This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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.
March 22, 2012
Tampa Bay Times to mayor: Quit enforcing Rays' lease!
The Tampa Bay (nee St. Petersburg) Times has an editorial today savaging Mayor Bill Foster for "failure to lead" on the Rays stadium issue, saying the mayor "refuses to engage in a meaningful stadium discussion or view the Rays as a regional asset" and has "buried his head in the sand." Instead, suggests the Times, Foster should offer to let the Rays out of their lease clause that prohibits them from talking to other cities about moving in exchange for a monetary payoff.
To which Noah Pransky of WTSP-TV and the Shadow of the Stadium blog sensibly responds:
One major problem is the assumption that the Rays would be willing to pay St. Pete for the right to study stadium sites in Tampa. The team has made no such public offer yet.
But even more baffling - and hypocritical - is how the Times criticizes Foster for not doing enough to keep the Rays in Tampa Bay - even though their contract extends for 15 more years. Yet, the column acknowledges that St. Petersburg is "protected financially...(by its contract) with the Rays that doesn't expire until 2027."
This is a common theme in newspaper coverage of stadium controversies: On the rare occasions when an elected official says, "Tough noogies, you have a lease, like it or lump it," they get attacked for "inaction." Which is, no doubt, why so many elected officials instead choose to turn on their crisis inducers the moment a team owner declares that a new stadium is needed. Same as it ever was...
It got even worse. That afternoon on 620WDAE, Steve Duemig was discussing the new Forbes article listing the values of baseball teams. He noted that the average increase in value was 16% YOY, but that the Rays value didn't increase at all. He then proceeded to blame the St. Pete mayor for keeping the Rays' owners from earning that 16% increase as well. I guess contracts don't mean much to some folks...
Posted by cfountain72 on March 23, 2012 10:18 AM
Anyone have any data on the amount of revenue actually generated by team to a local area? I'd like to determine that having a team = X number of Super WalMart's. My thought is that a privately created entity (like a WalMart), that operates year round, 'might' generate as much sales/property tax and jobs as some sports teams. Whatever that number is, it would be a decent talking point whenever the drumbeat of how much of an 'economic asset' building a stadium for a team would be.
Peace be with you.
Posted by cfountain72 on March 23, 2012 10:28 AM
There have been a lot of studies of this, but the problem is that in either case (WalMart or baseball) it's really tough to determine what's "new" revenue/jobs. If people weren't spending on baseball, would they spend on other entertainment options instead? If people weren't shopping at WalMart, would they shop at other stores?
The only really solid rule is that the bigger the circle you draw, the less the economic impact. So either a WalMart or a sports stadium can dramatically change the tax revenues of a specific neighborhood, less dramatically of a city or county, and almost nil when you're talking about a state. Basically all retail and entertainment development is about stealing customers from your neighbors, so if your neighbors are far away, you won't see much impact.
If you're interested in researching this further, I'd suggest contacting Good Jobs First to see what data they have available: goodjobsfirst.org
Posted by Neil deMause on March 23, 2012 10:43 AM
Also, re: the Forbes figures: They also show that the Rays turned a profit of $26m last year, 5th in all of baseball. It's just that the team *value* didn't rise. So really the complaint is that Foster is refusing to subsidize Sternberg's capital gains...
Posted by Neil deMause on March 23, 2012 10:47 AM
What is wrong with the people at the Times? Do they have no integrity whatsoever. This is why it isn't necessary to take "reporters" seriously. 95% of them are just hacks working for a buck like everyone else out there, not people nobly ferreting out the truth as they so love to pretend.
Posted by Joshua Northey on March 23, 2012 03:07 PM
This was an editorial, though, not a news story. The Times' reporters may or may not suck, but this isn't evidence one way or another.
Posted by Neil deMause on March 23, 2012 03:17 PM
I assume you mean an editorial by the very editors who run the news staff? Most of the editorials in the local papers I see are by former reporters.
Posted by Joshua Northey on March 23, 2012 04:26 PM
Steve Duemig is a complete oaf. He loves to champion himself as it relates to what is right and wrong. Yet, when it comes to the taxpayer getting fleeced, he doesn't give a damn. He's has a "vested" interest in a local restaurant, go figure.
Posted by Bertbehomeblyleven on March 26, 2012 04:27 PM
neither the rays (like a's) have any real relocation cities (as tampa/st.pete was) to use as leverage leverage to get what they want. so they're stuck, and resort to using the local print media to advance their wishes in a public forum. dueming never mentioned that the current rays owners knew about the lease when they bought their "pig in a poke", he sounds incredibly shallow and not very entertaining.
Posted by paul W on March 27, 2012 09:39 PM