Category: Denver arena

Friday roundup: Chiefs want public money if Royals get any, plus what a baseball lockout could mean for MLB stadium talks

access_time personNeil deMause

Eight posts already this week, and now a full slate of Friday roundup news? Remember all the way back on, uh, Wednesday, when people were claiming that the public sports funding era had run its course? Those were good times, I thought maybe I might get to sleep in one day, but clearly that day is not now:

  • The Kansas City Royals owners haven’t even started publicly discussing a new downtown stadium, let alone how to pay for it, but already Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt is saying he’s considering what to do if the Royals leave the suburban sports complex the two teams share. “We’re going to watch as they go through the process, and at some point here in the next year or so, start thinking about what’s next for the Chiefs from a stadium standpoint,” said Hunt, who added that “we’ve had beautiful stadiums open now in Los Angeles and Las Vegas” that include features “I’m sure we’ll want to incorporate into the stadium.” The Kansas City Star added that “if the Royals receive tax dollars for a new downtown stadium … it’s believed the Chiefs would want a piece of the monetary pie,” which makes sense, it’s how the last Kansas City stadium subsidy worked way back in 2019, and the one before that in 2006. Look out, Indianapolis, there could be a new repeat sports subsidy offender in town!
  • MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred is saying the quiet parts loud again, exclaiming of the pending expiration of the players’ union contract on December 1 that “an offseason lockout that moves the process forward is different than a labor dispute that costs games,” which in Manfred-to-English autotranslates as “we’re going to lock the players out now when it doesn’t cost us anything in ticket sales rather than wait for them to strike in the spring when they have more leverage purple monkey dishwasher.” That makes hardball negotiating sense, but you have to wonder what effect a lockout will have on stadium talks in places like Oakland and Cleveland and Tampa Bay and Kansas City, where elected officials could now be debating whether to give hundreds of millions of dollars to a sport that is shut down in a labor dispute. Sports execs really do do the darnedest things.
  • Manfred also said the league’s executive committee has put off an approval request from Tampa Bay Rays owner Stuart Sternberg on his split city Montreal-Tampa Bay plan, because of “the press of other business” and that “it’s a complicated topic.” You could read this a bunch of ways — that the other owners think it’s a dumb idea, that Sternberg himself thinks it’s a dumb idea and they’re providing him cover by pretending to consider it so he can keep using it as a threat, or that they’re genuinely too busy discussing such issues as how much tacky stuff to preapply to baseball so that pitchers can grip the ball well but not too well — so take your pick.
  • Augusta voters rejected $240 million in bonds for a new arena on Election Day, so now naturally the Augusta-Richmond County Coliseum Authority is trying to figure out somewhere else to find $240 million that doesn’t require voter approval. “We’re looking at other options,” said authority chair Cedric Johnson, which so far could include $6 million in federal infrastructure money for new roads around an arena; Augusta has also diverted $45,000 from its parks budget to hire a consultant to look for more federal money. I’m telling you, while the Biden infrastructure bill is certainly designed to fund a whole lot of genuine public benefits like keeping bridges from falling down and keeping the power grid from failing, if there’s a a loophole that even part of a stadium or other pet development project can be rammed through, sports owners and their friends in local government are going to find it.
  • After a new $190 million stock show arena was similarly rejected on Election Day, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock says he’s determined to find a way to build one anyway, to fulfill his “commitment to the voters” to … build this thing the voters just said they don’t want? Mayors also do the darnedest things.
  • Chicago alderman George Cardenas says he’ll introduce a bill for the city to buy the Bears and sell shares to fans, a la the Green Bay Packers to keep the team from moving to Arlington Heights, which is a great idea except that the NFL passed new bylaws ruling out any new public or community-owned teams, so much for that then.
  • Developers in Raleigh say they have no “clear pathway” to build a 20,000-seat soccer stadium for North Carolina F.C. and the North Carolina Courage because the city has not shown “a deep interest” in kicking back property taxes to help pay for one. The minute someone offers them a huge pile of public money for a stadium, though, they’re rarin’ to go, because Raleigh “deserves” one, really what are they even waiting for, you know?
  • Staten Island’s new minor-league baseball team that is getting $8 million in public stadium renovations in order for the Atlantic League to bring it into existence will not be called the Pizza Rats after all, but rather the Staten Island FerryHawks, which the team’s website claims is “a fun-loving, baseball-playing superhero that combines the power, toughness and persistence of the Staten Island Ferry and the red tailed and cooper’s hawks that are seen around Staten Island.” I would have considered Googling this and similarly pronounced names before making the announcement, but maybe that’s just me.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Nation’s elected officials vow to press ahead with stadium and arena plans, no matter what voters say

access_time personNeil deMause

Looks like we made it through another week! Admittedly, some of us did not make it through another week without electing a new mayor who says things like this, but that’s what you get sometimes with a two-party system.

More post-election fallout, and regardless-of-election fallout, in the bullet points that you know are coming up right after this colon:

Share this post:

This just in: Pols who like stadium subsidies think stadium subsidies are good

access_time personNeil deMause

Let’s see what today brings in the old media slop bucket! Here’s the Chicago Daily Herald with a report on the Chicago Bears‘ Arlington Heights stadium plans titled “Could Bears stadium benefit Arlington Heights taxpayers? Mayor says yes,” wonder what that’s about:

Facing some constituent concerns — if not outright opposition — to the Chicago Bears’ potential move to Arlington Heights, Mayor Tom Hayes is touting what the relocation could mean for local property values and taxes…

“We envision that it’s going to do great things for their property values because people are going to see Arlington Heights as a destination not just to go to a Bears game but to raise their family, as they always have,” Hayes said. “I think this is only going to improve our reputation and quality of life.”

So … people have always seen Arlington Heights as a good place to live, but once they go there for a Bears game, even more will? There is actually some evidence that a stadium announcement helps drive up property values somewhat in the stadium site’s immediate surroundings — and drive down property values in the rest of the metro area that will have to pay for it — but that’s not quite the same as saying it would benefit taxpayers, especially when any public cost to Arlington Heights of the plan is as yet unknown, as Hayes freely admits:

“I don’t know how they’re going to do it,” Hayes said about a Bears stadium project that could cost billions of dollars. “They haven’t asked us for any money at this point. And we haven’t committed any money.”

Okay, that’s not actually that informative at all. No one else is quoted in the article, so really the headline should be something like “We asked Arlington Heights mayor if village would lose money on Bears stadium, he said he doesn’t think so but isn’t sure.” That’s a terrible headline, though, and even if that’s befitting a terrible story, somebody went through the trouble of going to a village board meeting and asking Hayes some questions and transcribing the answers, that’s journalism, right?

Moving on, here’s an op-ed in Colorado Politics by “public affairs consultant and former Colorado legislator” Miller Hudson (very former: he was in the state legislature from 1979-1983) titled “New Denver Coliseum will pay for itself.” No “mayor says”! Let’s see what evidence Hudson brings to bear about the home of the National Western Stock Show:

A handful of opponents claiming to represent residents of the nearby neighborhoods in Swansea and Elyria has suggested these dollars would be better spent on additional social and homeless services. Fortunately, this decision lies with voters.

Good ol’ “voters”! They’ll never listen to “opponents,” who are a different thing from voters, because, um, what else we got:

Yes, it will be nice to have a modern arena with all the bells and whistles that today’s technology can provide but, more importantly, this facility offers a chance for Denver voters to express our genuine appreciation for the families who produce the foodstuffs we purchase at the grocery store.

I have heard many justifications over the years for why new publicly funded venues are needed, but “It’s the only way to properly applaud the people who raise cows to turn into our steaks” is admittedly a new one.

The proposed arena will pay for itself over time. Crowds attending as many as 200 events each year will spend on tickets, hotel rooms and keepsakes. This economic stimulus will translate into additional revenues for the city.

This one is less supported by evidence, so what does Hudson cite for these statements?

I’m of the opinion that we owe it to our fellow citizens across rural Colorado to replace the Coliseum with a state-of-the-art showcase

Yeah, you covered that. Anything else to add?

There’s something heartwarming about watching teenagers crawling under blankets to keep their animals warm in their concrete stalls.

*cough*

Okay, so while the Bears article is a classic example of stenography journalism, the Denver op-ed is just an op-ed, which has “opinion” right in the title, so it’s unfair to complain about it not having any actual facts. Except that op-eds are generally fact-checked, too: I know in part because many years ago, I arranged to write an op-ed for the Boston Globe on the reasons why it wasn’t worth Boston spending $312 million to build a replacement for Fenway Park for the Red Sox owners, only to have the op-ed editor call me back 15 minutes after accepting it to say that on second thought, she had found “factual inaccuracies” and was no longer interested. Our conversation from there, as I wrote it up at the time:

Editor: There are problems with the numbers.

Me: What numbers?

Editor: Well, the $312 million in public cost…

Me: I got that from the Globe story, if I remember right.

Editor: No, we have $100 million.

Me: No, that’s just the state money. $100 million in state, plus $140 million in city, plus $72 million for the parking garages is $312 million.

Editor: Well, and then the comparison to Comiskey Park doesn’t work for me. You say it’s going to be a sterile park, but that’s not what we say in our stories.

Me: Well, that’s what the Red Sox are saying, obviously. But the point is that the last time a city tore down an old park to make way for a modern, oversized one — and I guarantee the new Fenway will be just like new Comiskey in terms of size and sightlines — they regretted it.

Editor: Well, it just raised red flags for me is all.

Me: If you’re worried about the accuracy of the article, I can provide you with cites. I have piles of research materials here.

Editor: No, I’m kicking it back to you for now. If you want to place it elsewhere, go ahead. Maybe I’ll consider it on another day, but I don’t know about that.

(I eventually was able to publish the op-ed in the Boston Herald; you can read it here if you want to play hunt-the-inaccuracies.)

The point here isn’t whether op-eds should be fact-checked, but the discrepancy in who gets to assert what: If you’re a regular columnist, or were in an elected office sometime in the last 40 years, or agree with the conventional wisdom being put forward in the rest of the paper by other elected officials and business leaders, then you get a lot less scrutiny of the factual basis of your arguments. Though I guess another lesson here might be: Don’t include any actual facts in your essay, and you’ll leave nothing for the fact-checkers to object to.

Share this post:

Denver residents hate on $160m rodeo arena plan, rodeo owner loves it, this is journalistic balance

access_time personNeil deMause

Speaking of who gets comforted by the media and who gets afflicted, the Denver City Council held a hearing on Monday about the mayor’s plan to spend $160 million on upgrading a rodeo arena, and here’s what happened:

At least 40 people signed up for a chance to weigh in on measures that will collectively request $450 million in general obligation bonds. … And it was clear from the start the most people were there to voice their opinion on one specific measure: The one asking Denver voters to borrow $190 million to pay for a new arena and to redevelop a facility at the National Western Center…

“We feel like this isn’t being done right,” Nola Miguel, of the Globeville Elyria-Swansea Coalition, a group who formally opposing the projects, said during Monday’s meeting. “This is being rushed.”…

“As a resident of Swansea, I feel completely disappointed for everything that’s happening in our surrounding, in our community, with the development of the Triangle, the development of I-70,” [GES member Mercedes] Gonzales said in Spanish. “It’s something that it’s affecting all of us as a community and I think the most affected are the most vulnerable.”

You get the idea. There’s also concern about a potential community benefits fund that is supposed to accompany the arena project, since it turns out no one knows how the fund will be funded.

On the other hand, one person did testify to how important the arena project is, and it just happened to be the president of the livestock show and rodeo that would benefit from it:

Paul Andrews, President and CEO of the National Western Stock Show, said the new arena would be the “centerpiece that makes everything else work.” He estimated it would host more than 150 events a year, including the Stock Show, and possibly generate $230 million in annual economic impact.

“The successful business model of this 115-year old Colorado institution hangs in the balance as you cast your vote tonight,” Andrews said.

So, okay: Denver residents — at least those who showed up to testify, there hasn’t been a poll on the arena project yet that I can tell — are mostly negative about spending $160 million to benefit a rodeo promoter, and the rodeo promoter is very positive about the city spending $160 million on his behalf. How does one write a headline that conveys both of these things, Denverite?

The one big, long-planned item in Denver’s $450 million proposal that has people most upset just happens to be the “centerpiece that makes everything else work”

Nope, sorry, that is incorrect. But we do have some lovely parting gifts.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: More Bills non-threat threats, plus lots of votes on when to vote on whether to vote on things

access_time personNeil deMause

Welp, between writing up Cleveland’s record-breaking lease subsidy offer to the Indians/Guardians and reading about how Barcelona is apparently cutting Lionel Messi loose in a dispute with the league over amortized future TV revenues (not technically stadium-related, but still fascinating if you follow sports economics), that took up most of the morning, so let’s get right to the lightning round:

  • Sports Business Journal reports — I can’t find the original article, even paywalled, but Mike Florio of NBC Sports has helpfully summarized it — that the Buffalo Bills owners plan to justify their $1.5-billion-or-maybe-a-little-less-doesn’t-less-sound-better-now stadium subsidy demand by arguing that “simply keeping the team in Buffalo when more attractive options exist should be valued as a contribution to the region.” This is still, somehow, not considered a threat to leave, just a promise to stay if its made worth their while. There are other terms for that as well.
  • An Albuquerque city council vote on whether to funnel $70 million or so to New Mexico United for a new minor-league soccer stadium was put off until August 16 following negative reaction during Monday’s public comment period, but not before producing the exquisite headline “City council meets on proposed stadium, arroyo safety and balloon landing areas.”
  • Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf still says she’s ready to continue negotiations on a new Oakland A’s stadium with the team’s owners, the team’s owners remain silent, that’s about all that’s going on there. Games of chicken involving actual vehicles are more exciting, I’ll give you that.
  • The Denver city council has decided to let residents vote separately on a $160 million arena project from other city bonds for things like new libraries, which is considerate of them. Without that, voters would be stuck having to vote on things they like and don’t like on the same ballot item, like Oklahoma City did, precisely because it’s easier to get stuff passed that way.
  • The NYC F.C. stadium proposal in the Bronx isn’t quite dead yet, everyone is just still haggling over how to count parking spaces.
  • The Chicago Sun-Times has a long article on whether a Chicago Bears stadium would make sense to anchor a development at Arlington International Racecourse, all of which is worth reading, but especially for this maxim from sports economist Allen Sanderson: “There are two things you should never put on a valuable piece of property: a cemetery and a football stadium. They’re closed all the time.” (Yes, Allen Sanderson, the “throw money from a helicopter” guy. He has a way with maxims.)
  • Sporting Kansas City‘s owners are set to be on the hook to repay $15 million in subsidies that the health tech company Cerner Corp. got as part of the team’s stadium deal, now that Cerner is moving out of town; it’s super-complicated and involves some Cerner execs being part-owners of the team, just click the link if you really want to know, or enjoy the schadenfreude if you don’t.
  • Almost 500 people who attended the 100,000-person outdoor celebration of the Milwaukee Bucks‘ NBA championship contracted the coronavirus, according to state health officials. It’s not clear whether the state has determined that they all definitely picked it up there, or that they definitely picked it up outdoors and not, say, while celebrating in a bar afterwards; for that matter, the number of attendees who subsequently tested positive could be much higher, given that not everyone getting tested is getting asked, “Hey, did you go to that Bucks thing?” The original virus variant almost never spread outdoors, but with Delta way more transmissable some scientists are wondering if crowded outdoor events should be considered less safe — you know what, just wear your masks for a while, it’s not going to kill you.
  • That MLB-built stadium in the middle of the Field of Dreams cornfield is finally ready to host a game, and it comes with a corn maze in the shape of the MLB logo, because of course it does.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: The Las Vegas A’s, the $550m minor-league bailout, and other mythological beings

access_time personNeil deMause

Happy Friday of another week where the Oakland A’s did not move to Las Vegas! There are going to be a lot of these, either an infinite number of them (my guess) or a very large number (if the game of chicken drags on a while but is not a total bluff), so get accustomed to them.

In other news:

  • On top of $71-84 million in construction costs, a new New Mexico United stadium would require buying out “a lot of property” currently owned by private landholders, which would cost … want to give us a guesstimate, KRQE? No? Okay, then. At last word Mayor Tim Keller was going to present his stadium resolution to the city council by today, so maybe we’ll learn more soon.
  • Denver Mayor Michael Hancock wants to use part of a $450 million infrastructure bond to pay for a new $160 million, 10,000-seat arena at the National Western Center, where it would host, you know, stuff? The National Western Center is described on its website as “a future place where heritage of the Old West meets progress of the New West, a space where school children can cultivate food systems while researchers discover food security solutions that will change the world,” so just use your imagination. It’s infrastructure, anyway, what could be wrong with that?
  • Still not sure if the Minor League Baseball Relief Act is going anywhere or not, but its sponsors sure are firing all the publicity guns: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) declared this week that minor-league baseball teams “are on the brink of financial catastrophe,” citing … absolutely nothing, though the CBS News article reporting this (and putting “financial catastrophe” in its headline) quoted Chattanooga Lookouts owner Jason Freier as saying that without federal help it’s “going to take us 8 to 10 years to get our balance sheet in the state it was back in 2019,” citing … absolutely nothing again. Freier, for the record, already got $668,000 in PPP money, but if he can get as much as $10 million more from the new bill, he’d be crazy not to ask for it, right?
  • The Charlotte Convention Center Fund only has about $250 million remaining under its debt cap, which could complicate plans for the city to help build a stadium for Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper, who has hinted he’ll be seeking $500 million-ish in public funds. Or, you know, not, given that the city could just give him $500 million in tax breaks or free land or something. Money is fungible, which is great if you’re trying to extract it from the public treasury, for good or ill.
  • Speaking of Oakland, Mayor Libby Schaaf said she’s “excited that we are going to resume our talks with the A’s,” while an A’s spokesperson said team execs are waiting for direction from MLB on how to proceed, ha ha, as if the MLB offices tell team owners what to do and not the other way around, that’s a good one.
  • Modesto, California, which spent $4.2 million on a <strike>new</strike> rehabbed stadium for its minor-league baseball team the Modesto A’s (now the Modesto Nuts) in 1997, is “having conversations” with the Seattle Mariners about a new stadium, according to City Manager Joe Lopez. No details on how much it would cost or who would pay for it.
  • Here’s a whole New York Post article about Staten Island’s new indy-league baseball team that never mentions how much the city will be spending to upgrade Staten Island’s stadium to make it happen. (Spoiler: $8 million, thanks, The City.)
  • Developers are still interested in building on the Ybor City site in Tampa that Tampa Bay Rays owner Stu Sternberg had been considering for a stadium, just without a stadium, which makes sense because those things are damned expensive and don’t bring in much in the way of revenue if you can’t get massive public subsidies for them, amirite? Anyway, the developers are thinking of calling the site the Gas Worx, so there’s still something to be outraged about, at least.
  • When watching the Tokyo Olympics, remember that they have the biggest cost overruns in Olympic history. “At least until the next Olympics,” writes Patrick Hruby, and man, is he ever not wrong about that one.
Share this post: