February 28, 2007
Miami unveils Marlins stadium design, price tag
Miami officials yesterday revealed some details of the latest plans for a new downtown stadium for the Florida Marlins:
- The stadium would seat a relatively tiny 37,000 on a relatively tiny nine-acre footprint, which would be a neat trick given that it will need room to support a retractable roof.
- Cost would be $490 million, of which the team would pay $207 million ($45 million now, the rest in future rent payments), with the county spending $145 million and the city $108 million. That leaves the same $30 million funding gap as the project faced three years ago, even though then it was supposed to be $165 million cheaper. The state legislature is expected to discuss bills to kick in the missing money in coming weeks.
- The city is still reportedly considering the use of money slated for improving blighted neighborhoods for part of the funding, something that might not make some local officials happy, since it would make those funds unavailable for other uses such as affordable housing.
I'm still trying to track down actual images of the stadium plan, though you can see a tiny image of what looks like a grainy pencil sketch here. Watch this space for further details.
Fremont stadium site a gas, gas, gas
Not only is the proposed Oakland A's stadium in Fremont still missing a financing plan, but it faces a new problem: a toxic chemical plant across the street. Fremont city manager Fred Diaz said yesterday that A's ownership would have to either relocate or someone mitigate the dangers of Scott Specialty Gases - no jokes, people - before the city will sign off on the stadium deal.
Diaz did say that "we don't believe it's a deal breaker," and that he expects things to move ahead in a few weeks once the team finalizes its purchase of the proposed stadium site. Maybe then A's owner Lew Wolff will actually tell someone what this whole mess is going to cost, and who will pay for it.
February 27, 2007
Bennett says he'll accept Sonics referendum
Seattle Sonics owner Clay Bennett brought out his big guns yesterday, carting along a model of his proposed arena and basketball Hall of Famer Bill Russell to present to the state House Finance Committee, in the hopes one of them would convince the legislature to approve $300 million or so in public subsidies. Possibly the more important news, though, was that Bennett said he'd now consider holding a public referendum on an arena tax, telling the committee: "I'm open to whatever the right answer is, whatever leadership recommends and whatever's right for this region."
Given that 77 percent of Washington voters opposed spending public dollars on a Sonics arena, you might take this as a sign that Bennett is getting desperate, figuring that he'll take the referendum if it's a condition of getting an arena bill through the legislature, and he'll deal with lobbying voters later. Or maybe he's just hoping that Washingtonians really like Bill Russell.
The revenge of the Hetch Hetchy
I made a passing quip about the Hetch Hetchy reservoir the other day, the signature battle that flooded a valley reputed to be even more picturesque than Yosemite and in large part kicked off the environmental movement. It turns out that that history has important ramifications for the San Francisco 49ers' plans for a new stadium in Santa Clara: The pipeline that brings water from the reservoir to San Francisco runs under the proposed stadium site, and the land above it is still owned by the city of San Francisco.
As if the prospect of having to bargain with their current landlords for the right to land that would let them move out isn't unpleasant enough, the 49ers owners could face other headaches as a result of the pipeline, according to the San Francisco Chronicle's Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross:
Susan Leal, the agency's general manager, said the pipes are scheduled to be dug up and replaced starting in 2009 or 2010 as part of the Hetch Hetchy system overhaul -- with the work stretching two or three years. That would mean running up against the Niners' self-imposed 2012 deadline for the stadium's first kickoff.
Asked whether the pipeline presents problems for the team's stadium plans, Leal said, "I think that's a question for them.'"
Niners officials publicly downplayed the pipeline issue, as did S.F. city officials, who are still trying to negotiate with the team to remain in town. But one anonymous city official told Matier and Ross called the pipeline news "unbelievable leverage for us. It's quite remarkable.'' That's what John Muir said.
February 24, 2007
Hey! You got an electric substation in my stadium site!
The plan to move the San Francisco 49ers (and maybe the Oakland Raiders) to a new stadium in Santa Clara may have hit an obstacle - okay, actually three obstacles. Take it away, San Jose Mercury News:
What's on the land -- a 2.1-acre electric substation that could cost up to $30 million to move -- is emerging as a possible obstacle that the 49ers and Santa Clara must overcome to build a new stadium near Great America amusement park.
A creek and the Hetch Hetchy pipeline also run through the land, creating other constraints.
"You can't make the creek go in any direction and you can't make the Hetch Hetchy move,'' said Santa Clara assistant city manager Ron Garratt. "The substation is theoretically malleable, but there's a cost to it.''
Actually, at least some people would like to make the Hetch Hetchy move, but that's another story.
Sonics staying put for now
Seattle Sonics officials say they won't file paperwork with the NBA to relocate for next season. Mostly, that means that team owner Clay Bennett will have at least another year to pursue his $500 million arena plan in suburban Renton.
That uphill battle just got a bit steeper, meanwhile, thanks to Washington state treasurer Mike Murphy, who blasted both the Sonics plan and a proposal to provide nearly $200 million to build a NASCAR track, testifying before the state house finance committee, "We might as well dispense with calling these things public-private partnerships, because they really aren't," and telling the Seattle Times: "The private side gets rich. The public side gets screwed." Well, that's a kind of partnership.
February 19, 2007
Hoops vs. books
Stadium boosters like to paint their projects as "civic amenities" that, like libraries or opera halls, should get taxpayer funds because they benefit the public. (Though have you ever tried to go down to your local basketball arena and check out a point guard for two weeks? The late fees alone are killer.) Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat tested this premise yesterday, comparing the projected public subsidies for the proposed Seattle Sonics arena to those received by other public buildings:
- Sonics arena: $500 million, 80% public
- Building or renovating 28 Seattle libraries: $275 million, 70% public
- Seattle ballet and opera hall: $127 million, 43% public
- Seattle symphony hall: $118 million, 33% public
- University of Washington basketball arena: $66 million, 0% public
"People say sports is as central to the city's soul as arts, parks and libraries," concluded Westneat. "OK, I agree. So why can't pro sports pay its way, at least as much as the arts, parks and libraries?"
Falcons owner: Can we go back for seconds yet?
Atlanta Falcons owner (and billionaire Home Depot co-founder) Arthur Blank says he wants - wait for it - a new stadium to replace the Georgia Dome, which is all of 15 years old. Blank's reasons? Let us count the ways:
- "The Dome is a fine place to play football but it was built in 1992 and domes tend to age more quickly than other stadiums."
- "In order for us to continue to field a competitive team, we will need some short-term revenue opportunities to continue to develop for us and some long-term resolutions."
- "My view is we would start out by doing what we always do, by talking to the fans ... about the kind of stadium they would like to see us build."
The obsolescence claim, the "we can't compete" claim, selling it as a fait accompli (note that Blank didn't say he'd talk to the fans about whether they would like a new stadium) - yeah, that runs through most of the stadium playbook.
The Falcons lease expires when the bonds for the Georgia Dome are paid off, which Blank says could be as soon as 2014 or 2015. No word on who'd pay for building a new stadium, though presumably it would be "uncompetitive" for the Falcons to do so.
February 15, 2007
Sonics deliver arena pitch
Seattle Sonics owner Clay Bennett issued his latest basketball arena demands this week: a $500 million arena in suburban Renton, $300 million in King County tax money to help pay for it (the city of Renton would be on the hook for an unspecified amount of the remainder), and, oh yes, no public referendum on the matter, because "I think a public vote would be very difficult to survive."
Unless things change, however, it's looking unlikely Bennett will get both of those last two items. The entire Democratic majority of the Metropolitan King County Council signed a letter to state officials saying they'll reject any arena-tax plan that doesn't include a public vote. And even in the legislature itself, the Sonics arena proposal faces significant opposition: House Speaker Frank Chopp, asked about the bill, told the Seattle Times, "I'm sorry, but the education of our kids is simply a much higher priority," Chopp said. "What am I going to do, divert money from [education] to pay for a place where the courtside seats cost, what is it, a thousand bucks a seat? Give me a break."
Things are still very, very early here, though. If this controversy is resolved this legislative session, and if the final battle is over a bill that looks remotely like this one, it'll be almost as big an upset as the Sonics making the playoffs.
NYC facing $35m in Yankees overruns, could go higher
As I report over at the Village Voice news blog (now called "Runnin' Scared," as that's apparently even more obscure than the previous name, "Power Plays"), New York City officials have confirmed that the city is facing $35 million in cost overruns on its share of the Yankees stadium project. This brings the city's share of this "no public subsidies" stadium to $195 million, with the total city, state, and federal subsidies now at $425 million.
There could be more hidden costs lurking about as well: The city's capital budget includes an additional $88 million for the Yanks and Mets projects that no one in Mayor Mike Bloomberg's office has seen fit to explain, either to reporters or to the city council.
And then there's still the open question of the Yankees parking garages, for which the state is supposed to pay $75 million, and a private developer $250 million - except that the last anyone heard, the state still hasn't found a developer to take on the project. If one part of the project is hitting cost overruns, there's a fair chance that the garage piece will, too - and if developers are balking at getting involved already, they're certainly not going to agree to shoulder added costs, which would mean adding to the state's tab. Somebody's not going to be too happy about that.
February 13, 2007
What goes to Memphis stays in Vegas?
Robin Leach - yes, that Robin Leach - reports that there is a "strong possibility of the Memphis Grizzlies being sold to a Vegas investor group. ... You can expect the monumental news confirmed in 48 hours, with all the details being announced prior to or during Sunday's All-Star Game."
There's nothing I can add to that. Except to note that the Grizzlies have seven years to go on their lease at the $250 million arena that Memphis taxpayers built for them in 2004. And that Las Vegas doesn't have an arena for a team to play in, and there's lots of local opposition to spending public money on one.
Okay, so turns out there was a lot I had to add. But jeez, Robin Leach, man.
Twins, Vikes stadium plans on hold
Both the Minnesota Twins and Vikings postponed the release of detailed stadium plans yesterday, amid questions over land acquisition and funding, respectively.
- The Twins announced yesterday that although designs for a new $522 million stadium (of which $387 million would be paid for with public funds) are "ready to go," they'll be kept under wraps until a dispute over land acquisition for the site is resolved. Property owners have been demanding that the county pay more in its eminent-domain taking of land for the stadium; Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, who brokered the stadium deal in the first place, has implied that the current plan could be abandoned entirely, saying: "As we march on here, the price keeps mounting. At some point you have to decide there's got to be another site that works and isn't this expensive and doesn't bring so much hassle."
- Also yesterday, the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission was scheduled to announce the design of a new $900 million Vikings stadium on the current Metrodome site (a few blocks from the proposed Twins stadium). Instead, MSFC director Bill Lester announced that the agency was postponing the announcement indefinitely "until we come up with some way to pay for all this." Hey, now there's a concept.
Yes, Utah, there is a stadium
Apologies to all - I just realized I neglected to report here on last Thursday's vote of the Utah state house to approve $35 million in state funding for a Real Salt Lake stadium in the suburb of Sandy. Counting the $15 million that the Sandy city government has pledged to kick in, taxpayers will now be spending $50 million toward the $110 million project - $5 million more than the plan Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon rejected two weeks ago as "gambling with taxpayer dollars." And that's assuming there are no unexpected cost overruns, since the final terms of the deal have yet to be agreed on.
The lesson here for sports teams is clear: If at first you don't succeed, just find another level of government to hit up for funds. For the Minnesota Twins, it was going to the county when the state rejected funding; for RSL, the reverse. As always, it's not about how many times you have to go to the well - all a team owner needs is to win one vote, and the steel and concrete stands forever. Or, at least, until the next time you ask for one.
February 08, 2007
Nets arena court battle begins, Knicks arena next?
Yesterday was the first court hearing in the battle over New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner's proposed multi-billion-dollar Atlantic Yards project, which would include a basketball arena, an office skyscraper, and several apartment towers - plus the use of state eminent domain powers to seize private land, and at minimum $305 million in public "infrastructure" funds. I wasn't there, but Atlantic Yards Report's Norman Oder was, and submitted an extensive report that begins:
The marathon hearing in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case yesterday at times felt like a law school seminar, as Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy tossed hypothetical situations at lawyers for the plaintiffs and the defendants. Given a case that tests the boundaries of the law, Levy challenged them to suggest rules for determining when the balance of public and private purposes behind a project is so wrong that a court must intervene - and seemed unwilling to swiftly dismiss the case, as the lawyers for the defense hope.
Levy will issue his recommendation of whether to dismiss the case or allow it to continue to trial in several weeks.
Across the East River, meanwhile, there are rumblings anew of a new Madison Square Garden to be the new home of the Knicks and Rangers (and Liberty, if anyone still pays attention to them) inside the new Moynihan Station train station, which in turn would be inside the landmarked Farley Post Office building. (The current Madison Square Garden, which sits atop Penn Station, would be razed, making way for both office towers and another new station entrance.) There's nothing close to a finance plan yet, though the New York Observer's Matt Schuerman does note that new Empire State Development Corporation chief Patrick Foye has "come to believe that the private developers need to share some of the approximately $1 billion cost of ripping Penn Station open to the sky." Now all we need to know is what he means by "some."
Marlins prez: No state money, no stadium
Florida Marlins president David Samson said this week that stadium talks are "progressing in a way that I hope results in a deal," but that the state would have to be willing to cough up some funds: "Without the state's financial help there's no stadium deal as we see it right now." Of course, he's said all that before.
New Gov. Charlie Crist did say he was "favorably inclined" toward putting state money into the deal - but then, so did the old governor. The more important variable is the state legislature, which has repeatedly declined to kick in towards a Marlins stadium, in part because they're already giving state tax money to the team's old owner.
Meanwhile, Samson said that the Marlins' league-bottom payroll "would not go up at all during construction" of a new stadium, and would be "average," he hoped, once a new home opened, which would be no sooner than 2011. Now there's a p.r. campaign: "If You Build It, We Won't Suck (As Much)."
D-Day for RSL stadium?
The undead Real Salt Lake stadium plan remains very much, er, undead, with final approval from the Utah state legislature possible as soon as today.
If so, it would wrap up a whirlwind ten days of negotiations since Salt Lake County Peter Corroon rejected a deal that would have used $45 million in public funds toward a $110 million soccer stadium in the city of Sandy. Team owner Dave Checketts immediately threatened to sell the team, which has a glorious history in Salt Lake going all the way back to two years ago, likely to new owners who'd move it to St. Louis. In the days since then:
- On Tuesday, the Utah state senate voted 20-8 to redirect $35 million in hotel taxes from county coffers to the state, and then use it to pay for land and infrastructure for the RSL stadium - effectively usurping the county's decision-making power over the use of its tax money.
- Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller engaged in a war of words over whose public subsidy would be bigger, RSL's or the one the Jazz got in 1990.
- The Salt Lake Tribune noted that among the unknowns remaining about the deal are: Will RSL be required to remain in the stadium for a certain number of years? Why has the hotel-tax contribution gone up from $30 million to $35 million, and will the city of Sandy still have to come up with its $15 million share? Will there be a 50-cent ticket tax to help repay taxpayers? Lisa Roskelley, a spokesperson for Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., explained that all this hadn't been worked out yet, saying, "Negotiations are going to go forth once there's money on the table" - which sounds like a really, really bad idea.
Regardless of the uncertainties, the Utah state house is set to vote on the plan today, thus meeting Checketts' demands for a stadium decision before tomorrow, to ward off sale of the team. He's a savvy negotiator, that Checketts.
February 03, 2007
NFL stadium fund is out of funds
Talk about burying the lede: The San Francisco Chronicle reports that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell revealed in his "state of the league" address that the league's "G-3" stadium loan fund has run dry, and there's no immediate solution for replenishing it. You have to read all the way down to the last sentence to get to the punchline:
That means the 49ers, the Cowboys and the Vikings, three teams in the process of planning stadium proposals, might have their projects delayed until a new funding program is in place, unless they find another way to come up with a billion dollars.
Now, the crisis is a bit less dire than it sounds: G-3 loans are "repaid" by siphoning off club-seat revenue that normally goes to visiting teams, and that source of money is still available - what's needed is a new pool of capital to actually loan out the cash. Goodell insisted, "We have always had a league-wide stadium funding mechanism. I anticipate we will. But this has to be considered within the context of our labor agreement and revenue sharing with the Players Association."
And that, says Chronicle columnist Ray Ratto, could be the catch:
Revenue sharing is an inter-owner fight which has been going on for years, with the small-market teams wanting more of the money the big-market teams currently make on luxury boxes and local media income. The labor situation, though, is likely to drag out until 2010, when the current contract expires, although the players union is considering voiding the agreement after 2008 in a fight over the salary cap.
In short: The 49ers, Cowboys, Vikings, Redskins, and any other NFL teams thinking about new digs just had a $150 million hole blown in their budgets. (Three hundred million, if you believe the talk about the Niners and Oakland Raiders pooling their resources on a shared stadium.) Needless to say, it will be very interesting to see how those teams respond to this news - and whether they now attempt to pass more of their costs off on the public.
February 02, 2007
Real Salt Lake stadium rises from dead, stumbles menacingly toward populace
That didn't take long: Three days after the $110 million Real Salt Lake stadium plan was declared dead, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has proposed reviving it on the state level by diverting $20 million in hotel taxes that currently go to the county to the stadium project
County Mayor Peter Corroon, who earlier this week rejected putting $30 million in county money into the soccer stadium, called the state tax grab "troublesome" and "regretful," but county councilmember Jeff Allen had the quote of the day, saying succinctly: "We're screwed." A recent poll found that more than 70% of local residents supported Corroon's decision.
While the state has the power to overrule the county on tax matters, ironically, building a sports stadium as an economic boost makes even less for a state than a county, since the wider circles you draw, the stronger the substitution effect. Or, in English: A soccer stadium might draw some ticket buyers who otherwise wouldn't spend their disposable income in Salt Lake County, but how many people are really going to drive down from Idaho?
