This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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.
December 09, 2008
Yanks, Mets request new tax-free bonds
"As Stadiums' Costs Rise, City Agrees to New Bond Offerings" is the headline in today's New York Times, but that actually confuses two different pieces of news in the accompanying story.
- First off, the teams have finally made their official request for those long-rumored additional tax-free bonds. The totals: $259 million for the New York Yankees, $83 million for the Mets. (The Yanks are also asking for an extra $111 million in taxable bonds.) The AP reports that the new bonds are expected to cost the city $16 million for the Yankees, but nothing for the Mets "because that financing was already figured into the plan approved in 2006 as a 'contingency'." Presumably those figures are from the city's official filing, because they sure don't match the numbers I got previously from the city Independent Budget Office ($16 million actually sounds high for the city cost, though way low when you include loss of state and federal tax revenues); I'll have more here once I find out where these figures come from.
- The city has released new figures for estimated costs of new parks to replace those eliminated for the Yanks' new stadium, though it's hard to tell exactly how much if any they've gone up: The Times says $194.7 million for new parkland, $39 million towards a new Metro-North station, $32.3 million for "infrastructure and street work," and "a $10.4 million increase in the cost of street lighting, as well as increased design, engineering and construction-management costs" (no new total provided); back in June, the city gave me figures of $177 million for parkland , $34.5 for infrastructure/street, $39 million for Metro-North, and $30.4 million for "soft costs," so it's somewhat apples-to-oranges here. Again, more information as it becomes available.
So which Stadium is costing the taxpayers more money?
And how does Citi's $400M contribution affect the financial burden assumed by the taxpayers?
Posted by NittanyBlue2002 on December 10, 2008 11:04 AM
The Yankees' is costing taxpayers significantly more, in part because it's more than twice as expensive. See the "Latest estimates of public/private costs of Yankees and Mets stadium deals" link over there ----> for more details.
And Citi's $400m over 20 years goes straight to the Mets, so it doesn't affect taxpayers at all.
Posted by Neil on December 10, 2008 02:12 PM
In light of the recent contract offers the Yankees made to free-agents, I just find this appalling. See that guy out there making over $20M/Season? And do you see those potholes? Your taxpayer dollars at work.
To all of you who backed this, that guy out on the mound IS payed by taxpayer dollars. There he is, the highest-salaried public employee in the history of New York. Meanwhile, your schools are fighting for every penny they can get.
Do I sound bitter? Wow, you ARE perceptive!
When it comes time to oppose the behind-the-scenes crap going on here in Sacramento, I hope you don't mind if I point people here.
Posted by MikeM on December 11, 2008 12:27 PM
Even when you calculate all the benefits the Yankees have gotten with this deal, its nothing compared to the billions of dollars worth of advertising from the constant media attention to every intricate detail of key players, staff, ownership, etc., etc.. Anything having to do with the pinstripes. Without this benefit, the Yankees would never have been able to use the goodwill and reputation amassed to leverage the power players who matter in city government to get what they really want. Now why city officials agreed to ask how high is up to debate. I think the elites have this sense of they know what is best for the hoi polloi at all times. This would the type of attitude that would lead an important politician to believe that doing something crazy, like subsidizing a sports stadium, would be good for legacy (his or the city he represents, depending). One of the things I've learned from reading about sports stadium controversies is that politicians are mostly the same wherever you look. There is a saying that politics is show business for the ugly. And boy has politics in the States become a show. Elected officials basically play what would be roles in the theater. You have your villians and your heroes. Someone gets to play the black hat (say, Bush) so that soon the people vote for the white hat (Obama) so that all is good in the end. But it's all show. The real politics is the average people having their freedoms taken away and entertainment (which is what sports is) becoming so expensive that it's not worth paying at the door. Now New Yorkers will get a taste of what other cities have had to go through with this crazyness. From what used to be the Knothole Gang and The Catch, now we get an overweight pitcher who is not nearly worth half the money he's about to get because management have forgotten the basics of risk management. What's that, you say? Well, that's what happens with subsidized entertainment. Owners don't have to watch the dollars when they can get dollars from somewhere else and from other people. The times we live in.
New York, for all its reputation as a liberal mecca, is actually a company town. It is a Wall Street-Goldman Sachs-New York Yankee town. The difference is that the local do a good job of putting up pretenses. Like Chicago, New York has traditionally have a strong mayoral tradition. Just like how the Daleys run Chicago the way they see fit, the Wagners, Kochs, Giulianis, LaGuardias and the Bloombergs basically have carte blanche on how they use their many powers...and they are many.
The Yankee deal will be the height (or depth, depending on your POV) of the hubris of subsidized sports entertainment. They and the Cowboys would be hard to beat in that department. It goes down from there from the owners' standpoint, I'm confident to say. Something must give, as this type of system can no longer be sustainable. The money is fast running out and the cupboard is just about empty. Still, the damage is done. Cheap tickets are a thing of the past unless you'll settle for the minor league or playing pick-up games yourself. What ever happened to the bliss of meeting your favorite player growing up and watching him make that lasting impression, the belief that you gotta root for your team to go all the way to only start over again when they don't win it all? What ever happened to the warmness that fills your heart as the next season is about to start when faced with the cynicism of the modern game. Think of the people they have let down over the years.
How long before the people have enough and start staying away in droves?
Posted by Transic on December 12, 2008 07:58 PM
Welcome to the new decade: Java is a restricted platform, Google is evil, Apple is a monopoly and Microsoft are the underdogs
Posted by Google Ranking on August 19, 2010 11:22 AM