Happy Friday! I have a ton of week-ending stadium news to bring you today, or at least there’s a ton of news out there whether I’m bringing it to you or not. What is it about that that is confusing?
Onward:
- Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, according to DCist, wants to use “some of” the county’s $1.6 billion in state funding this year to build — wait for it — “infrastructure improvements” for the Washington Football Team‘s stadium that would include “restaurants and places to shop.” It sounds like Alsobrooks is only talking about $17.6 million, maybe, but still this earns a Stupid Infrastructure category tag until proven otherwise.
- Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee wants to use $2 million a year in state sales tax money (figure roughly $30 million in present value) for upgrades to the Titans‘ stadium, though actually it could end up being more like $10 million a year (figure roughly $150 million in present value) if more development is built around the stadium, plus he wants to give $13.5 million to Knoxville for its Tennessee Smokies stadium. Did Lee call this an “infrastructure” plan? Not that I can find in the Tennessean’s news reporting, but everybody drink anyway.
- The Calgary Flames‘ $550 million arena plan, which already includes about $250 million in public subsidies, has run into $70 million in unexpected cost overruns and is now “paused” until the team and city can figure out who’ll cover them. Actually, the report is that the Flames owners are demanding $70 million, and previously the city and team agreed to split overruns 50-50, so maybe it’s really $140 million over budget? Either way, there’s already a petition to scrap the whole deal, though “trim a little from the team’s design and both sides kick in a little more money” seems a far more likely outcome, especially with Mayor Naheed Nenshi declaring it “far better to have these issues sorted out at this stage than to have unexpected cost overruns after construction has begun.” (Are known cost overruns actually better than surprise ones? Discuss.)
- The Boston Globe, not satisfied with its glowing report last month on Worcester’s new stadium for the Red Sox Triple-A team (top farm club of the Boston Red Sox, owner of the Boston Globe), ran two separate opinion pieces this week slagging Pawtucket officials for not offering up $150 million in subsidies like Worcester did and thus losing their team: Dan McGowan, the Globe’s Rhode Island politics reporter, wrote, “Imagine what we could have had if our leaders showed even a tiny sense of vision” and “It too often takes only one politician to spoil a really good idea” while condemning “extremists on both sides of the [stadium] debate” who think a thing can be either good or bad (while also calling the Worcester stadium “great”). The very next day, Mike Stanton, a UConn journalism professor who writes occasionally for the Globe, wrote that former Rhode Island House speaker Nicholas Mattiello “rightly deserves blame for his role in killing the PawSox,” though he also blamed WooSox owner Larry Lucchino for “demanding extravagant taxpayer support for a new ballpark” and harming negotiations for, I guess, less extravagant taxpayer support? Anyway, the Globe wants you to know that Worcester has a shiny new baseball stadium and Pawtucket doesn’t, and let’s not speak of what else Worcester could have done with $150 million.
- Six Republican Congressfolk — Sens. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, and Marsha Blackburn, and Rep. Jeff Duncan — have cosponsored legislation seeking to end MLB’s antitrust exemption in response to the league pulling the 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta over Georgia’s new voting-restrictions law. This is part of a long line of proposals to yank the league’s 99-year-old exemption from antitrust laws, which never seem to go anywhere; the last time by my count was when more than 100 Congresspeoples wrote a letter in 2019 threatening to rescind “the long-term support that Congress has always afforded our national pastime” if MLB didn’t back down on its plan to eliminate more than 40 minor-league franchises, a letter that was signed by none of Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Rubio, or Blackburn, all of whom were in office at the time. (SPOILER: MLB didn’t back down, and Congress did.) Waving the antitrust-exemption stick has become the standard way for federal representatives to express their anger at baseball over one thing or another, in other words, but actually using it is apparently beyond the pale, either because of partisanship or lobbyists or both, pick your poison.
- Another U.S. representative, Georgia’s Buddy Carter, has introduced legislation — or maybe just drafted legislation and sent it to Fox News, he doesn’t seem to have actually submitted it to Congress — to block MLB from relocating non-regular-season events except in cases of natural disaster or other emergencies, under penalty of allowing local businesses to sue for damages for lost revenue as a result of the move. Which, as Craig Calcaterra notes, would be hilarious because it would put MLB in the position of having to argue in court that its events have no economic impact, which is pretty much the truth: “The evidence — like, all the evidence from multiple studies — would actually be on MLB’s side in such a case! And it’d likely win! And all it would cost MLB is the ability to continue to lie about how big an impact All-Star Games and stadiums and things have on local economies when it suits its interest.”
- The Cincinnati Reds are offering discounted tickets to fans who can show they’re fully vaccinated, and Buffalo officials say the Bills and Sabres will be required to limit attendance to the fully vaccinated in the fall, though New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he’ll be the judge of that. Whatever the eventual admittance policies end up being, having going to things like ballgames (or traveling internationally) be less of a hassle if you wave your vaccine card seems likely to be the best way to encourage more people to get their shots, which is the only way to get to herd immunity, which is the only way to prevent lots more deaths and more re-closings of things like ballgames, so this is good news regardless of whether sporting events turn out to be insanely risky or relatively safe.
- Finally, I can’t let this week pass without noting that the Buffalo Bisons, who have been temporarily relocated to Trenton to make way for the Toronto Blue Jays, who will be spending the summer in Buffalo thanks to Covid travel restrictions, will be playing their home games as the Trenton Thunder while playing road games as the Bisons. No word yet on how this Frankenstein monster of a franchise will be listed in the (checks revamped minor-league nomenclature) Triple-A East standings, though I wholeheartedly hope the Thunder and Bisons get counted as two different teams, ideally with players forced to wear fake mustaches in New Jersey and go by assumed names. “Marc Rzepczynski? No, he plays for Buffalo, I am of course Shmarc Shmepczynski, would you like my autograph?”
Thanks for a fun weekly recap. I read all of it. Or at least it was offered for me to read! And maybe I did and maybe I didn’t.
And that story was a perfect segue into these elected officials saber rattling about anti-trust. Well they did *say* they would do it…
Regarding Calgary’s arena for $550 million, has anybody recently built an NHL sized arena for that low of a price recently?
Edmonton’s new arena cost about $500m, opened in 2016. Vegas was under $400m. Detroit and the Islanders are both playing in crazy-expensive arenas, but it’s certainly doable for less.
By the sounds of further reporting, potential cost overruns are due to inflation of construction materials.
https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/newsletter_static/messages/councilmatters/2021-04-16/
And the worry is that this recent inflation is just the beginning if $ is poured into infrastructure projects in North America in the next few years. If the Flames owners have to dig deeper into their pockets (assuming that they would have to pay for some/all of the overruns – perhaps a big assumption) then maybe they would be onboard with a delay in the project. IMO, there is nothing wrong with Saddledome as a place to watch hockey. The sales job on the new “Event Centre” was that big music acts would bypass Calgary because of the Saddledome. Delaying for 5 years might give a chance to see if Covid has changed the way people use arenas. Also, surely the Flames have lost substantial $ over the past year. I realize the owners are wealthy, but they don’t necessarily have liquid cash to burn. Of course, this may mean that they double their efforts to extract more $ from the taxpayer.
You know, prices happen. When the 2008-09 crash hit with its attendant jump in interest rates, the Nets “value-engineered” their arena to save money, which meant not making it hockey-friendly, but it at least got them in without busting their budget. But then, they didn’t have a public partner (on the arena construction costs at least) that they could ask for extra cash from.
Didn’t they value engineer it after Chuck Wang refused to put any money toward making it compatible for hockey? As I recall, they approached him about joining in with the project instead of pursuing his vanity project (Lighthouse) out in Hempstead.
I thought the original designs for Atlantic Yards included the possibility of a proper NHL setup being included?
They did, and then Ratner ran into money problems:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/nyregion/05gehry.html
They can value engineer the Calgary project by moving the location 2 blocks and using a 35 year old building (maybe put in better cup-holders for the seats). I tried to look at the agreements for this project, but the City of Calgary link to this page is broken. Just as well given the beautiful weather.
“Waving the antitrust-exemption stick has become the standard way for federal representatives to express their anger at baseball over one thing or another, in other words, but actually using it is apparently beyond the pale, either because of partisanship or lobbyists or both, pick your poison.”
I think it’s one of those threats that never gets exercised because then it would become known that it really doesn’t matter. Considering the worries about the future popularity of baseball, is there really anyone out there interested in starting a modern-day Federal League, but is holding back because of the exemption?
Politicians making a non-threat threat to appease “the base”.
Yep, as only politicians can do. I wonder why the people who are “called” before various panels (congressional or otherwise) run by people who are only interested in camera time and appearing tough to their dimwit voters don’t just sit there and make obvious masturbatory gestures toward their esteemed inquisitors.
It wouldn’t matter. The pols aren’t going to do anything and those called onto the carpet know it just as well as those sitting behind the $300,000 oak desks/benches do.
Only a partisan hack (from either side of the aisle) would believe that there is any other intention here.
I don’t think the pols are especially serious here, but I do think MLB cares deeply about its antitrust exemption. Not so much because of fear of competition as that it makes a ton of things easier. (Its takeover of MiLB, for one.)
Sorry, I meant either Democrat or Republican with the ‘either side of the aisle’ comment, not that MLB doesn’t care either way… I wasn’t at all clear.
John, no apologies necessary. I’ve sat on the other side of the table and watched it happen. Democrat or Republican. Doesn’t seem to matter.
First the glossy pictures for the new stadium. Then City staff cite a report* of stadium construction and stadium job creation. They continue on with economic and other benefits; out-of towner’s attending events, eating at local restaurants, staying overnight at local hotels, visiting your city’s sites of interest and the trickle down effect into the local economy (groceries, gasoline, shopping, etc.). Oh, don’t forget, sports bars filled with your constituents. City staff, usually with the mayor’s input, support the position. Funding to be ….. don’t you worry your pretty little heads about ….. that’s what we’re (city staff) are for (most of your colleagues are dependent upon their staff for direction and understanding on this. See below, for your colleagues capabilities).
*Report created by local Chamber of Commerce, or firm retained by the Chamber, both with a vested interest for approval.
Next up, spokesperson for the team owner rises to speak. The impeccably dressed spokesperson reinterates above points even more slowly (as an accountant, auditor, I was continually shocked at how simple math eluded my colleagues), with great enthusiasm and nods after each point. As you look down the table, you see your colleagues eyes glaze over and slowly nodding as well. Finally, the piece de resistance. Your city will have a “state of the art facility.” And who doesn’t want that?
Now time to open up the meeting for public discussion. First up, leaders for the various trade unions. Job creation! Construction! Concessions! Hotel and Service Industry! (What kind of leader argues against job creation in your local community, for his constituents? You’re boxed in).
Next up. Chamber of Commerce and local business leaders. Economic and other benefits! Don’t forget, many of your colleagues have spent time with these leaders in meetings, developing relationships, receiving campaign contributions for election from them and their groups.
Next up. Teams supporters. Answer is, anything and everything for and to keep the team.
Lastly, the opposition. A small, but very well organized group. Unfortunately, they occupy 1/4 of the Chambers. Had it been the other way around, 3/4 of the Chambers occupied by opponents, you’d have a leg to stand on. Your colleagues take note of the public makeup of Council Chambers.
Now public discussion is closed. Reverts to Council discussion. During discussion you end up looking like Anaheim Councilwoman Barnes and Councilman Moreno. Your colleagues are po’ed with you, it’s going to be extremely difficult to put forward any proposals that will be accepted and without the strong support of your constituents, your colleagues will work against your re-election (Anaheim Councilwoman Barnes was defeated in last year’s election).
And shortly thereafter, you wind up an article in Mr. deMause’s column.
“…but I do think MLB cares deeply about its antitrust exemption.”
Maybe, but I doubt the real value of it. The takeover of the minor leagues ends up benefiting teams less than the annual cost of a backup infielder.
In any case, the most annoying use of the antitrust exemption is when discussing team relocation. The league’s control over moves has nothing to do with their monopoly, it’s just part of the franchise business model. No different from owning a McDonald’s or a Hampton Inn.
Where I live construction dimensional lumber costs about 3x what it did 3 years ago. While I haven’t bought any of late, I understand delivered concrete is running about 2x what it was 3 years ago.
Add to that the increased supplier/contractor costs associated with Covid precautions/testing and it’s no wonder there are overruns on any project under way.
Assuming the materials increase runs true in Calgary and area, I would be surprised if the City’s new arena for the Flames (and pretty much no-one else but the Flames) will not continue to see costs spiral out of control.
Does anyone seriously believe this “pause” is anything but waiting until the city agrees to use taxpayer money to fill the budgetary hole?
In 2014, the city I was responsible for replaced its 100 year old bridge. The cost as to the 4 engineering firms, place scared emoji here. That was for a 4.3 million bridge replacement project. For a $550 million arena, today, the engineering costs must be astronomical!
Neil has done a good job highlighting subpar reporting when it comes to sports facilities. As stated on this site many times ticket taxes come at the expense of ticket sellers, which the below Arizona Republic column doesn’t appear to understand. User fees are good in that non-users aren’t footing the bill for something they don’t benefit from. As the D-backs aknowledge in the below Arizona Mirror article they’re basically taxing themselves, while using government bonding to secure lower interest rates. The team is liable if the revenue isn’t enough to cover the bonds. There is a legit philosophical quibble whether a private entity should have taxing authority, but this seems better than most stadium deals.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/04/16/arizona-diamondbacks-could-charge-fans-tax-upgrade-stadium/7245314002/
https://www.azmirror.com/2021/04/16/lawmakers-are-poised-to-let-the-diamondbacks-renovate-chase-field-with-a-new-ticket-tax/