March 31, 2011
Today's latest Vikings stadium funding trial balloon
Oh, look, there's another Minnesota Vikings stadium funding proposal. This one, reported last night by KSTP-TV and attributed to a "bill has been in the works for nearly three months," includes:
- $250-300 million in state funding, to come from a sports memorabilia tax, a Vikings lottery game, a luxury box sales tax, and a surcharge on player incomes.
- One-third of the total stadium cost, about $300 million, from the Vikings.
- The remainder would come from either counties or cities that would "bid" on getting to be the stadium site in exchange for a 0.5% sales-tax hike to go into stadium construction.
That's not all that much different from prior plans, and as ESPN's Kevin Seifert notes, it could just be an intentionally leaked trial balloon. A real, honest-to-goodness stadium bill is supposedly going to be introduced in the next week or so, but then, we've heard that before.
AEG hasn't actually pledged to repay L.A. stadium bonds
AEG has been touting the success of its Staples Center as precedent for its proposed downtown Los Angeles NFL stadium, but it's not using the arena as a model in at least one way: Unlike in the Staples deal, the company won't sign any guarantees that it will pay off $350 million in public bonds for the stadium deal. Reports Bloomberg News:
Without such assurance, Los Angeles taxpayers may be on the hook if stadium and convention-center proceeds to the city come up short of what's needed for the bonds. Anschutz Entertainment Group President Tim Leiweke has said the company will make up any shortfall servicing municipal debt needed to finance the convention-center portion of the $1.35 billion project.
"With no bank, corporate or municipal insurance, you are possibly looking at the city having to make the payments," Jeffrey Appelbaum, an attorney who specializes in stadium finance at Thompson Hine LLP in Cleveland, said in an interview.
L.A. City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, one of five members appointed Tuesday to look into the stadium plan, says the lack of a bond guarantee is one issue the committee intends to investigate.
Meanwhile, the first scoping meeting for AEG's proposed L.A. NFL stadium induced about 150 Los Angelenos to make public comments on the plan, though the L.A. Times only bothered to report on a couple — the most specific of which was from the owner of a taxi company who likes that the stadium wouldn't have much parking nearby.
Yankees stadium enters third year, Bronx ballfields still months off
On Opening Day for the New York Yankees, the New York Times today takes a look at how the new ballfields on the site of the old Yankee Stadium are coming along ... or not:
Next to the stadium is a lingering eyesore — a protracted construction project that was supposed to have been transformed into three public ball fields months ahead of opening day. Instead, some coaches and neighborhood residents say, it remains a joyless Mudville...
"We've gone five years now with no ball fields here," said Sean Sullivan, 55, the principal of All Hallows and a coach of its baseball team, which has spent five years scouring the city for home fields. 'They took the parks away from my kids, and now our team is a bunch of gypsies."
None of this is really news — the park opening date was officially pushed back to Fall 2011 three years ago — but it's still worth a read. Especially for Yankees president Randy Levine's classic double entendre: "I cannot tell you how many people have come up to me to say thank you because the broken-down parks have been replaced." Meaning... you know, maybe we should see if his car is still there.
March 30, 2011
Anaheim approves $75m in bonds to lure Kings
Much news today regarding the Sacramento Kings' potential move to Anaheim:
- The Anaheim city council approved selling $75 million in bonds last night, which would go toward a $50 million loan to Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, renovations to the Honda Center, and "an NBA relocation fee," according to the Sacramento Bee.
- One day after Sacramento Assistant City Manager John Dangberg sent a letter to Anaheim threatening legal action if the Kings' move caused "blight" in Sacramento — which could violate the California Environmental Quality Act — Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson backed off, insisting he's fine with the relocation so long as the Kings' owners repay $77 million they owe to his city: ""The mindset of the city is to make sure that they fulfill their obligation," Johnson said earlier in the day. "If they do that, then I don't want a messy divorce."
- A group of Sacramento lawyers raised another legal obstacle, claiming the bond sale is illegal under California law unless there's a 60-day waiting period to allow for a voter referendum.
The weirdest bit here, aside from all the dueling maybe-lawsuits, is that it's going to be hard to set aside a portion of $25 million to pay relocation fees if the relocation fees ultimately run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. (The Sacramento Press reports that the relocation fee would come out of Maloofs' $50 million, which makes slightly more sense, though not much.) The lede in today's Sacramento Bee story was "It's pretty much up to the Maloofs now," but more accurately, it's up to the Lakers and Clippers owners — and the 27 other NBA teams who will be voting on this in a couple of weeks.
March 28, 2011
Four out of five L.A. realtors say: Buy land near new NFL stadium!
Yesterday's Los Angeles Times business section has a long article headlined "L.A. football stadium plan has firms scoping out the neighborhood." So sports stadiums really can be economic catalysts for underdeveloped neighborhoods! Let's see, how many local business owners did the Times interview for their story?
The answer, it turns out, is zero. The only evidence for its story is a single commercial real estate broker, who claims that several large chain stores are "looking at downtown L.A." thanks to the prospect of an NFL deal.
Now, this guy may be right — though "looking at" isn't the same as "buying," needless to say. But the larger point is that a realtor who's looking to make his money by selling downtown properties to chain stores has a vested interest in making it seem like downtown is a hot locale for chains to relocate to. Not that that usually stops major newspapers from basing entire stories on what these guys say, but we can always hope.
In other AEG NFL stadium news, the first public hearing has been set for this Wednesday at 4 pm, at the convention center hall that would be demolished and rebuilt to make way for the new arena. Expect the realtors to be out in force with their testimony.
Rays' Sternberg: Somewhere, there's a place for me...
It must be nice to be a baseball owner, and have sportswriters like the St. Petersburg Times' Marc Topkin willing to write stories about how there's no actual news about your campaign for a new stadium. Especially when you then get to say stuff like this:
"It seems clearer to me by the day that we're going to be the last man standing," [Rays owner Stuart] Sternberg said. "And everything I know, and talking to these guys, baseball is just not going to stand for it anymore. And they'll find a place for me. They won't find a place here though. So it's up to us, to everybody, to figure out how to get it right."
But remember, Sternberg says he won't talk about moving the team. So maybe he literally means a place for him as owner of a different team, not the Rays. We'll never know, as Topkin apparently didn't ask.
In addition to the weirdness of Sternberg calling the Rays the "last man standing" in MLB stadium wheedling — ahem, Oakland A's, anybody? — there's also Topkin's semi-editorializing that "there seemingly won't be any real movement until either St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster allows the Rays to look at sites outside the city limits, as they've requested, or, conceivably, a plan is presented that works in the city and they accept it." Or, you know, Sternberg decides that maybe he'd be better off trying to sell tickets at his current stadium than working to convince fans that the place is a dump. It might not be as lucrative as a fully paid-for new dream home, but given that his team has appreciated an estimated 100% in the last six years, it ain't chicken feed, either.
Kings get Anaheim lease, get Sacramento counteroffer and reject it
That mystery plan to finance a new Kings arena in Sacramento was revealed on Friday, and the details include ... you know what, never mind. You know why?
1) The source here is the same apparently unhinged TV news guy who excitedly reported the plan last Wednesday (and who has previously shown himself to be willing to say just about anything to get ratings).
2) Though the report says that "a revenue source to pay for the plan has been found," it doesn't actually indicate what it is, how much it would pay for, or whether it's politically feasible.
3) Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof didn't even wait out the weekend before rejecting the plan outright, on the grounds that the revenue source wasn't really a revenue source, and in any case it only would have financed a renovation of the Kings' existing arena, not the new one they crave.
Far more interesting are the details of the Kings' proposed lease in Anaheim, which were also released on Friday. (PDF here.) Highlights include:
- The Maloofs, it turns out, would actually get that loan from Anaheim Ducks owner Henry Samueli, though it'd only be $50 million, not the $100 million that was originally rumored. Also, Samueli would in turn be borrowing it from the city of Anaheim, which would sell bonds to raise the needed funds. Another $25 million in city money would go to build new locker rooms and such for the relocated Kings.
- The Kings would have to pay Samueli rent equal to 7.5% of their gross ticket revenue and half of parking and concession revenue; at the same time, the Maloofs would get a one-third cut of all arena ad revenue, plus an additional naming-rights fee that Honda has agreed to pay on top of what it already gives to Samueli. (In case you're wondering, the city of Anaheim, which actually owns the building whose name is being sold, gets a big pile of nothin'.)
How the bottom line from this deal compares to what the Maloofs now earn in Sacramento is tough to say, especially given the one remaining wild card in the deal: how much the Kings would have to pay the Los Angeles Lakers and Clippers in territorial rights fees. ESPN is reporting that the arrival of the Kings could cost the Lakers nearly $300 million in lost TV revenue alone, though it's not clear whether that's in current dollars or spread out over the 20-year life of their new TV deal.
Either way, it seems likely that the Lakers and Clippers are going to be asking for a significant chunk of change in exchange for allowing the Kings to horn in on their SoCal market. The question now is how much support from other owners they'll be able to drum up before the NBA owners' meetings on April 14 and 15 — and then whether the price they can get the votes for turns out to be too rich for the Maloofs' blood. Expect this one to go down to the wire.
(Thanks to FoS reader Mike M for many of the above links.)
March 25, 2011
Vegas arena plans, Anaheim Kings subsidies, and more
A few items that fell through the cracks over the last week:
- Those plans for a tax-increment-financing-funded arena on the Las Vegas Strip got officially killed last week by the Nevada legislature — which then immediately expressed its intention to put a different arena plan on the ballot in 2012.
- The Anaheim city council is considering paying for upgrades to the Honda Center if the Sacramento Kings move there. No word on how much the renovations would cost, how they would be paid for, or why the city would have any reason to pay for them in the first place.
- Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz Jr. reiterated his call for a new hotel near the Yankees' stadium to help bail out those money-losing parking garages. Diaz presumably is more interested in using the garage fiasco as leverage to get more development for his borough; why city taxpayers should want to throw good money after bad is another question...
- A Canadian government analysis projects that for the federal government to pay for a Quebec hockey arena and a Saskatchewan Roughriders stadium, it would require ticket taxes of as much as $42 per ticket to pay off construction costs. That sounded crazy to me at first, but given that we're only talking about a million fans a year (combined NHL and CFL), it actually makes sense: A $42 ticket tax would generate $42 million a year, which is about enough to pay off $600 million in costs spread across two stadiums. It would also be insane, of course, but it's a good reminder of why teams don't generally jump to build stadiums with their own money — new sports facilities face a hugely uphill battle to earn back their own construction costs.
March 24, 2011
Sacramento Fox station floats mystery Kings plan rumor
The Sacramento Kings arena saga has had everything except a last-second mystery bidder ... until now:
A game-changing alternative plan to keep the Kings in Sacramento may soon be unveiled. A move to Anaheim is no longer inevitable.
FOX40 has learned exclusively about an innovative new plan to solve the Kings' arena problems. A group of government and business leaders is discussing it and hopes to talk with Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof to go over it as early as Friday.
FOX40 Sports Director Jim Crandell told FOX40.com, "I know the specifics, but I cannot share the details yet, because it could jeopardize a very sensitive discussion that is about to take place."
Check that out: Not only doesn't the report reveal its original sources, but its only quote is from the station's own sports director, and even he won't go into detail. So basically you have "Hey, guys, I heard a great rumor, but I can't tell you what it is or where I heard it. Can I go on TV and not talk about it?" Somebody needs to try harder if they're serious about living down their name.
Yankees garages not headed for default by April 1?
A major bondholder for the New York Yankees' parking garages now says the garage owner won't be defaulting on its April 1 bond payment, contrary to a previous Crain's report. Nuveen Asset Management tells Bloomberg News that Bronx Parking Development Co. should be able to make the $6.9 million payment by tapping $5.5 million from a reserve fund.
If so, that's nice, but only forestalls the inevitable: The reserve fund will now be down to $11 million, which means at this rate it would be tapped out after the next two bond payments, scheduled for this October and next April. The hope, presumably, is that it'll be enough to tide things over until this year's price hikes from $23 per car to $35 kick in. Assuming that this doesn't encourage more people to ride the train, or park at a nearby mall, or just skip going to see the Yankees altogether, which could reduce or eliminate any hoped-for windfall.
If it helps any, the Yankees have just announced a bunch of discounted ticket plans for the upcoming season, after selling less than 90% of their tickets last year for a second straight season. (I know, that doesn't sound so bad, but five other MLB teams beat that mark, and none of them play in the New York market, or were coming off a World Series win.) Not that that will necessarily draw the sorts of fans you expect to shell out $35 for parking, but it can't hurt.
March 22, 2011
Wilf: Lockout-schmockout, Vikings are still getting a stadium
Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has a long history of expressing confidence that a stadium bill will soon be passed, even as year after year, none have come close to making it through the state legislature. Still, this is pretty impressive, even for Zyg:
Q. Could the timing [of the NFL lockout] impact the drive to get a new stadium and getting NFL money or however that would work?
A. "I don't feel so. We're working very hard with everybody in Minnesota on the hill to get the stadium thing worked through. We realize that it's an important asset to the community and that it's to everyone's interest to making sure that we get a stadium that would serve just not football but for all the other events that Metrodome served proudly for the last 30 years. We're working hard to get that done and I'm optimistic that it will get done."
Note that even before the lockout, there was effectively no movement in the legislature on a stadium bill, and that's not going to be helped now that the only football news is about the owners' and players' lawyers sniping at each other. But I guess when you're a sports team owner, stadium-grubbing stops for nothing, except maybe the occasional bridge collapse.
Santa Clara prepays $4M to 49ers for stadium
And the deed is done: The Santa Clara city council yesterday voted 5-2 to hand over $4 million to the San Francisco 49ers to start preparing their proposed stadium site, even though financing for the deal isn't in place yet. Also, even though council members only had two hours to read the contract before voting on it.
Sums up the San Jose Mercury News:
Stadium supporters insist the move is only safeguarding money already pledged to the stadium -- and approved by voters in June.
Yet, the risk is clear: If the team starts spending the city's money to prep the site and then abandons the project, it would be money down the drain -- unless another developer comes in with a new project.
It's also not entirely clear, to me anyway, what happens to the other $36 million in regional development authority money promised to the 49ers if Gov. Jerry Brown succeeds in decommissioning the RDAs. Or why the city didn't just hand over all $40 million to the team now. Though right now it seems like government officials all over California are just panicking about Brown's death-to-RDAs plan, so maybe expecting legislation that makes total sense is asking a bit much.
March 21, 2011
Santa Clara to vote on "protecting" RDA money by giving it to 49ers
Ten days after voting to transfer its regional development authority's assets to the city, Santa Clara city officials have come up with an even more dramatic idea for blocking Gov. Jerry Brown from reclaiming RDA money for the state: Handing over $4.5 million, and possibly as much as $40 million, to the San Francisco 49ers, as an advance on the $114 million the city plans to give the team for their new stadium if it ever gets built.
"In order to protect that money, we have to take away one more argument from the state," Santa Clara Mayor Jamie Matthews told the San Jose Mercury News. He called the vote, which is planned for later today, a "conceptual action to protect our funds."
Not everyone feels that way, as you might imagine. Councilmember Jamie McLeod told the Merc News that "we still have to make sure we don't overcommit the city financially," while Jay Keehan of the group Santa Clarans Play Fair warned that any contract with the 49ers would need to require that the team repay the money if the stadium is never built. (Or, better, if it isn't built by a certain time, since the thing about "never" is that it never actually arrives.)
In related news, meanwhile, Santa Clara County has settled its lawsuit against San Jose's RDA over $62.9 million in funds it said it was owed, with San Jose officials agreeing to hand over a property worth an estimated $10 million and commit to a payment plan on the rest. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed explained that Gov. Brown's war on RDAs was the motivation here as well: "It's certainly in our interest to get the money over to the county rather than have the state take it away."
Of course, the state can still take away the RDA's future revenue streams, and it's not entirely clear from the reporting what happens to Santa Clara's money if the RDA's pockets are empty when it's time to make payments. But for San Jose officials, it at least clears the way for them to attempt their own transfer of RDA land to the city for an Oakland A's stadium ... if that ever gets built.
March 17, 2011
Ratner mulls prefab housing tower alongside Nets arena
The good news: Facing a May 2013 deadline to break ground or else face million of dollars in penalties, Forest City Ratner may finally be building one of the promised apartment buildings that were the main hook for getting approval for its Brooklyn Nets arena project.
The bad news: The developer is considering building a prefabricated 34-story tower, which would be the world's largest, in order to cut costs.
Why is that bad news? Well, the other hook for the project was that it would create jobs, and as the New York Times' Charles Bagli notes, "a carpenter earns $85 an hour in wages and benefits on-site, but only $35 an hour in a factory." (Not to mention that a factory can be built anywhere, which pretty much obviates the job benefits to New York City of the project.) "This is something that could be of great consequence to the building trades," building trades union president Gary La Barbera told Bagli. "We have never been supportive of prefab buildings, for obvious reasons."
Bagli also notes that since no one has ever built a prefab building this tall, no one is sure whether it would hold up to wind shear and seismic forces. Plus, as he doesn't note, a building made of stacked-and-bolted-together boxes — think a pile of shipping containers with windows in them — sounds hideously ugly. But then, we know that Ratner has a tolerance for ugly.
Marlins' pal Alvarez is recalled by voters
Hey, remember Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez, who memorably declared that the Florida Marlins stadium agreement was "probably not the best deal that has ever been worked out between a community and a team, [but] at some point, negotiations have to stop"? He is now ex-Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez, as he was bounced by a public recall vote on Tuesday.
It's hard to see much connection between public outrage over Alvarez's stadium boosterism and his ouster, frankly, though one particular stadium opponent played a large role: Former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, who filed multiple lawsuits in a fruitless attempt to block the Marlins stadium deal, bankrolled the campaign to dump the mayor. And the Marlins donated $50,000 to Alvarez to help fight the recall effort. So while it's probably not accurate to say that Alvarez was recalled because of his support for the stadium (his raising of property taxes and angering of local Tea Partiers look to have been more important), you could say that his mayoralty was the first collateral damage of the bruising stadium fight.
Breaking down the Kings' public bailout request
The Sacramento Bee ran an interesting overview of the Sacramento Kings' financial situation yesterday, including much about how the economic downturn has exacerbated the financial gap between the NBA's haves (who have big enough markets that they can still sell tickets) and the have-nots (who don't).
Which, according to the Bee at least, is what's driving the Kings owners' arena drive:
In this climate, it's easy to see why the Maloofs would focus on a new arena as a way to restore the team's fortunes. Seven other NBA teams have moved into new buildings in the past decade.
Posh arenas don't guarantee success. Memphis and Charlotte, for instance, take in less money than the Kings despite newer buildings.
But in 2009, when the NBA was scouting Cal Expo as an arena site, the Maloofs predicted a new arena could boost revenue by $13.7 million a year through "additional lower-level seating, premium club seats, and additional suites," wrote consultant Economics Research Associates.
That's a jump of more than 10 percent, and some experts say the new-arena effect could be considerably higher.
There's something weird to this argument, even overlooking the fact that the Kings arena squabble started way before the economy tanked. Follow the bouncing logic: Lots of other NBA teams are getting new arenas, and even though some of them are actually doing worse in their new digs, the Maloofs figured they could add $13.7 million a year in revenues from a new home.
Only one problem: A $350 million arena would cost nearly twice that much. So what the Maloofs were actually saying — if the Bee has it right — is that they wanted the city of Sacramento to spend around $25 million a year so that they could increase their revenues by $13.7 million a year. Looked at that way, a new arena is less a "way to restore the team's fortunes" than a really, really inefficient money-laundering scheme for public cash.
Which is what most of them are, more or less. But it's unusual to see it laid out so bald-facedly.
March 16, 2011
Yankees garages headed for default by April 1
Last September, the New York Daily News' Juan Gonzalez warned that the non-profit owner of the Yankees' new parking garages was nearing default on its bonds. And now, it looks like that time is at hand: Crain's New York reports that "all signs point to a default" when Bronx Parking Development Co. is faced with a $6.8 million interest payment to bondholders on April 1.
What would that mean? The way the bond deal was written, taxpayers won't be on the hook for the bond payments, so they won't be stuck with the entire $340 million garage construction cost, but rather face losing only $43 million worth of future rent payments if Bronx Parking goes under.
That's not good, but it's far better than things would look for bondholders, whose only recourse would be to seize possession of a bunch of money-losing garages. River Avenue Blues notes that the garage operators are responding to as many as 800 cars a game opting for the $5 parking at the nearby Gateway Mall by hiking their own rates to $35 and up, which seems to betray a basic misunderstanding of microeconomics. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., meanwhile, wants to build a hotel nearby to help goose the parking numbers, but lord knows how much that would cost in city subsidies, or if it would even increase the number of cars by all that much, especially when there's plenty of mass transit available at the stadium.
What seems likely to happen at this point is that the bondholders take a large bath, city taxpayers take a small one, and the garages sit mostly empty until somebody realizes it's time to admit they're a sunk cost and lower rates to match those down the block. Or maybe the city could just buy the Gateway Mall and raise the parking rates there to reduce competition — it's already shown a willingness to throw money at that project, so why stop now?
Rusty pipes need replacing at three-year-old Colts stadium
In sports-page lingo, every old stadium is "crumbling" and every new one is "sparkling," so it's always amusing when the new buildings immediately break:
Lucas Oil Stadium will partially close to events for four months to replace rusted and corroded steel piping in the 3-year-old structure....
John Klipsch, the authority's executive director, said the cause of the rust and corrosion on galvanized steel pipes hasn't been determined.
Now, the total cost of the repair is expected to cost less than $2 million, and Indianapolis officials insist that it won't cost taxpayers anything. (Though they say it will instead be covered by "bonding, warranties and insurance," which is slightly worrisome unless they mean bonds that have already been sold and aren't being used for anything else. [UPDATE: One reader suggests that the reference is to this kind of bonding, not this kind; if so, that's less worrisome.]) Still, you know that if this sort of thing had happened at the Hoosier Dome, the Colts would have been screaming that this showed it was time for a new stadium.
Chargers to stop paying rent during lockout
Now that NFL owners don't get to collect TV money during a lockout, apparently they're looking for other ways to save money while they're not paying their players. In the latest, Voice of San Diego reports that the San Diego Chargers are interpreting a clause in their lease saying they're absolved from paying rent in the event of a "force majeure event" — normally interpreted as an "act of God" — to mean that they can skip this year's $2.5 million rent during a lockout.
As our old friend Chargers stadium honcho Mark Fabiani told the paper, in the original Chargers lease that the new one modified, "Force Majeure Event explicitly includes lockouts":
"Force Majeure Event" shall mean any of the following events which prevents a party from performing its obligations hereunder: any act of God, strike, lockout, etc.
The punchline: Voice of San Diego's Andrew Donohue notes that the city could actually come out ahead on the deal, because in some past years "the city actually sends the Chargers more money than it receives from the team because the team gets rent credits for things such as property taxes on skyboxes and compensation for lost ticket sales because of the addition of disabled seating." The NFL: The only business where it can be cheaper to have no tenant at all than one that's actually playing games.
Coyotes sale to face Goldwater lawsuit
Remember how the libertarian-conservative Goldwater Institute threatened to sue to block Glendale's $197 million subsidy of Matthew Hulsizer's purchase of the Phoenix Coyotes? Well, they're threatening it again:
The Goldwater Institute announced on Tuesday that it will file a legal challenge to the agreement between the City of Glendale and prospective owner Matthew Hulsizer to subsidize the purchase of the Phoenix Coyotes, once that agreement is closed. In a statement released by the institute on Tuesday, Goldwater announced that the challenge comes after the Goldwater Institute examined more than 1,000 pages of documents provided by the City of Glendale under court order. ...
The Goldwater Institute, which prevailed in a similar case against corporate subsidies last year, states they plan to take action because it determined the agreement violates two prohibitions of the Arizona Constitution. The Constitution requires no Arizona government "shall ever give or loan its credit in aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation."
Clearly Arizona has subsidized corporations before, so it's not clear how far the constitutional argument will go. That said, the Hulsizer deal looks especially egregious, if only because Glendale would be paying $197 million to subsidize the purchase of an NHL franchise that's only worth $170 million — you could make an excellent argument that the city could save money just by buying the team itself. Except, of course, that the NHL wouldn't allow that. But at least then the Goldwater Institute could file an antitrust suit, too.
March 15, 2011
Could fans sue over NFL lockout?
With the NFL lockout underway, Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins has returned to the subject of NFL stadium subsidies, arguing: "The NFL owes fans a season. Why? Because the fans paid for it, that's why, and this isn't 13th-century France." Continues Jenkins:
Their world-view was summed up the other day by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones: "I just spent a billion dollars on a stadium, and I didn't plan on not playing football in it," he said.
Now, that's a funny thing for Jones to say, because as it happens, he doesn't actually own Cowboys Stadium. The city of Arlington does. And Jones didn't spend a billion dollars to build it. Arlington taxpayers passed a bond issue and wrote him a check for $325 million. City sales tax increased by one-half a percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent, all of which may hurt the local economy. Jones is merely a tenant, with a lease.
Virtually every one of the league's 31 stadiums was built or renovated with the assistance of public money, about $6.5 billion worth, according to the Sports Fans Coalition. And that doesn't include the indirect subsidies, the infrastructure improvements, municipal services, gift-revenues, and foregone property taxes, which can push the cost of hosting an NFL team 40 percent higher.
Jenkins' solution: "If the fans don't get a fair return on the public funds and favor lavished on owners, here's what they should do: sue. That's right. Attorneys general in every state that houses an NFL team should draw up suits to force the league to play, or repay what they owe us." I'm not clear on whether fans (or taxpayers, more to the point) actually have legal standing to do this, but it would certainly be an interesting case, especially if a municipality were to try to sue to open up a publicly funded stadium to a rival league.
In any case, the column is another fun romp through the world of stadium deals, and includes a quote from me about the Cincinnati Bengals' infamous "holographic replay systems" state-of-the-art clause. Go read it now — the Post needs your clickthroughs.
Vikings stadium plans going nowhere fast
More developments from Minnesota, where the Vikings stadium push seems to be stuck firmly in neutral:
- The Timberwolves' "global solution" plan isn't getting a warm welcome at the state legislature, where even backers of a Vikings stadium bill were cool to the idea of tacking on an arena renovation and other goodies as well. State senator Julie Rosen, whose Vikings stadium bill is now two months overdue, said that the T-Wolves' plan was "perhaps a good vehicle" for the NBA team's own need, but "it gets pretty heavy, doesn't it? It does get a little over complicated. You have to be cognizant [that] there are a lot of needs out there, but I think we're focused really on a [Vikings] stadium."
- With the long-expected NFL lockout now underway, enthusiasm for a Vikings stadium bill is likely to sink even lower, if possible. According to Minnesota Public Radio, the only silver lining might be that "Deputy Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel, R-Edina, said today there wasn't much progress on the stadium to slow down at this point." Michel told MPR, "We have had zero caucus discussion on the NFL, on a lockout, on the Vikings, on the Metrodome."
- The U.S. General Services Administration says it will hold off on auctioning off an abandoned munitions plant in Arden Hills that has been discussed as a possible Vikings stadium site, but only until June. If anyone thinks the Minnesota state legislature is going to pass a stadium bill by June, in the middle of an NFL lockout ... well, I've got an abandoned munitions plant to sell you.
Liberal Party: We'd fund Canadian sports arenas
Canada's Liberal Party is now trying to use the Quebec arena fight to score political points, as party leader Michael Ignatieff has declared that he'd be happy to provide federal funds for the project — or, for that matter, sports stadiums and arenas in other parts of Canada — if only he were, you know, prime minister:
"It's not a question of giving little gifts here and there," he said. "I think the project is important because it's a public space. That's what counts, a public space to present the culture, to present the economic success of the region.
"And if the same case arises in Regina or Vancouver I'll say the same thing ... If we're talking about a public space that contributes to the development of that region, then the federal government can contribute."
"A public space that contributes to the development of that region" — that's a pretty broad category, considering how far stadium boosters like to stretch the meaning of public benefit. And it's a way more lenient standard than that used by the federal P3 fund, which in any case explicitly excludes sports facilities for consideration.
The real goal, presumably, is to woo Quebec voters who are steamed that the feds aren't going to be chipping in to try to bring a new version of the Nordiques back to their city. Whether it plays as well in the rest of Canada — where, let's not forget, the prospect of federal subsidies to NHL teams previously prompted an all-out citizen revolt — is another story.
March 14, 2011
Timberwolves "solution": Add NBA arena renovations to Vikings stadium plan
There's a new player in the Minnesota Vikings stadium battle, and it's an unexpected one: the Minnesota Timberwolves. According to a document entitled "Global Solution" that was published by Minneapolis Public Radio late Friday, the Wolves owners are proposing a new regional stadium authority that would build a new football stadium for the Vikings, a new minor-league stadium for the St. Paul Saints, and renovate the NBA team's Target Center. Total price tag: a mere $1,173,000,000. And that's without a roof on the Vikings stadium.
Since the Wolves only envision the teams chipping in one-quarter of the resulting $100-million-a-year cost, that leaves $74 million a year to come from what's listed as "Public Funding Source (TBD)." Timberwolves vice president Ted Johnson told MPR that among the taxpayer funding streams being considered are a 0.2% sales tax hike in the metro area, tobacco settlement funds that would otherwise go into the general treasury, revenue from a downtown casino, and a Vikings-themed lottery game. Johnson said the funding details were dropped from the final document because "we got too far ahead of ourselves" and "we didn't feel like everybody had time to line up behind it."
Add it all up, and we have a plan that costs nearly half a billion dollars more than the old plan, that has a warmed-over list of old ideas for ways to pay for it, and that didn't even specifically mention those ideas even in a non-public document because the Wolves don't have any support for them. Now that's headline news.
In other Vikings stadium news, the Associated Press reports that people in Minnesota would love a new Vikings stadium, so long as they're not the ones paying for it. Which, funny enough, is exactly the same way the Vikings owners feel about it.
March 11, 2011
Falcons stadium site is bleak, uninviting
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which is doing a great job of actually researching the Atlanta Falcons' $700 million stadium proposal instead of just reprinting what the team and elected officials say like so many papers do, takes a look today at whether the stadium would be a catalyst for the surrounding neighborhood. Verdict: Not too likely, mostly because it's not much of a neighborhood to begin with:
Once pedestrians pass the restaurants and a few converted condos, however, the area becomes less inviting. Train tracks cut through the area, pushing low-slung, two- and three-story vacant buildings right up to the sidewalk. Walking is hazardous. Uneven pavement juts up in places and the sidewalk becomes increasingly narrow. The NFL has few such uninviting thresholds.
The AJC cites local urban designer Cassie Branum as saying that successful entertainment districts near baseball parks usually feature strong transit, viable community leadership, and walkable blocks. All of which is true, but another commonality is that they were almost always at least partially developed before the stadium came into being. The number of "just add stadium and stir" entertainment districts can be counted on the fingers of ... let's see, how is that D.C. entertainment district coming? Anyone? Hallooooooo?
The facts on AEG's Los Angeles stadium plan
KCET has a great FAQ on the AEG stadium proposal for downtown Los Angeles, laying out exactly who's paying for what. In particular, it makes clear that AEG's "no existing public money" promise is, indeed, a TIF dodge: "in essence Los Angeles would forfeit whatever extra money it would have earned from such a project for the life of the bonds," including rent on the stadium land, parking and ad revenues, and property and sales taxes at the stadium. Since at least some of the money spent at the stadium is currently being spent elsewhere — Los Angelenos aren't bottomless pits of disposable income — this means that, on the whole, L.A. would likely end up losing some tax revenue in the deal.
Other issues raised by KCET:
AEG's proposal, only six pages long, leaves a lot of questions unanswered. For instance, how much does the city stand to lose from a decrease in Convention Center activity during the two or three years of construction, and what plan might AEG offer to help offset the cost? Is there an opportunity cost associated with placing three major event centers right next to each other, when it's unlikely if not impossible to run major events at the same time? What is the impact of the increased traffic in what is already one of the most congested parts of the city?
There's a link to the AEG proposal document, all six pages of it, as well. One-stop shopping for all your L.A. stadium research needs!
City of Santa Clara tries 49ers RDA money grab
The city of San Jose wasn't the only one to attempt a grab of RDA money on Tuesday: nearby Santa Clara's city council also voted on Tuesday to transfer $140 million plus 178 acres of property from its development authorities to the city. About $40 million of the money is earmarked for a new San Francisco 49ers stadium.
It's not entirely clear whether these moves are legal: The state legislature is set to enact budget language that prevents cities from raiding their RDAs' bank accounts before the authorities are folded, but as Marianne O'Malley of the state Legislative Analyst's Office told the Sacramento Bee, "Whether it's going to work completely is not entirely clear."
In any case, 49ers president Jed York insisted that he had "alternative plans" that would fill the $40 million gap if the RDA money weren't available. Which you'd think would raise the question of why the city of Santa Clara is being asked for the money if the 49ers don't need it, but perhaps that's not the sort of thing that's raised in polite company.
March 09, 2011
Santa Clara sues San Jose over A's stadium land transfer
And the possible Oakland A's-to-San Jose move just got even more interesting, as Santa Clara County is suing the city of San Jose to block it from implementing a plan to transfer government land to a city-controlled agency.
The San Jose city council voted unanimously yesterday to have the city's redevelopment authority — which Gov. Jerry Brown wants to eliminate — transfer the land it's assembled so far for an A's stadium to a new San Jose Diridon Development Authority. County officials, noting that the RDA is $62.9 million behind in payments to the county that it agreed to as a settlement of past lawsuits, has filed suit to block the transfer and recoup its money while there's still someone (and some assets) to recoup it from.
It's hard to say how this affects the underpinnings of any stadium deal — so far the Mercury News appears to be the only outlet reporting on this, and they didn't provide much in the way of analysis. It undeniably complicates matters, though, and right now the last thing Lew Wolff needs is any more complications.
Contraction's just another word for nothing left to lose in stadium campaigns
I neglected to post a link yesterday to my latest Baseball Prospectus column on MLB's renewed specter of contraction. Skipping right to the stadium content:
As in 2001, much of this is likely being driven by stadium games. Back then, it was the Expos and the Twins that were in the midst of multi-year, till-then-fruitless campaigns to get public money for new stadiums in their home cities; the only reason the Twins were on the contraction list in the first place, despite being in the nation's 14th-largest media market and having a reasonable record of on-field success (they'd go on to win a division title in 2002), was that Pohlad was looking to either scare Minnesota taxpayers into coughing up stadium cash, or get a quick payoff to make his years-long stadium fight into somebody else's headache.
Likewise, on many levels contracting the A's and Rays makes no sense at all. The two Bay Areas are 6th and 14th nationwide in TV market size (Tampa-St. Pete snuck past Minneapolis-St. Paul in 2005); even if you split the S.F.-Oakland-San Jose 7.4-million-person megalopolis in two and grant the A's the smaller slice, that's still a bigger market than most teams have to play with. Both teams have been successful on the field; the Rays weren't that far below league-average in attendance last year, and even the A's routinely drew 2 million fans a year before Wolff decided to artificially reduce capacity by tarping off the Coliseum's entire upper deck. If Kang and Kodos were to land on earth with a mission of wiping a major-league baseball team off the map, they could make a far better case for, say, the Pirates, who play in the 24th-largest TV market (and shrinking), have only drawn 2 million fans once in the last 19 years (2001, when PNC Park opened), haven't smelled October baseball in just as long, and are likewise getting $60 million a year in combined revenue-sharing and central fund money.
The difference, of course, is that the Pirates already have a new stadium, while the A's and Rays are still in the hunt for them.
Much, much more if you click the link, including a 61-and-counting comment thread arguing about the best way to solve baseball's revenue sharing problems, or whether they're even problems that need to be solved in the first place.
March 08, 2011
KJ: Once Kings leave, let's build an arena!
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson seems resigned to the Kings leaving for Anaheim, and says that once the team that spent the last several years demanding a new arena leaves, the first thing his city should do is ... build a new arena:
Johnson said embarking on a new arena is not for the sake of the Kings or the Maloofs, but for the city and the hundreds of jobs that would be created.
He said an entertainment and sports complex would take four years to build, and Sacramento would then be in a position to lure another team to town should the Kings leave.
"If we don't build an entertainment-sports complex, we will never be a major league city," Johnson said.
Of course, if you do build an entertainment-sports complex without getting a team to sign a lease first, odds are you still won't be a major league city. Unless he means "major league" in terms of debt service.
In other Kings move rumor news, Daily News sports columnist Mitch Lawrence wrote Saturday that "sources close to the Maloofs say they're willing to pay the two L.A. teams whatever it takes to relocate," which seems kind of excessive. ($100 million? $500 squintillion?) Though Lawrence also wrote in the same column that "Ducks owner Henry Samueli is prepared to help the Maloofs with the financing, offering a $100 million loan," something the Kings themselves said was off the table more than two weeks ago, so maybe he's not the absolute most reliable source.
The one thing we can be sure of: If the Kings move to Anaheim, they'll have to put "Anaheim" in the team name, because it's in the city's lease with Samueli. As for what the team name would be, you're welcome to vote here.
Chargers, San Diego meet about stadium funding, agree that they could use some
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders met with Chargers CEO Dean Spanos (son of owner Alex) yesterday to "explore alternatives" for stadium funding, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, in case neither the NFL nor redevelopments come through, as looks increasingly likely. And after the meeting, the two sides excitedly announced:
"The Chargers and the Mayor's Office will continue to work together as these important issues are resolved," the statement said.
A mayoral spokesman said no further meetings have been scheduled but staff will stay in close contact in coming weeks.
Now that's unbridled enthusiasm. The most positive post-meeting statement came from acting San Diego development corporation president Fred Maas, who said, "I think there's a lot of novel things that can be done. I'm not a person who just decides to lie down and throw up the white flag because we've been confronted with hurdles we never expected." No, he told the Union-Trib, he's prepared to attend more meetings. If any are ever held, that is.
March 07, 2011
A's stadium holdup is a money issue and a territorial issue and a floor wax!
So San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ray Ratto was on a podcast the other day to discuss the Oakland A's stadium situation and, well, let's let the fine folks at newballpark.org transcribe from there:
The "Blue Ribbon Committee" is a fraud. The territorial rights argument is a fraud. This is about one thing and one thing only, and it's always been about this: Do the A's have the money to put a shovel in the ground? If they had the money to put a shovel in the ground, we would've gone to Bud Selig and said, "We're ready to go now." And then Bud Selig can either tell the committee to produce a report or he could just go without it and start harvesting votes if they really want this to happen. I think it is incumbent upon the A's to show that they're ready to go right now and the fact that they keep saying, "well we haven't seen the blue ribbon report..." You know what? That's due diligence and you're supposed to do that. If you've got that stuff down you're already working at that.
...In the current economic climate, where you really need help from cities and states to get buildings done if you don't want to go into your own personal debt. I think that the idea of a San Jose stadium is really fading. It may be dead at this point. It's taken too long for the A's to get what ducks they have in a row, in a row. So I think the problem here is the A's needed more help than they let on and now they're stuck.
As newballpark.org notes, this is sheer wild speculation, and not even especially logical speculation given what it calls the "black hole of information around Selig." Continues writer Marine Layer:
I've said before that Selig isn't going to act until at least one of these cities has all of their ducks in a row. That means the site, legal/political clearances, everything. San Jose isn't there yet. Oakland isn't there yet. And the Grim Reaper is coming fast for cities. Plus there's the possibility that upcoming CBA negotiations will come into play, especially because the biggest debate will be about revenue sharing. If you're Selig, why would you lift a finger until this other stuff shakes out? I wouldn't.
And there's a further point that Marine Layer doesn't get into: It doesn't make any sense to say "it's not the territorial rights, it's whether Wolff has the money" when how much money Wolff needs is directly dependent on how the territorial rights are worked out. As I wrote a month and a half ago:
To make a San Jose A's move work, then, you'd need to generate enough new revenue to:
* Pay off the Giants' indemnification demands for giving up Silicon Valley;
* Generate around $30 million a year extra to pay off the estimated $461 million construction cost of the San Jose stadium that Wolff says he will build himself (California being probably the hardest state in the nation to get taxpayer stadium funds approved in, given its stringent public referendum requirements); and
* Leave some money left over to pay all those free agents that Rosenthal insists would come a-running as soon as the A's were out from the shadow of Mount Davis. Figure $50-60 million total at minimum--and it would all need to come from new San Jose fans, less the number of lost Oakland fans.
It's a tough mathematical nut to crack, even when you don't have two sides playing North-going Zax and South-going Zax.
The nut becomes less tough, clearly, if Item A is reduced. Which is what I've been saying all along: It's not a question of how much money Lew Wolff has in his piggy bank; it's a question of whether he can cut a deal that makes the Giants (and by extention Selig) happy without cutting so deeply into his revenues that a San Jose stadium deal no longer pencils out.
Quebec arena federal funds still dead, Quebec-Canada fight lives on
Quebec City may have decided to move ahead with hockey arena funding without federal help, but that doesn't mean local officials are going to end their war of words with the feds. Last week, Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume called the decision not to provide federal funding "suicidal" for the federal government — which was followed by more controversy when the feds blacked out most of the documents explaining their verdict before turning them over to the press. It doesn't look like anything is going to change any funding decisions here, or the fate of the Quebec arena or the return of an NHL team to Quebec, but it's fun to watch, anyway.
AEG: "New" city revenues would help fund stadium land
AEG testified before a Los Angeles city council subcommittee on Friday and, in the words of the Los Angeles Times, "repeated pledges that no taxpayer funds would be expended on the $1-billion project." Or, if you read the fine print in the AP article on the hearing, repeated pledges that taxpayer funds would be used for clearing land for the project:
AEG planned during negotiations to ask the city to allow it to use ticket taxes and new revenue from city-owned parking lots to service up to $350 million in bonds the city would issue to relocate a convention center building from the site of the planned stadium, chief legal and development officer Ted Fikre said.
The company would also ask to use some of the new revenue as credit toward the rent it would pay on the land where it would build the $1 billion venue, Fikre said
The city would benefit from taxes paid on hotel rooms, restaurant meals and other purchases by visitors drawn to the area by the new stadium, he said.
So the AEG plan would use city revenue (parking revenue at the last, and possibly hotel and other tax revenue in the stadium district, though that part is harder to parse), it just would only use new revenue. Which is exactly what AEG has said in the past. You can fool some of the journalists some of the time...
March 04, 2011
KJ says Sacramento is now Kings' second choice
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson met with Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof for 40 minutes yesterday, and came out saying that he was told his city is now only Plan B, with Plan A being Anaheim. Among the key quotes from Johnson's news conference:
"It's a business decision and the economics of Anaheim are better than the economics for them at this state here in Sacramento. They are fully exploring their options, which appears to be Anaheim."
"I do not think Sacramento can influence the outcome of their decision. I'm OK with that. I think we're all OK with that. It's a decision they're going to have to make."
"They love Sacramento, they've been committed to Sacramento and they want everyone to know that. Their issue was not that they don't like Sacramento. They think we have the best fans."
"If the dust settles, and Anaheim is not where they end up, they would 100 percent be willing to sit down with the ICON/Taylor group moving forward."
(Watch clips from the press conference here.)
There's no reason to doubt KJ — he has no reason to try to downplay Sacramento's chances at keeping the Kings, and neither do the Maloofs if they want to keep ICON/Taylor's nose to the grindstone in coming up with an arena plan.
Still, this really only tells us what we already know: The Maloofs are going to spent the next six weeks trying to hammer out a deal with Anaheim (and the NBA), then sit back and see if what they're offered is better than what they have now. And that will depend on three factors — how rich a TV contract they can get, how much they have to pay in relocation fees to buy off the Lakers and Clippers, and what kind of lease they can agree to with Anaheim Ducks owner Henry Samueli — that we as outsiders can't know right now, and that even the Maloofs likely aren't going to know until we get closer to the NBA owners' meetings in mid-April.
Right now it looks like there are two likely options: The Kings announce a move after the owners' meetings, or they announce they're kicking everything back a year to give everyone a chance to sweeten their bids. Too bad for the Maloofs that we won't know until July 1 whether there's going to be an NBA lockout — that'd be a nice excuse to punt if that's what they decide they want to do.
March 03, 2011
Majestic gives stadium site its own 1980s nighttime soap opera name
I don't even know what to say about this:
At the request of the NFL, planners of a proposed football stadium are no longer using the City of Industry when referring to the location of their 75,000-seat venue. The $800-million project is now being referred to as "Grand Crossing," said John Semcken, vice president of developer Majestic Realty Co.
"I was specifically asked if I could change the name of the city by the National Football League, and I said yes and I did it," Semcken told the Associated Press. "It's an impression that they have, which was a negative impression, and there's no reason to have it. You just get rid of it."
I guess if nothing else, Semcken managed to get back in the news for a day, at a time when it seems like all the coverage is about AEG's competing stadium project in downtown L.A. As for me, I plan on continuing to refer to the city where the stadium would be built by its proper name — though if they consider changing it to Crazy Town, then we can talk.
Wolff: "Ridiculous" that Giants can block A's move to San Jose
The Sacramento Business Journal headline reads "A's owner says Selig may move on stadium," but when you read the actual story, it's more like "A's owner really, really hopes that Selig steps in to help, please dear god":
"They've had time enough to explore anything," [Lew] Wolff told Bloomberg. "We're getting close to the point Bud is going to make a decision."
Go to the Bloomberg article in question, and it's clear that Wolff is just trying to move things along through force of rhetoric, as he's done before, declaring that it's "ridiculous" that "this is really a shovel-ready project that is being stopped by a disagreement with the Giants."
Giants president Larry Baer, notably, responded to Bloomberg that "we’re not going to get into a back-and-forth public debate with Lew on this topic," which seems to translate into "We have our territorial rights and we're not going to give them up until you or Bud Selig claws them from our cold, dead fingers." Or as the Oakland Tribune's Gary Peterson (not a disinterested observer, obviously) puts it:
Why do the Giants want to stop the A's from moving to San Jose? Because they can. These are the big leagues, Sparky. People protect their self-interests and they play for keeps. Twenty-five years ago, Bob Lurie was led to believe his Giants could play in the Coliseum while a new ballpark was being built in San Francisco. Shortly after he floated that plan in public, he heard from Oakland Mayor Lionel Wilson and the Coliseum board: "Oh no you won't."
Stuff happens.
The real news here, such as it is, is that Wolff says the A's could move into a new stadium in San Jose within three years once MLB gives the go-ahead. Which, given that it takes at most two years to build a stadium in a warm climate like Northern California, is if anything a bit underwhelming, as bombshell announcement go. But hey, they gotta find something to write about during spring training.
March 01, 2011
Sacramento Kings get seven-week extension on move request
And also as expected, the NBA gave the owners of the Sacramento Kings an extension on their relocation application until April 18, which will allow the matter to be discussed at the April 14-15 owners' meetings.
I've written before (see article as well as comments), it seems unlikely to me that issues of TV rights, payoffs to the Los Angeles Lakers and Clippers for horning in on their demographic region, and a lease in Anaheim can all get worked out that quickly — especially with a lockout and revamped collective bargaining agreement looming — but that's just educated guesswork. If nothing else, those owners' meetings are going to be very, very interesting to sit in on.
In other Kings news, Power Balance is backing away from a deal to buy naming rights to the maybe-soon-to-be-abandoned Arco Arena, and fans at last night's game chanted "Here we stay!" Wouldn't "Apres nous, le deluge" have been more appropriate?
Saskatchewan abandons Roughriders dome plan (for now)
As promised, the province of Saskatchewan stuck a fork in plans to build a new Roughriders stadium today:
"This project can go no further at this time," said Ken Cheveldayoff, the minister responsible for the project, said Tuesday.
The province had been seeking a $100 million contribution from Ottawa and had applied for the money last June.
But eight months later, there's been no response from the federal government. Partners in the project will have to look at their options, Cheveldayoff said.
Okay, not totally stuck a fork in, since they're still looking at other options. Still, one option is a modest renovation of the Roughriders' existing Mosaic Stadium, which might at least cost less than the $431 million that a new domed stadium was going to.
For more, read this report from Discover Moose Jaw. (And yes, I only linked to that so I could write "Discover Moose Jaw.)
Flashback: Puget Sound floating domed stadium
Nice slideshow at Slate by Eric Nusbaum of Pitchers & Poets detailing some stadiums that never got built. My personal favorite:
In 1963, a collective of an architect, engineer, and construction firm proposed a stadium that would float in the Puget Sound just blocks from the fair site.
The floating dome would have featured a retractable roof, monorail access, and even a ferry dock. The design, popular among Seattleites, was written up in Sports Illustrated and backed unanimously by King County commissioners ahead of a 1966 funding referendum. Questions about the project's feasibility and reticence to fund a stadium in a city with no professional franchises led to the referendum's defeat.
But, but... monorail access! I thought the mob had spoken!
Where's the Vikings stadium bill?
The Minnesota Vikings stadium plan is surging ahead in the newspapers, but less so in the legislature: Minnesota House Taxes Committee chair Greg Davids is complaining that two months into the legislative session, there's still no bill: "There should have been a bill the opening day of session. I don't understand the timing issue — why we're waiting. ... They need to get on with it, and get things moving."
Things aren't much further along in the state senate, where Sen. Julie Rosen had promised to have a stadium bill introduced in late January, but now says any legislation could still be several weeks away. (The Minneapolis Star Tribune doesn't seem to have bothered calling Rosen for comment for its story on Davids' frustration.) Presumably the holdup is figuring out exactly how to pay the estimated $700 million public cost, which no one has quite figured out how to do yet amid a $5 billion state budget deficit. On that front, Davids also said he would be opposed to any statewide or regional sales tax to fund a stadium; not clear on where he'd stand on a county sales tax.
Meanwhile, the Vikings at least got some love from the all-powerful Arden Hills city council, which voted 4-0 last night to explore a stadium plan on its abandoned munitions plant site. Of course, given that it'd likely be Ramsey County that'd have to pay for the thing, and the county commission is already on board, this doesn't really add much. Still, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has to figure he can use all the friends he can get right now.
Economists: Falcons stadium would benefit only Falcons
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday polled several economists on the likely economic impact of a new Atlanta Falcons stadium, and found pretty much what you'd expect:
- "Economists have studied the economic impact of stadiums to death, and the clear consensus is that there is no positive impact," said author and sports economist J.C. Bradbury of Kennesaw State University. "Economists don't agree on a lot, but right wing, left wing, they all agree on that."
- "The team gets to keep the lion's share of local revenue. That's why they want a new stadium," said Dennis Howard, professor of business at the University of Oregon and an expert on sports financing. "My question would be, 'What's in it for the state of Georgia? What's in it for the city of Atlanta?'"
- Hotel tax collections could be going to everything from schools to public safety officers to road repairs, said Victor Matheson, economics professor at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "It is basic human nature that people tend to be cavalier with 'free money,'" he said. "You win $1,000 in Vegas and you spend a bunch of money on things you never otherwise would. Hotel taxes seem like free money to municipalities because no voters are paying for them. Thus, this money is more likely to be wasted than taxes that you had to 'work' for. Doesn't mean that this is smart economic policy, however."
A new stadium would presumably be far more lucrative to the Falcons, though the AJC article doesn't say; it notes that the team was worth an estimated $831 million in 2009 (team owner Arthur Blank bought the Falcons for $545 million in 2002), but not how much that would be affected by a new stadium.
AOL News, meanwhile, has a decent summary of the AJC findings, though it then adds this about the Braves' stadium across town:
While the downtown Denver area got a boost from the opening of Coors Field, Turner Field has not spurred development. The Braves like it that way. They do not want fans spending money on high end restaurants outside the gates of Turner Field. They want that money spent inside.
Actually, construction in Denver's LoDo area peaked before Coors Field was built, and then leveled off thereafter (no link to the actual development timeline handy — I think I have a paper copy somewhere &mdash but here's a summary of the effects). Nobody wants fans spending money outside the gates, which is why even teams with stadiums in thriving neighborhoods want to add more inside-the-gates buying options. At taxpayer expense, preferably.
