Category: Eugene Emeralds

Friday roundup: Throw another $75m on the Rays subsidy fire, Phoenix mayor opposes neo-Coyotes arena tax

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s Friday again! I tried asking Google AI some stadium questions to see if it would return entertainingly daft answers, but I didn’t get much, so just eat your rocks and let’s get on with the week’s news remainders:

  • If an estimated $1.5 billion in cash, tax kickbacks, and land breaks for the Tampa Bay Rays didn’t sound like a lot already, turns out the $155 million that Rays owner Stu Sternberg wants to pay for 65 acres of land isn’t really $155 million, because he’d be making the payments in installments over 30 years. (St. Pete Assistant City Administrator Tom Greene estimates that this would knock about one-third off the value of the payments, making them worth $103 million; I get more like $80 million, but it depends on the exact payment schedule.) “I think that if you are not accounting for inflation in the agreement, we’re not getting the value that it says there,” said city councilmember Lisset Hanewicz, and, nope, inflation is not quite the same as devaluation for present value, but good enough for government work.
  • Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego says she “does not support using taxpayer funds, including property tax abatement, for sports arenas,” which is a blow to once-and-wannabe-future Arizona Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo’s plan to build a new arena in Phoenix using a “theme park” sales tax surcharge. “Tax abatement is essentially what establishing a theme park district does — so per the statement, she is opposed,” a Gallego spokesperson clarified — I’m still not 100% convinced that’s what it does, but either way, it’s going to make it tough for Meruelo to pursue his arena plans, at least unless the state legislature passes its bill to block city officials from having any say in such matters.
  • The city of Santa Clara and the San Francisco 49ers owners have resolved their lease dispute after, as the San Francisco Chronicle put it, “the five-member City Council majority, which was elected with the help of millions in campaign contributions from 49ers CEO Jed York, approved the deal 5-2 in a closed session Monday night.” The details are too detailed to figure out exactly who came out how far ahead in the agreement, but given the above you can probably make an educated guess.
  • Voters in Eugene, Oregon have overwhelmingly rejected spending $15 million toward a new stadium for the minor-league baseball Emeralds, who have to move from their current stadium, which is only 14 years old, because MLB is making them as part of its “force all minor-league cities to build new stadiums” plan. Team officials had previously said they would move the team if the stadium measure didn’t pass; General Manager Allan Benavides said following the vote results that he didn’t know what the team owners’ next steps would be: “We’ll have to get really creative if we want to stay here, or find a new home.” Or maybe MLB could give them a waiver to keep playing in their current stadium, though that would only help the Emeralds and their fans, not MLB, so don’t hold your breath there.
  • John Mozena of the Center for Economic Accountability (the makers of these stickers) wrote an op-ed for the Tampa Bay Times yesterday on why stadium subsidies in St. Petersburg or anywhere are a bad idea, which provides a good overview of the economic arguments and more than a few bon mots — I’m partial to “stadiums don’t create more economic activity in a city any more than cutting a pizza into more slices creates more dinner for everyone,” but feel free to choose your own favorite.
  • The St. Louis Cardinals suck, which means it’s time for a news report about how hot dog trucks outside the stadium aren’t seeing as much business. Are hot dog trucks on the other side of town doing better business as a result? That’s too hard to report, you’ll have to do your own research, apparently.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Despite Bears owners’ best efforts, Illinoisans wonder out loud who’d pay for stadium project exactly

access_time personNeil deMause

Summer must really be over, because the stadium and arena news cycle is starting to heat up again, albeit heavily weighted toward events in Chicago and Arlington Heights:

  • Chicago Bears chair George Halas McCaskey and team president Ted Phillips revealed more about the team’s stadium plans beyond an enigmatic white blob at last night’s public meeting in Arlington Heights. McCaskey said the team owners “will seek no public funding for direct stadium structure construction” but “we will need help,” and said he needs “property tax certainty” (which sounds like he wants property taxes kicked back to the team) and that “it’s not our part to say that property taxes for Arlington Heights residents won’t go up, but that might be for reasons that have nothing to do with this construction” (which definitely sounds like he wants property taxes kicked back to the team). Phillips added that the new stadium would provide a “first-class experience” with tailgating and, um, stuff. Several locals in attendance expressed concern over how much the stadium would cost them, with nearby resident Linda Gaio saying she’d like “some sort of documentation, or maybe there’s some website or something where we could check the progress of these talks and the negotiations and how it’s gonna affect us residents.” Will a catchy ditty suffice?
  • The Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity have also submitted petitions to the Arlington Heights Village Board seeking to stop any future financial incentives for “any business or corporation to operate in the village.” That seems poorly worded — couldn’t the Bears execs argue that the money isn’t to lure the Bears, but is just to improve the village’s infrastructure by paving the roads with dollar bills? — and the village board is almost certain to reject it, at which point Americans for Prosperity would have to go back and get 6,550 signatures (12% of registered voters) to place it on a public ballot, at which point they would then have to get a majority of votes. Not saying they can’t do it, what with their deep pockets, but it’s probably best not to place all your hopes in a deus ex Koch.
  • Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot says she has “Plan B, Plan C and others in the works as well if the Bears decide they’re going to abandon the city of Chicago,” but wouldn’t say what any of those might be. Block Club Chicago speculates Lightfoot “could try to bring another team to Chicago or the city could redevelop Soldier Field and the surrounding area for concerts and other uses,” which, good luck with that first one, and good luck with the latter one too, given how few stadium-sized concerts there are. Though if it meant tearing down the spaceship and just leaving the historic part of Soldier Field, maybe it’d be worth it — okay, probably still not given the cost, but it’s still more viable than “convince Roger Goodell that Chicago should have two NFL teams.”
  • In non-Chicago news, an Alameda County judge has rejected claims that the Oakland A’s Howard Terminal stadium environmental impact statement was inadequate, which … hang on, didn’t we just talk about this last week? Well anyway, the judge really did it now, I guess, which leaves no remaining hurdles for the project except for where around half of the city’s $1 billion in infrastructure spending would come from, you know, just details.
  • The Kansas City Star editorial board, which is on record against giving too much money too fast to Royals owner John Sherman for a downtown stadium even while talking up a downtown stadium, has declared that it’s a good thing that Kansas City Manager Brian Platt has put on hold for now plans to hire a consultant for Royals and Chiefs stadium talks. Because why? Because the teams haven’t said what they want yet, and skeptical taxpayers’ “concerns will harden into outright opposition if they believe deals are being cooked up behind closed doors, without a full public debate.” Advocacy for democratic procedure, or concern trolling, you make the call!
  • Arizona Coyotes execs say the team will sell out its entire season at its tiny Arizona State University arena home, and bring in more season-ticket money than they did in Glendale — yes, that’s how artificial scarcity works, by allowing you to raise ticket prices through the roof, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the Coyotes will make more money at ASU’s arena, just that they’ll make more money per fan. Which isn’t terrible in terms of taking lemons and making lemonade, but it’s still not really worthy of an entire ESPN article unless it was a super-slow news day.
  • The Salt Lake Bees are threatening to move without a new or renovated stadium, and the Eugene Emeralds are threatening to move without a new stadium, and the San Antonio Missions are threatening to move without a new stadium. The likely unionization of baseball’s minor leagues may put a crimp in MLB’s attempts to use the minors’ downsizing to pressure players into being more desperate to play for any wage, including for free — or may not, depending on whether MLB players are ever willing to stage a sympathy strike on behalf of minor leaguers in order to help them get a contract — but it’s still going gangbusters in terms of shaking loose public stadium money.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Buffalo wants to change Earth’s orbit for Bills, plus when is a USL stadium vote not a vote?

access_time personNeil deMause

Hey, look, it’s Friday again! I realize that I sometimes tell me about my week, but I seldom ask about yours. How’ve you been? Anything interesting going on? What’s that, you’ve already abandoned this paragraph and have skipped ahead to the bullet points where all the real news is? A reasonable response, I completely understand, let me now do the same—

  • Lots going on in the Buffalo Bills stadium campaign, for certain values of “going on”: On Tuesday, six members of the nine-member Buffalo Common Council passed a resolution calling for “strong consideration” to be given to locating a stadium in Buffalo instead of at the current site in suburban Orchard Park, complete with renderings showing the sun setting in the northwest; residents of the Old First Ward, one site being maybe considered for a Buffalo stadium, told WGRZ that they wouldn’t welcome an NFL stadium as a neighbor; and the Erie County Legislature voted to require at least three public hearings before any stadium deal is approved. Since the real question remains “Who the hell is going to pay for this thing, and how much?”, the rest is all pretty much just distraction right now, but at least we’re starting to see who’s lining up to fight about what once there’s something to fight about.
  • A supporter of New Mexico United‘s $68 million USL stadium plan has filed an ethics complaint against the opponent group Stop the Stadium, saying the group needs to register as a political action committee because it’s spent more than $250 on flyers opposing the plan. The real news, meanwhile, comes way down in the last paragraph of the Albuquerque Journal article, which reveals that a pro-stadium PAC funded entirely by New Mexico United owner Peter Trevisani has already banked $840,000 toward mail and TV ads — if the 100-to-1 rule holds, that probably bodes well for the stadium vote’s success, which would be a great return on investment for Trevisani, spending $840,000 to get $46 million in taxpayer cash.
  • Also about that New Mexico United stadium vote: The Journal reports that because the stadium bonds would be paid off with sales and use tax revenues and not property tax revenues, it’s actually just an advisory vote; the paper also notes that the wording of the ballot measure is confusing, since at one point it refers to “gross receipts tax revenue bonds” (sales tax money) and at another to “general obligation bonds” (property tax money), but since the vote isn’t binding anyway, what’s a little contradictory wording among friends?
  • Richmond wants to build a new stadium for the Flying Squirrels and is seeking developers to create a stadium-anchored “entertainment destination” district, which will hopefully “minimize public investment and risk and maximize private investment,” yeah, I’ll believe it when I see it. The Flying Squirrels are threatening to leave town in 2025 without a new stadium, not because they want to, mind you, but because MLB is forcing teams to upgrade their stadiums as part of its takeover of the minor leagues, I warned you this would happen, didn’t I?
  • Along the same lines, the Eugene Emeralds say they need a new stadium by 2024 or else MLB will vaporize them. No price tag or location yet, take hostages first, figure out your demands later.
  • The owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers and Chicago White Sox are seeking to develop 53 acres of city-owned land near the teams’ spring-training site in Glendale, and if you’re wondering why the teams get to develop city-owned land, it’s all part of the deal where Glendale spent $150 million on a new stadium complex to lure the teams back in 2007. It’s kind of starting to make sense that Glendale city officials’ new policy toward sports teams is not to let the door hit them on the way out.
  • Not Tempe, though, which is planning a $50 million renovation ($40.9 million of it paid for by the city) to the Los Angeles Angels‘ spring-training stadium, to “improve the fan experience by adding shade” and “modernize the food court and the restrooms,” which haven’t been modernized since way back in 2005. Good ol’ Tempe, bet the Coyotes will be very happy there.
  • That Tampa Bay Times editorial stumping for a new Rays stadium surely has nothing to do with one of the developers leading the push for a stadium has loaned the paper $15 million, right? Surely a coincidence, not anything that would require a printed disclosure!
Share this post: