January 31, 2007
Royals seek subsidized iPods
And if you're wondering what teams do with their tax subsidies for stadium improvements, look no further than Kansas City, where the Royals are trying to use part of a $250 million stadium renovation package approved last April to buy new computer and video gear for their clubhouse so that players can, for example, play back opposing pitchers' motions on their iPods.
Jackson County officials were not pleased to hear this, but team officials, report the K.C. Star, think it's a perfectly appropriate use of taxpayer dollars:
"It is an important piece to major-league teams," said Kevin Uhlich, the Royals' senior vice president for business operations. "Hopefully, it will make the team better."
Does this mean that next Uhlich is going to ask the public to pay for a pitching staff?
Magic seeking to double their subsidies
The Orlando Magic, not content with a state law allowing them to get $2 million a year in sales tax rebates over 30 years to repay arena construction or improvements, are now seeking to have that doubled to $4 million a year. (Though the Orlando Sentinel story linked calls this a "second wave of $60 million tax breaks," it would actually only pay for about half that in present-value construction bonds.) The Tampa Bay Lightning had pushed for similar legislation last year, but the state legislature failed to act on it; the Magic will now send its lobbyists to work alongside the Lightning's flesh-pressers to see if they can get things moving again.
With nine major pro sports teams in the state, if approved this would amount to a gift of about $270 million from Florida taxpayers to pro sports teams, for just about nothing in return. One legislator behind the bill says teams would have to promise to remain in the state for 15 years to get the added cash, which isn't saying much, as most stadium and arena leases are for far longer than that anyway - and if a team really wants to move, having to repay $30 million in tax breaks isn't going to stop them.
Lightning execs' explanation for seeking the cash, according to the St. Petersburg Times: "The Lightning argues that it is an important force in the economy of downtown Tampa and should share in some of the riches." Selling season tickets for $6,500 a pop apparently doesn't count as enough riches.
49ers send mixed messages all over the place
I've been waiting for this whole San Francisco 49ers brouhaha to settle down before writing about it, but it looks like settling is the last thing it's going to do. So away we go:
- On Monday morning, San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross reported that the 49ers have "informally approached" the Oakland Raiders about sharing a stadium in Santa Clara, a la the gajillion-dollar Jets/Giants stadium planned for New Jersey. 49ers executive Jed York, son of the team's owners, told Matier and Ross that it was a "good idea" but that the team hadn't spoken with the Raiders about it yet, though Raiders insiders told the Chronicle otherwise.
- Later that afternoon, the 49ers issued a press statement insisting that they were "not in discussions with the Oakland Raiders concerning the sharing of a new stadium."
- And also on Monday, the 49ers filed a legal claim against the city of San Francisco for violating lease terms on the stadium formerly known as Candlestick Park, by failing to maintain it properly. In particular, the team wants the city to spend $5 million to replace the escalators at the stadium - which it has said it hopes to move out of within five years.
This after the 49ers just extended their lease through May 2013. Are we getting diagnosed yet?
January 29, 2007
Real Salt Lake stadium really most sincerely dead
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon announced this morning that he was rejecting plans for a Real Salt Lake soccer stadium, putting the final nail in the coffin of the $110 million project. Last week, you'll recall, a county committee recommended turning down the deal, saying its finances were too shaky; Corroon apparently agreed, calling the project an "unsafe investment" and "gambling with taxpayer dollars."
RSL owner Dave Checketts immediately went on a local radio station and announced that he would sell the team, possibly as soon as this Friday. (He didn't say whether it would be to someone who would move the team out of town, but that's certainly the implication.) It's still possible that the state legislature will take up the idea of funding a soccer stadium, but house speaker Greg Curtis didn't sound real optimistic, telling the Deseret News: "I kinda feel like the lone legislator. I'm one out of 104 — I've got to get 53 people to say, 'Hey, that's a good idea,' and I haven't even tried yet."
Nets' city subsidy doubled?
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg released his capital budget on Thursday, and Atlantic Yards Report proprietor Norman Oder noticed something odd about it: The sum allocated for developer Bruce Ratner's Nets-arena-and-condo-towers-and-office-tower plan has more than doubled, from $100 million to $205 million. Oder noted that it's possible this somehow includes the $100 million in state funds that were also promised to the project - or that the extra $105 million is part of the mysterious "additional contributions for extraordinary infrastructure costs" that were noted in the city's original memorandum of understanding with Ratner.
Project opponent Dan Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy lost no time jumping on the news, issuing a statement saying that since Atlantic Yards already received final governmental approval last month, the increased city spending amounts to "a bait and switch at taxpayer expense."
As of this morning, the mayor's office still hadn't responded to questions about the inflated city capital costs. Watch this space for further updates.
UPDATE: As I just reported over at the Village Voice's Power Plays blog, the extra $105 million really is an extra $105 million, for additional infrastructure costs related to (but not on the site of) the Ratner project. Elsewhere in the mayor's capital budget, meanwhile, there are indications that the city has budgeted an additional $123 million for the Mets and Yankees stadium projects, though it claims it doesn't plan to actually, you know, spend any of it or anything. Further updates to follow, I'm sure.
January 28, 2007
Wizards owner: We'll take some of that cash, please
Make that three D.C. sports teams looking for public money: Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin, who has been widely praised for building the $138 million Verizon Center with private money (though the city kicked in $70 million in land and infrastructure costs), has asked the city for $50 million to renovate the arena's luxury suites so he can charge more for them.
Pollin's reasoning, in the words of the Washington Post: "the city should give the arena a financial boost as a reward for its role as a catalyst of the downtown renaissance." The Post didn't say, but presumably the reason Pollin chose this moment to demand his bounty was seeing the $611 million in city money being spent on a new Washington Nationals stadium, plus the recent talks with the Redskins and D.C. United about providing public aid for their new homes.
To their credit, D.C. officials haven't yet responded to Pollin's request, and if they do accede to it, they're reportedly considering paying for it by hiking the ticket tax for events at the arena, something that would mostly come out of Pollin's pocket anyway (since he'd have to price tickets lower to have them end up with the same face value). We'll have to wait and see whether Pollin considers that an acceptable "reward."
January 27, 2007
Real Salt Lake stadium looks dead
If the proposed $110 million Real Salt Lake stadium wasn't all but dead before, it sure is now, after Salt Lake County's debt review committee voted 4-0 (with two abstentions) yesterday to recommend against spending $30 million in county hotel taxes on the project.
The committee had previously rejected the team's financial projections as overly rosy, both in terms of soccer attendance and concert bookings at the facility. It also noted that the project still had financial "uncertainties," including whether the city of Sandy could really come up with its $15 million share, and what would come from private investors.
It's now up to County Mayor Peter Corroon to decide whether to sign off on the stadium project - and if he does, to the county council on whether to approve it. RSL owner Dave Checketts gave a veiled dig at the county's number-crunchers as a bunch of visionless hicks, saying the committee "overvalued a pessimistic view that Salt Lake County really doesn't have the people and the market to make this sort of 'major league' project a reality." Because real "major league" towns, doncha know, never ask for a menu with prices.
Jets/Giants stadium hits $1.4B
Throw another $200 million on the fire: The price tag on the world's most expensive sports stadium, a joint venture that would be home to both the New York Jets and Giants, has risen from $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. Still no indication of how high the project costs can run before it becomes unviable - groundbreaking is expected in "late spring or early summer," according to AP - though the current stadium naming-rights bubble could help lessen the blow.
January 22, 2007
Pens: Sorry, we don't share
If you needed any more evidence that sports facility deals aren't just about who pays construction costs, but about who gets the building revenues, the Pittsburgh Penguins owners left arena talks in a huff Thursday night. The reason? State and local officials had suggested that the team share some development rights and parking revenues with the casino builder who would be paying for more than one-third of arena costs. And on top of that, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, those audacious politicians even wanted the team to pay rent:
The team saw the proposal as a worse deal than it would get under an extension available next year at Mellon Arena, one that would allow rent-free use of the building and give the franchise control over all building revenues, including parking.
In addition to sharing parking revenues and development rights, the state, city and county also want the team to pay rent at the new arena, in excess of the roughly $2 million a year it pays SMG at Mellon Arena, sources said.
Now there's a new threat: If you don't build us a new arena, we'll just stay in our old one.
D.C. braces for two more stadium battles
Just when Washington, D.C. residents thought that they were finally done being hit up for stadiums, Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher reports that two, count 'em two, more stadium plans are in the works. D.C. United is moving ahead with long-rumored plans for a 27,000-seat soccer-only stadium across the Anacostia River from the new Nationals stadium; meanwhile, Fisher reports that the Redskins are "quietly" talking with D.C. officials about building a new stadium of their own on the RFK Stadium site.
The D.C. United stadium doesn't have a price tag yet that I can tell, but team management has said that it will pay for construction costs, if the city gives it for free the right to develop a large swath of the 110-acre Poplar Point site, currently federal parkland, where the stadium would go. (If that sounds familiar, it's because it's going around.) While city council members have been generally supportive of the plan, those who live nearby are somewhat less so, calling the Poplar Point plan city-sponsored gentrification at the expense of the neighborhood's poor residents.
As for the Redskins returning to D.C., it seems almost unimaginable, given that the team only opened its stadium in suburban Maryland in 1997. (It was built with yet another free-land-and-infrastructure deal.) According to Fisher, though, talks are serious:
It's not by any means clear that this will amount to anything, but there have indeed been conversations between the Redskins ownership and the District government, and the incentive here is clear: The city would love to have the team back, and the team feels competitive pressure from Dallas, the Giants and others that are building huge new stadiums that will be as big or bigger than the Landover facility, and will have a new generation of amenities. And the NFL is offering low-interest loans to encourage such ventures. Finally, what's pushing both the team and the city is the dream of having the Super Bowl in Washington, which would happen if the new stadium had a retractable roof.
So a ten-year-old, 75,000-seat football-only stadium now isn't enough to be "competitive," because its amenities date predate the Bush administration? Now that's keeping up with the Joneses.
January 19, 2007
Sonics seeking $300m, no public vote
Seattle Sonics owner Clay Bennett delivered a letter to Washington state lawmakers yesterday, indicating that the team's planned new arena would cost $530 million, and that he wanted taxpayers to cover $300 million of that. In the understatement of the young year, state senate majority leader Lisa Brown observed, "That sounds like a lot of money." (Service Employees International Union spokesperson Adam Glickman, meanwhile, called it "the biggest waste of money I can imagine," which shows a serious lack of imagination.)
And why, pray tell, do the Sonics deserve $300 million in taxpayer dollars? According to Bennett, it's because "we have been confronted by construction costs that are rising on a daily basis and have made the project more expensive than other recent arenas." Former Sonics coach Lenny Wilkens added that the team's current home, KeyArena, was "a little bit obsolete," which sounds like, well, you know.
The real hammer, though, was waved menacingly about by Bennett spokesperson Jim Kneeland, who told reporters, "You know, there's a tremendous effort to make sure the team doesn't leave and it's a full-court press to make it happen." Of course, for $300 million the people of Washington state could just about buy their own basketball team and have it play wherever they want, but that's not the sort of thing that one discusses in polite society.
Bennett also continues to demand that any arena plan not be subject to voter approval, something that Gov. Christine Gregoire now says she might be cool with. That did not sit well with Chris Van Dyk, the prime force behind Seattle's successful anti-sports-subsidy Initiative 91, who said: "The governor has got wax in her ears if she thinks the public is not going to demand a vote on this."
Vikings propose domed stadium to replace domed stadium
The latest out of Minnesota is that the Vikings, rebuffed by suburban Anoka County, will on soon announce plans for a new retractable-roofed stadium on the site of their current non-retractable-roofed stadium, the Metrodome. The team is reportedly looking into sharing the new University of Minnesota football stadium while the old dome is being demolished and the new one built.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty wouldn't say much about the latest Vikings stadium plan until he hears details - the team is reportedly planning to make an announcement on February 1 - but did question how it would be financed:
Pawlenty tells WCCO AM that Minneapolis has an ordinance that essentially says the city can't spend money on a stadium, while Hennepin County has just imposed a countywide sales tax to help pay for a new Twins ballpark.
Pawlenty wonders how one or both of those places could financially host a stadium.
Excellent questions, if I do say so myself.
Barclays rap sheet gets longer
Brooklyn Paper has more on the checkered history of new Nets naming-rights sponsor Barclays Bank, including dabbling in the slave trade, the Holocaust, South African apartheid, and civil war in the Congo. Now that's the kind of publicity you just can't buy ... for less than $400 million, anyway.
NPR's All Things Considered, meanwhile, reports that most Brooklynites think the arena's new name honors Charles Barkley. Which is actually kind of appropriate, since he too has an association with violence in Africa.
January 18, 2007
Nets naming-rights deal ties Mets record
Move over, Citiwhatever: The British bank Barclays has tied the New York Mets' record $20 million a year naming rights deal with a reported 20-year, $400 million contract to dub the new Brooklyn Nets arena the Barclays Center.
If you've never heard of Barclays except as maybe a vodka, that's because the British company doesn't actually have any banks in the U.S. - something that sent New York deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff into fits of glee: "To have an international investment bank without a major local presence to invest the way they are in the image of Brooklyn and the image of New York just is a remarkable vote of confidence. The idea of using Brooklyn and New York to build a global brand is one that we think is a very wise investment." Or a sign that somebody doesn't realize they could end up spending $400 million to promote somebody else's vodka.
Those who are still suing to stop the Atlantic Yards project that includes the arena, meanwhile, were decidedly unhappy about the as-yet-nonexistent building getting a corporate name, with Develop Don't Destroy activist Dan Goldstein telling AP that "Barclays is supporting an abuse of the Constitution." Though as others note, that's not exactly anything new for the company.
January 17, 2007
A's owner mum on stadium funding
Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff gave his first public presentation of his Fremont stadium proposal last night, telling the Fremont city council that the surrounding development project will include 2,900 new homes and 500,000 square feet of upscale "specialty" retailers, similar to San Jose's Santana Row. As for any hint of financing details, though, the A's owner/real estate developer came up empty. As the San Jose Mercury News reported:
Wolff has yet to unveil exactly what his ballpark village would look like, how he expects to handle game-day traffic, or how the public cost of serving a new community of 2,900 homes with schools, parks, libraries, and police and fire protection compares to the projected tax revenues his development would yield. Wolff said he would deliver an economic impact report to the city in the near future.
Of course, an "economic impact report" still isn't a financial plan - it's just a projection (often a rose-colored one) of the likely costs and benefits of a project, once it's been paid for. It is, though, a necessary step if Wolff is really thinking of seeking tax-increment financing or similar public subsidies.
As for the public who Wolff was addressing, many expressed skepticism about the plan, with much concern about likely traffic problems. Wolff's request that the council take up the plan "move this along sooner rather than later" was met with criticism from a local Sierra Club representative, who said that since this would be the biggest development in the city's history, it should receive extra public scrutiny. Hey, what a concept!
January 14, 2007
Feinstein to NFL: Take our antitrust exemption, please!
Here's something you don't see every day: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation to grant the NFL an antitrust exemption that would allow it to block franchise moves. "This legislation is designed to slow the movement of NFL teams and prevent communities from suffering the financial and intangible costs of these moves," said the former San Francisco mayor.
The team being targeted here, of course, is the San Francisco 49ers, whose owners are talking of moving them south to the miniscule suburb of Santa Clara. Feinstein noted that MLB has an antitrust exemption that allows it to control team movement, and in the last 25 years, only one team (the Washington Nationals nee Montreal Expos) has moved, while seven NFL teams have uprooted themselves for greener pastures.
But Feinstein overlooks some important distinctions between the NFL and MLB: While football teams get most of their money from national TV revenue, baseball teams get it from local sources: cable contracts, corporate sponsorships, and old-fashioned ticket sales. The NFL has seen several teams of late move from large markets to smaller ones, since for a team owner, a sold-out stadium with 1/32nd of the national TV revenue and lots of luxury suites in Nashville is preferable to a sold-out stadium with 1/32nd of the national TV revenue and not so many luxury suites in Houston. For baseball teams, that kind of move would be suicide, since a team in Nashville would never be able to bring in the kind of local revenue as one in Houston, regardless of how shiny the stadium was.
Add in that baseball is played seven days a week to football's one, making it more important to have stadiums near central-city transportation hubs, and the suburban threat hasn't been as great in baseball, either. (Some wacky ideas notwithstanding.) So while MLB's antitrust exemption has no doubt come in handy from time to time - Feinstein was no doubt thinking back to when the league blocked the move of the San Francisco Giants to St. Petersburg, leading to both the construction of a mostly privately financed stadium for the Giants in S.F., and the creation of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to ward off an antitrust suit from the state of Florida - it's more the financial structures of the two leagues that make NFL franchises footloose while MLB ones tend to stay put.
Feinstein's bill, in fact, is likely to do nothing to keep the 49ers in Santa Clara, since NFL owners would be just as happy to have the 49ers in a new stadium in the burbs, if it will bring in more cash. The NFL has already endorsed Feinstein's bill, as you would expect, and the 49ers ownership doesn't seem concerned by it, either, issuing a statement that "we do not believe this legislation will deter our efforts to create a stadium that provides a world-class fan experience that the Bay Area deserves." Next up: Sen. Feinstein introduces the National Fox Employment Act to ensure the security of our nation's henhouses.
January 10, 2007
Utah soccer stadium follies
So in the last 24 hours, in quick succession:
- Utah house speaker Greg Curtis declared the $110 million Real Salt Lake soccer stadium plan to be all but dead, and threatened to reallocate the stadium funds to other purposes. "I sat in meetings with three or four county elected officials, and they signed to principles in writing," he said. "And nothing's been done, and I don't think it's going to happen."
- Real Salt Lake owner Dave Checketts insisted that the deal was "90 percent" complete, and that he hoped "cooler heads" would prevail to keep talks going.
- Salt Lake County's district attorney announced that the proposed stadium site may contain toxic waste.
That was all yesterday. Today, the consulting firm Economics Research Associates was scheduled to deliver its economic impact report on the stadium. If you don't remember ERA from their past work in Dallas and New York, here's Checketts describing their analytical chops: "I've heard people say, 'This is a skinny model. We're counting dead bodies. ...' It's an aggressive model, but this is what I do for a living." I thought that's what this guy did for a living.
January 09, 2007
Marlins seek to tap "blight" money for stadium
Yet another reason why it's bad to be a one-newspaper town: Today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that MLB and Miami officials "are optimistic they are close to finalizing a deal" to build a Florida Marlins stadium, with Miami-Dade County tax collector Ian Yorty saying he hopes to move forward "in a month or two." As for financing, the Sun-Sentinel reports:
The deal is expected to include a contribution from the Marlins, hotel bed taxes from Miami-Dade County and property taxes generated by development in the city's Community Redevelopment Agency district near the stadium property, which is east of Interstate 95 and a few blocks southwest of Miami Arena. Although the proposed site is outside the district, city and county officials say the district could be expanded, if the city and county commissions agree.
Sounds okay, right? The team kicks in some, those no-good tourists kick in some, and some money comes from some sort of stadium-related property tax. Sounds almost equitable.
Now let's turn to the Miami Herald:
The latest plan to build the cash-strapped Florida Marlins a new stadium in downtown Miami involves using millions of dollars of money meant to improve blighted neighborhoods.
It also calls for the city of Miami to deed property to Miami-Dade County so the Marlins - which would lease the stadium - could receive a tax break. And it requires money, once again, from the state Legislature.
Well, that's certainly a different perspective. The Herald goes on to note that CRA money is legally required to go to "blighted" districts, but that Miami Mayor Manny Diaz thinks he can use it for general "redevelopment" (which smells like a lawsuit to me), and that the state legislature has consistently refused to help fund a Marlins stadium. The price tag, meanwhile, is now expected to be close to $500 million, according to the Sun-Sentinel. In other words: new plan, old bottle.
January 07, 2007
Sonics owner: Still working on blackmail note, please remain patient
Seattle Sonics owner Clay Bennett says he hopes to select an arena site and provide a price tag by January 18. (A Bennett spokesperson would only say "I hope it will be less than $500 million when we are done.") Bennett apparently isn't going to ask for a contribution from the mighty metropoli of Renton or Bellevue, but will ask for cash from King County, the state of Washington, or both.
In its report on the situation, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer helpfully included what's becoming a boilerplate paragraph in its articles: "If the Sonics are unsuccessful in building a new arena it's likely Bennett will move the team to Oklahoma City, where other team investors live." Just following orders...
March of the Penguins
Guess that trip to Kansas City did the trick: Pittsburgh Penguins owner Mario Lemieux is now saying he's "optimistic" about talks with Pittsburgh area officials on a new arena, while sources told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that a deal could be in place as soon as this week.
Meanwhile, word leaked out of exactly what AEG, the sports management firm that has a contract to run K.C.'s new Sprint Center, offered Lemieux to move west: Free rent and no up-front construction costs, but only 50% of arena revenues. (AEG would get the other half, unless the Pens agreed to buy out their management contract for $27 million.) The K.C. Star does report, though, that the Penguins delegation was impressed by what the paper called the "cinergy" of the entertainment district with the arena.
No matter how you spell it, it apparently wasn't enough to make Lemieux give up on squeezing more money out of Pittsburgh first - either that, or Mario decided he just doesn't like barbecue.
January 06, 2007
Weekend Update: Vancouver dome deflates, so does S.F. stadium plan
Lots of football news (U.S. and Canadian-style) this week, plus new developments in Minnesota and Seattle:
- The inflated Teflon roof of Vancouver's B.C. Place - home of the B.C. Lions CFL team and centerpiece of the 2010 Winter Olympics - collapsed yesterday after being buffeted by strong wind gusts. One stadium worker described the sound as that of "elephants running through your living room." (How would he know?) The Globe and Mail's architecture critic thinks this would be a good opportunity to consider tearing down the 24-year-old stadium, given that it "sits on the equivalent of four blocks of some of Canada's most expensive land."
- The San Francisco 49ers have laid out a set of "guiding principles" for a new stadium in Santa Clara, including "no new taxes" and "no net cost to the city's general fund," though it would involve some "public investment." (Best guess here: either tax increment financing or something similar where the city would be "repaid" by stadium-related tax payments.) Team execs say they hope to firm up financing plans with Santa Clara officials over the next six months. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed a new stadium on the Hunters Point site, but Niners owner John York wasn't interested, instead accusing Newsom of "political gamesmanship."
- The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the dispute over the sale of land for the Minnesota Twins stadium "is threatening to derail the property's sale just two months before work is to begin on the site." It also says that the gap between what the county is offering and what the landholders are demanding is "likely in the millions of dollars," which isn't really all that much when you're talking about a half-billion-dollar project with a $90 million budget for land and infrastructure alone. Contrary to what the Star Trib's Sid Hartman said earlier this week, the county has already begun eminent domain condemnation proceedings for the property, and will move to seize it at a January 22 court date if no deal is in place to buy it by then.
- Oceanside has joined Chula Vista and National City as sites the San Diego Chargers are exploring to be their new home. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman - who doesn't have a stadium or a plan for one, not that that's stopped him before - called to express interest in the Chargers, but was told they plan to remain focused on San Diego County "for the time being."
- As suburban Renton and Bellevue bid to become the new home of the Seattle Sonics, the anti-subsidy group Citizens for More Important Things has released a poll showing that King County voters would back a ban on sports subsidies like the one passed by the city of Seattle in November, with 53% saying they'd vote for it, and just 25% saying they'd vote no.
January 03, 2007
Lemieux to Pittsburgh: I'd love to stay, I must be going
Last week, PIttsburgh Penguins owners Mario Lemieux and Ronald Burkle (combined lifetime goals: 690) sent a letter to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, saying they wanted a new arena settled well before the governor's March 31 target date, as "time is of the essence" and they were "in the process of exploring all of our options." In case Rendell didn't get the message, today Lemieux and Burkle agreed to meet with Kansas City officials to discuss moving to that city's new Sprint Center.
Whether they're serious is anybody's guess - the Pens remain popular in Pittsburgh, and hockey in K.C. didn't work out that well the first time - but it's certainly a good example of Jerry Reinsdorf's dictum about leverage. With Kansas City having built the Sprint Center on spec, and now having to scramble to find a tenant, you have to expect that most every NBA and NHL owner will be paying a visit, much as Tampa Bay became a requisite stop for baseball owners seeking new stadiums in the late '80s and early '90s.
What seems more likely is that Rendell and Pittsburgh officials will sweeten the pot on their "Plan B" financing plan, which would already have the Penguins owners kicking in less than a third of the arena costs. In their letter to the governor, Lemieux and Burkle said they looked forward to "seeing what has been described as a plan that is significantly better than the original 'Plan B.'" So would members of the Allegheny County council, who say the county's chief executive won't return their phone calls asking about the details of the latest proposal. Maybe they didn't say the magic word.
January 02, 2007
Twins stadium tax debuts, no stadium in sight
Happy new year! For our readers in Hennepin County, Minnesota, 2007 brings the arrival of the new 0.15% sales tax surcharge that will go to pay the bulk of construction costs for the new Minnesota Twins stadium planned for downtown Minneapolis. (The total sales tax is now 7.15% in Minneapolis, 6.65% in the rest of the county.) According to a report last year by county officials, "a married couple with two children earning $60,000 a year" - apparently child labor is really well-paid in Minnesota - would pay a average of $25 a year via the tax. That, though, doesn't count any potential lost income from the (small, but no doubt positive) drag on the county economy that will result from purchases there carrying a higher price tag.
As for the stadium itself, meanwhile, ground still hasn't been broken, and the project is hitting some potential snags:
- Property owners on the proposed stadium site are refusing to sell at the county's price; an eminent domain condemnation hearing has been set for January 22, but county commissioners say they prefer to cut a deal before then. The county's land costs have been capped at $90 million - if the sale price goes above that, no one's sure what happens
- The site chosen for the Twins stadium is tightly hemmed in by surrounding streets, which may be good for funky ballpark design, but is problematic when it comes to the light-rail line which is supposed to bring fans to the games, and which as currently planned will dump them on a sidewalk just 23 feet wide. As the Mankato Free Press notes, "design and logistics already bear signs of becoming tangled balls of fishing tackle." Ah, those charming Minnesotanisms.
Twins designated newspaper shill Sid Hartman goes so far as to predict that "the ballpark might not be built if the purchase price for the land can't be worked out," though that's likely to be largely a matter of the county trying to pressure landowners into giving up their land cheap: "Sell now, because this offer might not last long!" It is very possible that the price tag for the project will go up, though, which could make for some interesting times ahead either for the state legislature or for Carl Pohlad's treasure goblins.
