Here we are at the end of another programming week, and this being May and May being springtime and springtime being when state legislatures are in session, the news roundup is once again a lot. Which stadium proposals will live, and which will die, and which will die but be brought back to life like a key member of the bridge crew? Let’s recount the clues:
- Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe’s plan to pay for half of all future stadiums with state money will apparently not be passed by the Missouri state senate on today’s last day of session, because a bunch of Republican senators hate it and Democratic senators hate the Republicans now for moving to override public referendums on abortion rights and paid sick leave. But Kehoe may yet call a special session to discuss his stadium bill and thus try to override last year’s public referendum that overwhelmingly rejected funding Kansas City Chiefs and Royals stadiums, I’m sensing a theme here.
- A representative of Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam has told Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne that it’s “disheartening” he is sharing “misleading information” about the team’s plans to move to a new stadium in suburban Brook Park, and if he insists on being like that, the Haslams will just go ahead and build the stadium without the $178 million they’d asked for from the county. That’ll show him! Maybe Ohio legislators should start being meaner to the Haslams and they’ll give up on asking for $600 million in state money, too? But wait, isn’t “Plan B” if state money isn’t approved to stay put at a renovated stadium in Cleveland? The same plan that the Haslams rep just called “a short-term solution that only kicks the can down the road”? The continuity department really needs to get a handle on this plotline.
- In addition to approving $575 million for Utah Jazz arena renovations and $325 million for a surrounding entertainment district to be built by Jazz owner Ryan Smith and $59 million in additional tax diversion, the Utah state legislature this week set aside $300 million to build a pedestrian plaza bridging a road outside the arena. That’s a whole lot more than the $93 million the arena cost to build in the first place, even adjusted for inflation, just for a big flat thing for people to walk on — good thing Utah doesn’t need the money for anything else.
- John Fisher’s nomadic Athletics have started drilling holes at their proposed stadium site in Las Vegas! Also “installing turnstiles along the property’s perimeter to allow workers to access the construction site”! Neither of these is technically a groundbreaking, not that even a groundbreaking means anything will eventually get built, but at least maybe now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Vegas Sphere.
- The city of San Antonio is still kicking around ways to pay for a new $1.5 billion Spurs arena, including: increased hotel/motel taxes, tax increment financing, state funding for tourism projects, revenue from the new arena, or money from the Spurs owners themselves. “There’s a lot of work to do but I expect to have that public presentation in front of city council in less than a month,” said city manager Erik Walsh.
- The owners of the minor league baseball St. Paul Saints want the state of Minnesota to pay for half the cost of a $17 million renovation to give their stadium a Ferris wheel, that’s it, I’m done, see you Monday.
We are all so screwed.
The Greatest Country in the World™
Did San Antonio even kick around the idea not needing a $1.5 billion dollar arena? Sure there are a few other cities the Spurs could threaten to move to, but none have the benefit of being the only team in town. Seattle already has four teams, so I’m not buying the Spur-Sonics.
The spurs already play a few games a year up the road in Austin. That arena is shiny and new albeit a little small by NBA standards. That’s the threat if it ever gets to that stage
Austin, please take them!
The $178 million from the County is a small piece of the $2.4 billion stadium cost, but how is Brook Park going to come up with its $422 million? It seems like they were looking for the County to back the Brook Park debt.
You have to admit that the ferris wheel is a little funny.
OK I found this bit from Haslam’s letter:
The primary ask of the County is to maximize Brook Park revenues by leveraging the County’s credit and issuing bonds that will be paid back through new revenues generated from the project.
So its not the $178 million from the County that was the key it was the county backing the $422 million that Brook Park will borrow. That makes more sense, I never understood how Brook Park would be able to borrow that much money.
Now the question is how Brook Park will borrow the money without the County backing it.