September 23, 2008
When is a park not a park?
The New York Daily News chimes in today on what's been an ongoing debate about the Yankees' new stadium: Is the city really replacing as much parkland as was destroyed to make way for the new structure?
A recently discovered photograph of a baseball diamond just west of the old Yankee Stadium has reignited questions about whether the city is actually replacing all of the recreational parkland taken for the Bombers' new arena.
The 2.89-acre parcel between 161st St. and the Macombs Dam Bridge approach was paved over in the 1970s, and served as extra stadium parking during the season, but was left open to the public for the rest of the year.
It will soon be the site of a parking garage for the new stadium. But the Parks Department did not include the asphalt ballfield in its calculation of the recreational park facilities the city must, by law, replace as part of the stadium project.The crux of the debate, apparently, is whether the parcel was a parking lot being used as a ballfield, or a ballfield being used as a parking lot - and hinges on the city's decision to lease the stadium site to the Yankees instead of following the more usual path of demapping it as park space. For more, see my Village Voice item.
In other Yankee Stadium deathwatch news, the website MarketWatch takes a look at the wall-to-wall media coverage of the stadium's final game, and concludes that "the Yankees have used the YES network, which the team oversees, and the accommodating New York media to lead an orgy of sentimentality":
Why aren't more scribes and broadcasters vocal about pointing out why the Yankees' owners are closing the Stadium? No, it's not necessarily happening because the "big ballpark in the Bronx" (as Reggie Jackson likes to call it), has outlived its usefulness. I've attended enough games there this season to enjoy its splendor and conclude that there is no structural need to tear it down right now, either.
To be blunt, the team owners are shutting this Yankee Stadium because they can make a lot more money by opening a state-of-the-art baseball stadium/cum amusement park for fans who probably care more about being entertained than watching nine innings of baseball.
Well said, though MarketWatch would have a better case for the moral high ground if they themselves had ever ever mentioned the Yanks' reasons for demanding a new stadium before now.
September 21, 2008
Sens, Mets owners mull soccer affiliates
What do you get for the sports team owner who has everything? A soccer team, apparently. MLS has said in plans to expand to 18 franchises in 2011, and all sorts of current sports moguls are talking about getting in on the action:
- Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk announced last week plans for a $100 million, 30,000-seat soccer stadium near his team's hockey arena, to host an expansion franchise. Melnyk is already seeking city land to use for his proposed stadium; no word yet on whether he'd demand other subsidies, but given that it's 1) Canada and 2) soccer, it doesn't seem likely he'd get a ton.
- At the same time, the owners of the New York Mets say they're interested in getting a soccer franchise as well, though it's not clear where they'd play. One possibility is a stadium in the Citi Field parking lot (where Shea Stadium is now), but then they'd have to find someplace for Mets fans to park their cars - not to mention a way to pay for building the thing.
Other rumored expansion candidates include Montreal, Vancouver, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Portland, and St. Louis, which could boost MLS's chances of getting public cash for stadiums, as it's always better to be a seller in a seller's market. Which certainly helps explain why MLS is doling out teams in dribs and drabs - it certainly worked the last time around.
The stadium that goes on spending
The Indianapolis Colts' $700 million Lucas Oil Stadium may be complete, but the public's costs aren't: It was revealed this week that the city's costs of operating the 1.8 million square foot behemoth will be $20 million this year, double the original projections. "We're making guesses until we have actual numbers," Grand said. "We're bleeding cash right now, absolutely," city Capital Improvement Board chair Bob Grand told the Indianapolis Star; solutions, he said, could include staff cuts or the sale of naming rights to the attached convention center.
It was a bad week for the new stadium, having started with news that with the roof closed, the acoustics were so lousy that people couldn't hear anything at a Kenny Chesney concert. And apparently people felt that this was a bad thing.
September 18, 2008
Did NYC break law in Yanks deal?
As promised, I've had more time to dig into New York Assemblymember Richard Brodsky's report on the New York Yankees deal, and come up with a few previously unnoticed tidbits:
- Brodsky estimates the current total public subsidy at "between $585 million and $826 million," whereas I have it at $833 million. He doesn't include a couple hundred million in tax breaks, though; he also screws up the math in at least one place, mixing up cumulative value of future bond payments with present value, which is like adding up all your future mortgage payments and calling it the value of your house.
- To the question of how the city gave the state and the IRS two very different values for the land under the new stadium, Brodsky has the answer: They did two separate appraisals. And didn't tell either party that they'd done a different appraisal for the other. Brodsky's research implies that the low valuation is probably correct, meaning the figure the IRS used to okay the Yanks' bizarro stadium bond financing may well have been fraudulent, making the bonds illegal.
- Brodsky uncovered a city document claiming that only 15 new permanent jobs would be created by the new stadium (as against the "thousands" promised by the Yankees and the city). Other city documents show other figures, though, so all this really proves is where the city comes up with its job creation figures.
Brodsky concludes that the city "may have violated the law" in the Yankees deal, but if things go as usual in these cases, that and two dollars will get you Lehman Brothers. For more details, see my brand-spanking-new article on the Village Voice website.
And finally, adding insult to injury, an excellent analysis of the new Yankees stadium design by Bronx Banter's Cliff Corcoran concludes that "what they've really done is take affordable seats away from the common fan who can only afford to sit in the upper deck or bleachers of the current Stadium and relocated them to parts of the ballpark only the wealthy can afford," while New York magazine points out that some of the "improved sightlines" at the Yanks' new home will look directly into the side of a restaurant. On the bright side, that's still better than watching the Yanks these days.
Yankees hearing webcast
The Dennis Kucinich hearing on the New York Yankees stadium is underway, and being webcast here:
http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2181 More on this later today.September 16, 2008
Colts owner: Give Vikes a stadium or else
Apparently it's not enough for league commissioners to issue stadium threats on behalf of their teams; now opposing team owners are getting into the deal as well. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay made headlines yesterday by declaring that the Minnesota Vikings need a new stadium, stat:
"I think the key thing is, it is urgent," Colts owner Jim Irsay said of the Vikings' stadium need. "They simply can't remain in this facility. It's not possible."Clearly Irsay knows something about move threats, but one would hope that given recent history, people would know to take them with an enormous grain of salt. The best part of Irsay's comments, though, came when he was asked whether the Vikings' owners could at least be expected to pay for a large chunk of the expected $1 billion cost:
"The Wilfs can't put $600 million into a stadium. That's never going to happen," Irsay said. "You'd never make it back in five lifetimes."There you have it, sports fans: The Vikings owners want a new stadium even though it would bring in much less money than it would cost to build. With that out in the open, you'd figure it would be cheaper for all concerned for the state of Minnesota to just skip all the mucking about with steel and concrete and write the Vikes a check for however much they'd actually make from the new place in one lifetime. Unless maybe the Wilfs are worried about the stigma of admitting they're accepting help.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my Yankees
With Yankee Stadium's final game just five days away, everyone's suddenly getting in the game of figuring out why, and how much replacing it is going to cost taxpayers.
Assemblymember Richard Brodsky, who this summer held hearings into the Yanks' request for additional tax-exempt bonds, issued a report today entitled "The House That You Built: An Interim Report into Public Financial Assistance for the New Yankee Stadium." Its findings, according to the Legislative Gazette:
According to summary of the report released by Brodsky's office, there has been an estimated $550 million to $850 million dollars of taxpayers investment into the stadium project. The money, according to an August 2006 press release issued by New York City and cited in Brodsky's report, was supposed to have created "nearly 6,500 construction jobs and result in about 1,000 permanent jobs," But, according to the report, it has resulted in the creation of only 15 new permanent jobs.The committee's investigation also found that the city manipulated the assessed value of the stadium in order to meet the requirements for an IRS tax exemption.The investigation also showed that promises to the IRS, the National Park Service and state officials were broken, the city neglected to protect the public from excessive ticket price increases by the Yankees, and it is possible that New York City IDA failed to assure public benefits from the enormous taxpayer investment and may have violated the law in its creation of massive public debt.In other words, nothing that hasn't been reported here and elsewhere already, but it's always good to have it confirmed by another source. I haven't gotten the report myself yet, but will report here once I do if there are any interesting tidbits in it.
Meanwhile, the New York Times has a long story today on the free luxury suite that the city of New York is getting at the new stadium it's helping build for the Yanks. (The print version is actually even longer, and includes a quote from yours truly: "Is [city council speaker] Chris Quinn going to be able to hand out tickets to people who vote the way she likes?") Key section:
It is still unclear where the luxury suites will be located, how the perks will be distributed, and whether any public records will be kept of who uses them.Besides the free suites, the city will be allowed to buy up to 145 tickets to every Mets home game and up to 180 to every Yankees home game. (For these, the city will pay face value but will be able to reserve its tickets at least a day before they go on sale to the public.)City development chief Seth Pinsky responded, "Why is that relevant?" pointing out that it's not unusual for cities to get similar perks as part of stadium deals. (It's also not unusual for elected officials to come under fire for it.) Pinsky is schedule to appear at Thursday's Congressional hearing on the Yankees stadium, where I'm sure he'll be informed in no uncertain terms why this is considered relevant.
September 15, 2008
Rangel carried water for Yanks on bonds
The New York Daily News reports today that scandal-ridden Congressman Charles Rangel lobbied the IRS for tax-free bonds for the New York Yankees after receiving campaign contributions from team owner George Steinbrenner.
Early this year, reports the News, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee sent the IRS a letter crafted by the team and city lawyers, asking that it approve $350 million in new tax-exempt bonds for the Yanks' new stadium (to pay for such things as a schmancier scoreboard and bigger concessions areas), which would cost federal taxpayers $66 million in lost tax revenues. Over the past eight years, Yankees execs and their lobbyists Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld have donated $45,000 to Rangel and his National Leadership PAC.
If nothing else, it's looking like Thursday will be quite the show.
Allianz deal off
The New York Jets and Giants have apparently decided that putting a concentration camp insurer's name on their stadium isn't worth $30 million a year in naming-rights fees: The teams announced Friday that they'd ended talks with Allianz for a naming-rights deal for their new stadium opening in 2010. "We paid very close attention to what people were saying this week," the team's stadium chief, Mark Lamping, told the New York Times. "Whether those opinions were expressed directly to us, or through the media, we paid attention and was one of many factors that went into our decision."
The teams are expected to keep looking for a company that can meet their $30-million-a-year price tag, which would be a new record for naming rights. But they shouldn't have any trouble finding a red-blooded American firm with money to spend - there are still plenty of those around, right?
September 12, 2008
Jets/Giants naming-rights bidder was Auschwitz insurer
First the wannabe Brooklyn Nets sign up a naming-rights sponsor with a history of slave trading, now the New York Giants and Jets are under fire for mulling a deal with an insurance company that worked for the Nazis. The German firm Allianz, which is reportedly the front-runner for naming rights to the teams' new joint stadium in New Jersey, insured engineers handling poison gas for the death camps at Auschwitz, and has been accused of dragging its feet on restitution to Holocaust victims and their families.
Aren't there any companies out there that want to pay big bucks to slap their names on stadiums for reasons other than trying to paper over their own misdeeds? Anyone?
Yankees stadium on ESPN, before Congress
Two events next week of interest to those following the New York Yankees' almost $2 billion stadium deal:
- On Tuesday at 7 pm Eastern, ESPN's "E:60" will air a segment on the controversy over the stadium project. (If you miss it, it looks like clips are also archived on the E:60 website.) I was interviewed for this story; no clue whether I ended up on the cutting room floor.
- On Thursday at 10 am Eastern, Rep. Dennis Kucinich will be holding his latest stadium-finance hearing, this one with the juicy title of "Gaming the Tax Code: Public Subsidies, Private Profits, and Big League Sports in New York." Reportedly Seth Pinsky of the New York City Economic Development Corporation will be taking the stand; no word on whether the Yankees will send anyone. If you're not within easy walking distance of the Rayburn Office Building, the hearing should be webcast via the subcommittee's website - I'll try to post a direct link once I find one.
September 10, 2008
Marlins stadium suit down to final count
The Florida Marlins are a step closer to getting their new publicly funded stadium after the judge in the lawsuit against the project ruled yesterday that the stadium serves a "public purpose," and so is a valid use of tourist tax dollars. "The law in Florida is clear that retaining a professional baseball team in Miami satisfies a paramount public purpose," wrote Judge Jeri Beth Cohen in the suit filed by former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman against the stadium project. Of course, this assumes that the Marlins were going to leave town without a new stadium, but I guess Judge Cohen figured they'd threatened enough, so one of these times it might be true.
Braman's lawsuit is now down to one final count, but it's a doozy: challenging Dade County's game of hide-the-subsidy that involved swapping out funding sources for Miami's new performing arts center to free up tourist tax money for the Marlins stadium. No word just yet on when that ruling will come down, but when it does, you know all 584 Marlins fans will be waiting with bated breath.
Are the bums ever voted out?
If you've ever wondered why politicians don't fear retribution from voters for spending public money on private sports stadiums, check out the scene in Gwinnett County, Georgia, where lawmakers approved a $40 million stadium for the minor-league baseball Gwinnett Braves in March - then raised the public expense to $59 million last week. Without any public debate. After only first mentioning the price increase the previous Friday. Before a holiday weekend.
Many locals are extremely not amused with the county's Republican majority. But is that enough to make them vote Democratic in this year's elections? Probably not, Democratic county chair Michael Berlon told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "I don't think this issue is in and of itself enough to push it one way or another. But it's enough to push it in a direction." Just so long as the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
September 09, 2008
Welcome to the BofA opening pitch from the BofA pitcher's mound at Yankee Stadium!
SportsBusiness Journal reports that Bank of America is close to finalizing a sponsorship deal for the new New York Yankees stadium opening next year, which would make it the prime corporate sponsor of the new building. While the details (and price) of the "Premier Partnership" package haven't been disclosed, it's same to assume this will look much like the Yanks' ten-year deal with Adidas in 1997 that painted the company's three-stripe logo on dugout roofs, bullpen awnings, and light fixtures throughout Yankee Stadium - a naming-rights deal, in other words, for everything but the rights to the stadium name itself, which will still be "Yankee Stadium." That Adidas deal brought in $9 million a year for the Yanks; the BofA one is rumored to be in the range of the $20 million a year the Mets are getting for their more traditional naming-rights deal with Citicorp.
And what will taxpayers, who'll actually be paying more than the Yankees toward construction of the new park, get out of this deal? I think you can guess the answer to that.
Louisville will get its downtown arena
Getting to this late (I was distracted by news of Astroland's demise), but: The city of Louisville last week approved a long-in-the-works $349.2 million financing plan for a new downtown arena. The arena will replace the 52-year-old Freedom Hall as the home of the University of Louisville's basketball teams.
What's in it for the city of Louisville and state of Kentucky, which will combined put in $281 million of the cost, is unclear - local officials hope that it will bring in more concerts and other special events than the old arena, but it's going to take an awful lots of Ohioans going to see Bon Jovi to make up $281 million. One plus: Without a pro sports tenant, the arena authority will get to retain naming rights and other arena revenues, which can be sold to defray part of the public cost.
September 04, 2008
Tiger Stadium now 3/4 gone
While the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy has been working on raising money to save a corner of Tiger Stadium, the city of Detroit - that part of it not tied up in perjury hearings, anyway - has been busily knocking the rest of it down. As of today, the Free Press reports that all but the slice of grandstand between first and third base is gone (you can see the photo for yourself).
"As it stands right now, the stop points indicated to the contractors are from the first base dugout to the third base dugout," project manager Scott Veldhuis told the Freep. The Conservancy says it's optimistic that it will have $169,000 on hand by a Monday deadline to preserve the remaining section for the time being; if you want to help put them over the top, click here.
