Prospective Expos co-owner vows only to pay for stadium with tax breaks and free land, not suitcases full of public cash

27 comments on “Prospective Expos co-owner vows only to pay for stadium with tax breaks and free land, not suitcases full of public cash”

1. Remember that Bronfman said publicly that when it will be the time to talk about the stadium, the help required, the level of participation of every stakeholder, he will talk a lot.

   This is far from “under the table”!

   Some facts here:

   1. Most of the potential lands the are identified are contaminated. There are two possible sites in Goose Village/Pointe-St-Charles plus probably one or two more near downtown. The decontamination cost will be huge for those site.

   2. Once the decontamination process is completed, the underground infrastructure (water, …) will need to be rebuild. This is a very old industrial area of Montreal with a high potential of development (houses, condos, parks, schools, commercial buildings, …). Such massive investments are not yet planned in the Montreal Infrastructure budget.

   3. The REM station next to the Peel Basin land must be located, detailed with modifications to the streets, car flow, … Such station cannot be presented without a detailed plan of the area. Construction of the REM is starting April 27th.

   4. The REM project will charge an additional tax to building owners around the stations (radius of 500m up to 1km). The new stadium will likely fall within this radius.

   5. Like the Montreal Canadiens did with their real estate project (Bell Center, Canadiens Towers 1-2-3), Bronfman (via Claridge) is one of the biggest real estate developer in Griffintown (condos, commercial buildings). If Bronfman will invest massively in a baseball project, it must be more than just a stadium and a team.

   So regarding how the city and the governments will help out, it will all depends on the cost to prepare the land, the infrastructures underneath, the neighbourhood planing, the tax structure, …

   Considering that the new stadium will be a small one, like Jarry Park, and the laws in Canada are different from what you have in the US, using the New York Yankees example for subsidies is exaggerated.

   1. Not really.

      Olympic stadium was budgeted at roughly $150m. It has cost taxpayers over $3Bn NPV. This is Montreal, let’s not forget, where bridges and other infrastructure are failing but there is money to “help” billionaires (who use off shore tax havens to avoid paying Canadian taxes due on income earned).

      https://globalnews.ca/news/1622840/montreals-olympic-stadium-a-budget-buster-study/

      If this is a small 28-30k seat ballpark with enough modern amenities to actually generate enough revenue to allow the Expos to compete with other have not franchises (payroll of C$150m total revenues C$225-250m) it’s going to cost a minimum of C$500m. Because it is in Montreal, expect the actual bill to be significantly higher than that.

      Whether Bronfman’s billionaire boyz club gets free land, interest free loans or 20 year tax holidays, it’s still a subsidy. And the rest of Montreal’s taxpayers will be paying for the things that the tax revenues the city is not earning on the stadium (and associated development) should have gone towards.

      If Bronfman and co just agreed to contribute the money they’ve saved on taxes by using off shoring strategies, the stadium could be fully funded, I’ll wager.

      I’d say the ‘government’ is already ‘involved’, whether they knew it or not.

      1. John, stop bringing back Big O costing, budget, … That was a project from the 1970’s, 48 years ago! And the Big O is completely paid and represent a $3B asset for the city, the most visited site by tourists in Montreal. By the way, smokers paid the Big O with a specific tax on cigarets in the 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s.

         Regarding infrastructures that are in bad shape, that’s the reality of decades of under investments by the city and the governments.

         This situation is improving over the last 5 years but remember, Montreal is an old city with very old underground infrastructures (some of them are 100 years old) that need massive funds to change/upgrade them.

         Finally, it’s clear that in some way, public funds/subsidies will be involved in the baseball project like public funds/subsidies are involved for the F1 race, the Saputo Stadium (stadium will be public after 40 years), the Symphonic Orchestra building, the Jazz Festival, Just for Laughs Festival, …

         The point here is subsidies will be involved into a larger project than just a baseball team and a stadium on a land. And this is not the responsibility of the private sector to funds Goose Village infrastructure development/improvements with the Peel Basin REM station next to it.

         1. Olympic stadium is not a $3bn asset for the city, it has effectively no value (given it’s annual operating and capital costs – somewhere north of $30m). People do visit it when they are in Montreal (I did), but it isn’t a primary reason to visit the city.

            Montreal (and Quebec) budgeting and public spending have always been disasters, Olympic stadium is just one example of same.

            I’m not saying the city should or shouldn’t contribute to a ballpark (as they have contributed to renovations to Molson stadium, agreed to a tax treaty re: Centre Bell, and have paid millions every year for both the F1 GP and other events). I’m just saying that they should be honest about what costs the public will be stuck with – something we haven’t seen so far.

            RE: the village – if it is privately owned then yes it is the private sector’s responsibility to install the infrastructure improvements. Transit etc, not so much.

   2. I know the laws in Canada are different but costs are higher ( GST being just one example), not to mention expansion fees,.so getting stuff like land, infrastructure support and tax breaks ( or some combination of these three) is important for Bronfman to allow for the return of the Expos, while making economic sense.

2. “Under the table” in terms of being in hidden subsidies, not “under the table” in terms of being negotiated secretly. Though declaring “I won’t accept a stadium paid for by taxpayers” in one breath and then saying “…except for land and tax breaks and other things like that” in the next is pretty under the table in both respects.

3. Lol. The Montreal-MLB-Cheerleaders crack me up. Montreal won’t be getting a team. Or as the French say “pas la chance d’une boule de neige en enfer!”

4. As ever, the devil is in the details.

   What Garber actually said was “I won’t be part of a project… where there is a stadium for billionaires… paid for by taxpayers”.

   So, his simple and forthright response applies only to the stadium, not to any of the other costs associated (which, as we know from other projects, can mean the infrastructure supporting the stadium, the land, the engineering costs, payments to elected officials – hey, this is Montreal after all… and it’s literally been months since a Mayor was frogmarched off a rally stage in handcuffs, etc).

   I’m not defending Garber and Bronfman, just pointing out that it is vitally important when reading statements that were probably approved (or maybe completely crafted) by lawyers to be precise about the language. If the statement includes the words project and stadium, it’s probably because the issuer wanted to maintain a clear difference between the two.

   1. John, regarding the “payment to elected officials” quote, this is no longer the case, the Commission Charbonneau covered in details these criminals behaviours and prosecuted everyone involved.

      However, during the Commission Charbonneau, US (FBI) and RCMP agents testified that such collusion behaviors are widespread in several cities/provinces/states in Canada and in the US. The difference if that in Montreal (and the province of Quebec), we had the courage to face it publicly and to eradicate it with strong control processes.

      1. So corruption has been eradicated in Quebec!
         Praise be!

         What garbage. I can name the names and so can you.

         Building anything in Montreal is not so different from building things in New York. You have to pay off the same groups. Ask President Bone Spurs about that.

         https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910

5. This seems like a preposterous amount of hyperbole, even by modern sports standards. Especially given that the Expos had above-average NL attendance for about 15% of their history, and were usually well below average.

   If there is cleanable/buildable land in the metro area, why not clean it up and then put it to public bid? Why undercut the development of a transit-oriented project by (possibly) undermining the potential value of transit-oriented development of the land by building something as useless as a stadium–rather than buildings with actual residents and businesses?

   I’m as nostalgic as the next person, and many “older” fans paused at the passing of Le Grand Orange. But the Expos, for all the nostalgia, were never really all that, and weren’t really missed by the rest of the NL when they left. Sure, moving the Rays there might be an improvement, but why not take on that wishful thinking first?

   1. Agreed. I would love to see them back… I have very strong and fond memories of the club from my youth.

      But… they drew over 25k avg only from 1979-83. Never before, never after. Outside of those “first” competitive years, they drew over 20k just five times. Even during the 92-94 period, where they were a very good young team, they barely broke 20k (and had total attendance some 30% below MLB avg at the time).

      Those of us who loved the team wish for it’s return and hope it could be different in a fan friendly open air stadium. But we know there were never enough paying fans willing to support the team to make it a viable business, and that there probably won’t be in future either.

      That said, if Bronfman and Garber really want to spend their own money feeding an MLB team, it’s their business. If they want city, province or federal tax dollars to keep their sports business afloat, it’s a different matter entirely.

      1. Definitely an underappreciated team…even outside those glory NLCS (and close) years, they nearly always had a nice lineup with real watchable stars. I always liked seeing them as a visiting team.

6. Construction projects in Montreal, and Quebec in general are mafia controlled so no doubt the building will crumble after the first snow storm

7. Mitch Garber was interviewed this morning (in french).

   http://www.985fm.ca/extraits-audios/economie/98839/mitch-garber-canadiens-expos-et-investisseurs-etrangers

   He said the investors will pay for a new stadium and a team. However, like any private business investments in any city that will create jobs and will generate taxes for all level of governments (let’s take the Amazon example that is shopping for lands/city for one of their new head office), such investors are looking for incentives to invest such amount of money (stadium and team).

   Garber specify that investors will look to have some kind of incentives (considering that levels of governments will get income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, …) from such major project.

   By example, it could be a guaranteed loan (that will be paid by the investors) to build the stadium., it could be a tax break, …

   Bottom line, he said that for such important private investment that will benefit all governments levels, win-win incentives must be considered and determined (like governments will do for any other similar private investments and benefits for them).

   Garber also said that Montreal in #1 (based one MLB discussions) in line to get a team if a relocation occurs.

   1. Exactly why/how will all levels of government benefit? Fact or assertion?

      1. The term benefits used by Garber in the interview means $$$.

         Now, what will be the benefits for all level of governments?

         We still waiting for the public disclosure of the revised business plan but what we know as of today (based on The Conference Board of Canada study and the EY Feasibility Study in 2013) is:

         – Based on an example of $75M CAD in players salary budget (it will be way more), Governments (Canada and Quebec) get $37.8M/annualy (including opponents teams income taxes when they play in Montreal).

         – Marginal increase from tourists for local games represent $12.7M in taxes (for both governments) per year.

         – Stadium operation represent $37.9M in additional taxes for both governments per year.

         – During the stadium construction, based on a $426M budget back in 2013, governments will get $106.9M in taxes.

         http://www.ccmm.ca/externe/baseball/analyse_retombees_baseball_131212.pdf

         This is the benefits that were documented in 2013 by a third party economist.

         We all know that some numbers are too low, some may be too high.

         Bottom line, what need to be calculated is how much governments will gain from such investments and they need to compare it with other projects (renonciation cost) in order to make their mind if this is profitable for the taxpayers to give investors benefits (tax breaks, land or discounted lands, infrastructures around the stadium, …) in exchange of such investments and economic impacts, social impacts, cultural impacts.

         We’ll see what the investors will propose and disclose when MLB will tell them they can move forward with the next step of the plan.

         1. Your version of reality is very entertaining.

         2. Please explain how a $426m stadium will generate $107m in “taxes” for ‘governments’.

            1. John, chapter 2 of the study (starting on page 6).

               http://www.ccmm.ca/externe/baseball/analyse_retombees_baseball_131212.pdf

               Google Translate will be your friend!

               Cheers!

         3. Google Translate was my friend (along with High School French)!!!

            What did it tell me in the VERY FIRST sentence? That the group trying to bring a baseball team to Montreal commissioned the group doing the study to figure out the “economic benefits” of having a stadium.

            Some “third party” study! Had a good laugh though.

            You aren’t from these parts, are you?

            1. My favourite part is that the Conference Board employs the guy who did the study, and it’s logo appears at the top of the study. Yet this study is not listed on the CB website under either subject matter or author (in either official language).

               Hmmmm.

               If an NHTSA employee reviewed a car and used the NHTSA logo on the published review on the manufacturer’s website, yet the NHTSA website did not indicate it had ever evaluated that vehicle….

            2. Montreal Homerun Project inc. hired the Conference Board (as consultants) to produce an economic study. That’s why this study is not on CB web site, it a private consulting work for a client.

               If I follow up your logic John, consultants should never produce any studies because they get paid to produce them! And at the end, no matter who fund the studies, the ones who fund it is influencing the results/conclusions of such studies.

               About Montreal Homerun Project Inc.

               Montreal Homerun Project Inc. was created by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Montreal Baseball Project and BCF LLP to pursue the project of bringing a Major League Baseball team back to Montreal. Its objective is to identify and develop funding sources and advance relations with interested parties, as well as to study potential sites where the team could play. The company will also develop financing and corporate structures in order to fund and hold investments in the team and stadium.

   2. “We’re only looking for ‘incentives’ like Amazon” is maybe not the best way of expressing that you don’t want public subsidies.

8. New level of Expo necrophilia that’ll make Drapeau’s folly look like child’s play.

9. Canada’s not stupid? They elected that idiot Trudeau as PM.

10. A very good summary of the existing situation in Montreal, Tampa Bay and Oakland.

    Montreal Expos ownership group positioned for MLB relocation

    https://www.draysbay.com/2018/4/12/17222454/montreal-expos-ownership-group-positioned-for-mlb-relocation

Comments are closed.