam Park from the public on Sunday, without waiting for the court ruling.
August 12, 2006
Stadium notes from all over
Another Saturday morning special, catching up on some of the week's other stadium and arena news:
- The New York Jets and Giants are having a such a hard time reaching agreement on design of their new stadium that it might not be ready for the 2010 season as planned. Or the two sides are working together, and the opening date isn't in jeopardy. Depends which newspaper you read, and whether you believe unnamed "industry executives" or the teams' p.r. flack.
- Mere hours before the deadline set by Real Salt Lake owner Dave Checketts for either getting a stadium deal approved or risk him selling the team, county officials agreed to provide $55 million in subsidies for a stadium in suburban Sandy. A groundbreaking ceremony is set for today, though the county council hasn't yet officially approved the deal.
- Two-thirds of the $50 million contingency fund for the new Indianapolis Colts stadium has already been spent, and rising steel and pollution-cleanup costs are expected to push the project over budget. Contingencies being considered if that happens include dipping into funds allocated for the accompanying Indiana Convention Center expansion, or borrowing against future parking revenues - which, while not technically a "tax increase," would have the same effect on county coffers.
- New Seattle Sonics owner Clayton Bennett has while he hasn't ruled out a renovated KeyArena, it isn't "satisfactory" and he wants a new building. "The idea we had in mind [is] a development of the finest building in the country," said the Oklahoma business mogul. "Where that is? I don't know." Asked about how much public money he'd want, Bennett was similarly vague: "Taxpayer subsidy, I don't know. That's the work we need to do. Hopefully it will be a proposition we all think is fair." What you mean, "we"?
- A report by the city of Sacramento claims the city could earn back its Kings arena investment from increased tax revenues from new development in the area - somehow not noticing that if it weren't for an arena, this money could be used on other city needs, like providing services to all the new development. Meanwhile, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters reveals that the Kings would get an additional $6 million a year in previously unreported property-tax breaks - bringing the team's contribution to about minus-$2 million a year. It's official: Worst. Deal. Ever.
August 11, 2006
Yanks battle lawsuit; city starts pouring concrete
Bronx opponents of the New York Yankees stadium plan had their day in court before state judge Herman Kahn yesterday, demanding that demolition of Macombs Dam Park be stayed until a lawsuit against the project is resolved. The Yankees' lawyer, Jonathan Schiller, fired back that an injunction would be unacceptable, as it would "bust the budget" for the stadium and "imperil the structure of the project," arguing that a year's delay would cost the team $33 million in added rent, and $80 million in additional construction costs.
As Patrick Arden of NY Metro reports, though, the latter figure assumes a 12%-per-year hike in construction costs, and a leading industry expert says a more reasonable figure would be 7%, if that. And as for the $33 million in extra rent:
The city's own figures show the team has never come close to paying that much in rent. Last year the Yankees were supposed to hand over $14.5 million. But after the team took deductions, the city received just $1.8 million in rent.
Schiller also reiterated last week's threats to move the team if construction were delayed by even one day, though he refused to tell Judge Kahn where the Bronx Bombers might go. Kahn took the bait, asking how many jobs and how much economic activity the city would lose if the team were to leave - though he didn't appear to notice that those extra rent payments Schiller was griping about for an additional season at Yankee Stadium would be an added benefit to city coffers.
Up in the Bronx, meanwhile, the city and the team have begun preparations for the demolition of Macombs Dam Park and the southern portion of Mullaly Park. Though the official groundbreaking is not until 9:30 am next Wednesday, August 16th (to be broadcast live on the Yanks' cable YES Network), neighborhood locals report that today cement trucks began paving over the handball courts at the corner of 164th St. and River Avenue for use as temporary parking, while the tennis clubhouse at the opposite corner of the block (see map) is expected to be demolished starting on Monday, and the southern half of the tennis courts will be closed effective immediately - this being slated as the site for those $235 million parking garages that state taxpayers are helping to foot the bill for.
As for the Wednesday groundbreaking, reports are that it will begin at the southwest corner of Macombs Dam Park at Jerome Avenue and 161st St., where chainsaws will go to work on the trees behind the baseball diamond there. That should make some darn fine TV.
August 09, 2006
Yanks set groundbreaking, Red Sox don't
The New York Yankees have set next Wednesday, August 16, as the date to break ground in Macombs Dam Park for their new $1.3 billion stadium. A legal challenge seeking an injunction to stop the construction is now set to be heard tomorrow afternoon by Judge Herman Kahn.
In other news, the Boston Red Sox are continuing to move forward on applying for $37 million in state historic tax credits for their ongoing renovations of 94-year-old Fenway Park.
There is no connection between these two items.
August 08, 2006
Worst. Deal. Ever?
Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub has done another analysis of the proposed Kings arena deal, this time comparing it to other funding arrangements around the NBA. His conclusion: The Kings deal would be the most generous in the league, with the team putting up only about 12% of the total cost, compared to 14% for the Memphis Grizzlies, 15% for the Indiana Pacers, and 30% for the San Antonio Spurs. (Actually, the Pacers would be a bit higher, except that their arena contributions were only calculated for the first 20 years.)
Concludes Weintraub: "The level of taxpayer support for the new Kings arena, measured as a percentage of the cost of the building, would probably set a new standard." And to think that I've suggested that sports facilities don't build civic pride!
August 04, 2006
Bronx residents file Yankees suit
The Bronx group Save Our Parks filed suit in state court yesterday in an attempt to block the New York Yankees' $1.3 billion stadium plan, which would obliterate the existing Macombs Dam Park. State supreme court judge Rosalyn Richter denied an initial request for a temporary restraining order, reportedly because it might interfere with the pending sale of stadium bonds.
The Yankees groundbreaking is now set for August 17; arguments in the case will be heard by Judge Herman Kahn on August 14.
And get this: Yanks attorney Jonathan Schiller complained that it was absolutely essential that the new stadium be open by Opening Day 2009, and if there were any further delays, "the Yankees will have to consider leaving the city." Have fun trying to make $300 million a year in revenues in San Antonio, guys.
August 03, 2006
Kings arena vote(s) set
After a day-long closed-door hearing to finalize details of the "term sheet," the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors last night approved sending a 0.25% sales-tax hike and $470 million (or so) Kings arena to voters in November. (It will be two separate votes to evade the law requiring a two-thirds majority vote on project-specific sales-tax hikes.)
If approved, the deal would be among the most lucrative subsidy packages in the NBA: As noted here previously, the Kings would put up the equivalent of about $61 million of the arena costs, while reaping 100% of naming rights fees, proceeds from both basketball and non-basketball events, parking, and concessions. I've also heard second-hand reports that the Kings would have a say in what kinds of businesses located nearby the arena - if any readers can confirm or deny this, please let me know.
LATE NOTE: A reader confirmed it. The relevant clause in the agreement: "City of Sacramento and MSE will work in tandem to arrive at a mutually acceptable list of non-compatible or competitive uses within close proximity to the sports and entertainment facility." (Full set of arena documents downloadable here.
National City opens Chargers talks
I've been giving short shrift to the San Diego Chargers' city search of late, in large part because an endless stream of "Chargers officials met with Chula Vista today..." stories is even more boring to write than it is to read. The latest development seems marginally more important than that, though: The National City City Council (and yes, I do just like typing that) this week authorized municipal officials to open talks with the Chargers on a new stadium, and with the Port District on the possible use of its 52-acre plot that has been targeted as a possible stadium site.
As for who would pay for the damn thing, no one's saying. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports:
[San Diego Mayor Jerry] Sanders [and county supervisors Dianne] Jacob and [Ron] Roberts have all said that taxpayer money would not be spent on a stadium unless it would make money for taxpayers.
