This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
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.
The problem with the Bee article referenced above is that the chart that goes with it refers to revenues, but not expenses. So, sure, they're going to raise all that money over a 30 year period at the 185 redeveloped acres, but there are infrastructure costs in that area that'll absorb all the revenue.
The money raised there (according to the Bee, $390 million over 30 years) will not be available for the new arena. It'll go to libraries, schools, streets, sewers, and so on.
It's a major, major flaw in the article that basically wipes out the main point of the article.
If what it was saying was true, that the $390 million raised there over 30 years went to fund the arena, then we'd be talking about a sales tax cut, not a sales tax hike. But they screwed up.
It'd be as though you took your $50,000 salary and multiplied by 20, and told your significant other, "Look honey, we'll be millionaires in 20 years!". Sure; just ignore taxes, the mortgage, and the cell phone bill. That makes sense.
Posted by MikeM on August 14, 2006 02:56 PM