Colorado Rockies – Field of Schemes

Friday roundup: More Bears $2.6B stadium subsidy fallout, plus Indianapolis switches soccer horses

April 26, 2024 Neil deMause

Before we get to the news: I hope that those of you who enjoy using dark mode are enjoying the new dark mode plugin I installed this week (DarkMySite, if anyone cares), which seems, unlike the old one, to actually mostly work. If you haven’t tried it out and want to, click the little moon symbol at bottom right and take a load off your eyes!

Also, a special shoutout to a couple of FoS readers (unnamed, but you know who you are) who either sent in a large lump sum of cash or upped their monthly Patreon pledge for no reason at all in the last week. As I forget if I explicitly mentioned, I quit my previous day job last month, which should give me more time to devote to this site; and while I do have a new regular gig that seems promising, every step towards making this site self-sustaining is hugely helpful, so a huge thanks to all you supporters, at any level. (And for those who haven’t yet taken the plunge: There are still about a dozen more Vaportecture art prints, get ’em before they’re gone!)

Okay, enough of that, time’s a-wasting and there’s a whole week of news remainders to dig through:

The fallout continues from the Chicago Bears owners’ $2.6 billion stadium subsidy demand (see the updates for the math behind the updated figure), with so much more today that we’re going to have to break out the second level of bullet points:
- Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says it’s no contradiction that he said during his mayoral race that the city shouldn’t spend billions of dollars on a Bears stadium when there were “dozens of other urgent needs” and now thinks this is a great idea, on the grounds that he, a “middle child” from a “working-class family,” got to talk to billionaires and make sure they put some “skin in the game” and also the stadium will be “transformational” and “the Bears are staying in Chicago” and “the type of economic development this project brings” and “14 more acres of space for our children in the city of Chicago to benefit from.” Is all that the best use of $2.6 billion? I’m sorry, we’re out of time for questions, thank you for coming.
- The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board did get a chance to ask Bears CEO Kevin Warren what would happen if the team got its $1.225 billion in taxpayer money for the stadium and nobody came up with another $1.175 billion to build new underground garages and park space, and Warren replied: “I’m not going to think negatively about that now. … If that’s the conclusion that … you want to reach now, then you can say that. I’m being positive about it … and being very transparent as far as what we need from the different three phases with this stadium project.” So, optional when projecting the city’s costs, not optional in the sense that you don’t want to go there in terms of what happens if the city doesn’t come up with another billion-plus dollars, got it.
- Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker reiterated yesterday that he’s agin’ the whole kit and kaboodle, saying: “I’m skeptical of the proposal that was put forward and I’m even more skeptical of the ability to get enough votes for it in the General Assembly.”
- Chicago Sun-Times columnist David Roeder suggests that if the Bears (and White Sox) want public money, they should give the public a cut of ownership of the team, though some stick-in-the-mud (okay, it’s me) points out that sports leagues love nothing more than to head off the possibility of public ownership, even blocking one-time San Diego Padres owner Joan Kroc from gifting her team to the city of San Diego on the grounds that that just isn’t done.
Way back in 2019, the Indiana state legislature approved giving $112 million toward a new soccer stadium for the Indy Eleven soccer team, provided owner Ersal Ozdemir got his team promoted from the USL to MLS. At the time, this seemed like an easy enough lift, since all the other kids were doing it, but it hasn’t happened yet, and now apparently Indianapolis mayor Joe Hogsett has gotten tired of waiting, announcing that he’s putting in a bid with another ownership group to get an MLS expansion team, using the same tax kickbacks that Ozdemir was looking to get. Ozdemir, who already broke ground on his stadium site last year, though it’s unclear if he’s actually started construction, is naturally enough extremely unhappy with this latest news, accusing Hogsett of “preparing to walk away” from “years of good-faith negotiations” and instead give the public money to some other soccer guy instead of him. Will there be lawsuits? Stay tuned!
A “hotel entrepreneur and former longtime Kansas City resident” got space on the Kansas City Star op-ed page to argue that Kansas Citians who voted against a tax subsidy for Royals and Chiefs stadiums missed an opportunity to become like Denver, where “the Coors Field development inspired a stunning downtown renaissance” where “dozens of restaurants, bars and clubs opened to serve crowds before and after the 81 hometown games each year.” I once again wish that I still had a copy of the chart someone once showed me that indicated that most of the development starts in Denver’s LoDo district actually preceded the construction of the Rockies stadium; if I can dig it up, I’ll post it here as an update.
The Arizona state senate is considering a bill to allow the state to approve “theme park districts” like the one Alex Meruelo wants for a Coyotes 2.0 arena, without city governments weighing in. (It did so by virtue of hollowing out an already-state-house-approved bill to give first responders access to treatment for PTSD and inserting theme park district language instead, which Arizona calls a “strike everything amendment” but “zombie bill” is a much better name.) This could make it easier for Meruelo to have the state levy a sales tax surcharge in his arena district that would be kicked back to him for construction costs; we’ll have to wait and see what the state senate thinks of it.
Buffalo Bills owners Terry and Kim Pegula may sell up to a quarter of their team to help raise money for their share of a new stadium, after construction costs have soared by a reported $600 million. In case you needed more evidence that many if not most stadiums are money losers that are only built so that team owners can cash subsidy checks, here’s your Exhibit A.
Arlington, Texas is spending $4.2 million to upgrade the Texas Rangers‘ old stadium, which the team moved out of after 2019 into a new publicly funded one, because, according to Arlington Mayor Jim Ross, “it’s a regional injection of all economic development.” The stadium is currently home to the XFL Arlington Renegades and occasional concerts.
What more could happen to Montreal’s Olympic Stadium after costing $1 billion to build and hundreds of millions more to fix the roof on and now $870 million to fix the roof on again? How about catching fire and needing $40 million to fix the damage? You gotta wonder if the Big Owe is just trying to put itself out of its misery at this point, but Montreal officials aren’t getting the message.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Kraft tries to use World Cup to get new stadium, Roger Noll says Austin MLS subsidies are indeed subsidies, NC mulls new tax breaks for Panthers

June 15, 2018 Neil deMause

Posting this while watching the first World Cup match at the crazy stadium with the seats outside the stadium. (I haven’t honestly even noticed who the teams are yet, I’m just watching the architecture.) Anyhoo:

Las Vegas is reconsidering building a new highway ramp just for the Raiders stadium, not because it’ll cost too much (which it will) but because the Raiders stadium developers have decided they don’t actually want it. This is really all you need to know about the relationship between sports teams and elected officials in this country right now.
Minneapolis’s tourism nonprofit overstated its economic impact figures by $200 million over the last three years, a city audit has found, figures that are used to determine things such as public stadium and arena spending. That’s bad, though given that “economic impact” is pretty much a bogus concept to begin with, the audit’s figures probably aren’t much more meaningful.
The headline “Gondola From Union Station to Dodger Stadium Moves Forward” cracked me up, but maybe just because I spend so much time sitting on subway trains that don’t go anywhere.
The Milwaukee Bucks have finally sold their last luxury suite, so hope you didn’t have your heart set on that suite butler.
The Los Angeles Clippers owners want one of those get-out-of-environmental-review-free cards from the state legislature, because who doesn’t?
Two out of 12 stadiums built by the Brazil for the 2014 World Cup are no longer undergoing corruption probes! If you’ve calculated that that means ten of the 12 are still under investigation, you get an A+ in math.
If you’ve been waiting for the first MLS owner to use the 2026 World Cup as an excuse to try to get a new stadium, New England Revolution owner Robert Kraft has got you covered.
Hey, lookit, somebody actually called Roger Noll after he was name-checked by the Austin city council, and asked him what he thinks of Anthony Precourt’s stadium proposal for that city. His answer: “It’s not accurate to say it’s going to be completely privately financed. It’s in fact going to have a significant subsidy built into it. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.” That’s fair! Adds Temple economist Michael Leeds: “If Austin feels that having a soccer team would give the city an identity, give the people of the city something they enjoy, that’s fine. … That’s different from saying this is going to boost the city’s economy.” Also fair! Short answer from economists: If you wanna help build a stadium because you think having a stadium would be cool, go for it, but don’t do it for the economic impact because bwahaha “economic impact.”
The North Carolina legislature is considering a bill to give about half a million dollars a year in property tax breaks to the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte Knights owners, apparently in exchange for nothing at all from the teams, not even a lease extension. Whether this bill goes anywhere or not, it continues to bode poorly for the upcoming stadium negotiations with the Panthers’ new owner.
The Colorado Rockies owners have released renderings of the ugly building they want to build on a Coors Field parking lot they’re leasing from the state for $1.25 million a year. The renderings don’t even show any fireworks or searchlights. Sad!

Share this post:

Rockies get land rights for lease extension, nobody actually seems to be scammed this time

March 31, 2017 Neil deMause

The Colorado Rockies owners have succeeded in using a threat to demand upgrades to Coors Field to get the state of Colorado to sell them a large plot of land for development, as first reported last week:

The Rockies agreed to a $200 million, 30-year lease with the Metropolitan Baseball Stadium District, the state division that owns Coors Field. In trade, the Rockies will be allowed to lease and develop a valuable plot of land directly south of the stadium for 99 years. For that, the team will pay the district $125 million.

Those numbers are a bit confusing, because part of the “lease payments” is actually the price for right to the land: The Rockies owners will pay $2.5 million a year in stadium rent for 30 years (up from $1 million a year under their old lease), plus $125 million over the next 30 years but “front-loaded.” If we guesstimate that that’s, say, $100 million in actual present value, then since an additional $1.5 million a year over 30 years is worth about $25 million in present value … let’s see, carry the two … if the land rights are worth significantly more than $125 million, the Rockies got a steal here, and if less than $125 million, then Colorado taxpayers are making out. Based on Google Maps eyeballing, it looks like about 400 by 250 feet, which is … let’s see, carry the two … 100,000 square feet, or about 2.3 acres. A couple of years ago a nearby 15,000-square-foot parcel sold for $10 million, so it actually looks like the state got a reasonable price. Wait, a stadium deal where potentially everybody’s happy? I must have woken up in Bizarro World this morning.

Share this post:

Denver Post levies Coors Field upgrade demands, says it only wants to protect taxpayers, really

March 21, 2017March 21, 2017 Neil deMause

So this is kind of weird: On Saturday, the Denver Post ran an editorial arguing that in lease renewal talks between the Colorado Rockies and the state-run Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for any renovation costs:

[District chair Ray] Baker said instead he’s hoping to craft a long-term lease that would be in the best interests of taxpayers and protect the asset that is the stadium. He said engineering studies have shown the stadium needs $200 million in infrastructure improvements to last for another 20 to 30 years.

We don’t think taxpayers should be on the hook for those construction needs, given that the initial lease so badly inhibited the stadium authority’s ability to raise long-term capital needs.

What’s weird about that? First off, the Post is actually a minority owner of the Rockies, so it’s more than a little odd to see their editorial board insisting on protecting taxpayers from their own demands. But also, this was the first mention of any potential renovation costs to Coors Field at all — not a peep out of the paper’s news reporters before this, or any other news outlet at all.

Read to the very end of the editorial, and it’s maybe clearer what’s going on:

Significant revenue sources need to be dedicated for the structural, electrical, water and sewer needs of the stadium.Without that, it’s likely voters will be asked to approve a new tax again to fund those needs, and that would be a hard sell this time around.

The bad news is that the Rockies, now an ingrained part of our cultural scene, could pack up Dinger, the dinosaur, and Nolan Arenado, the third baseman, and leave town.

Unlikely as that would be, it’s not unprecedented, and it’d be a sad day in LoDo.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Read between the lines, and it appears that Baker, the Rockies’ landlord, wants more funding to snazz up the stadium he runs in the future. The Rockies could choose to pay for any upgrades, obviously, but Baker wants a dedicated revenue stream — the editorial hints that this should be a cut of ticket sales and concessions — so what better way to lobby for one than to get the local paper to insist that it’s vitally necessary to avoid sticking taxpayers with a bill that doesn’t even exist yet?

The real message here, then, isn’t about urgent lease talks — the Rockies owners can unilaterally choose to renew their current deal for another 15 years — than to put a bug in the public’s ear that Coors Field is in urgent need of repairs, and somebody’s gotta pay for it, or else the team may leave. It’s nice and all that the Post is choosing to side with Baker that that somebody should be the team owners and not general taxpayers, but significantly less nice that the paper is trying to shift the goalposts to “We need $200 million, how are we going to pay for it?” at a time when nobody aside from the stadium manager is saying that upkeep of a stadium will cost almost as much as it took to build in the first place. In fact, that seems like the kind of claim that should be investigated by, you know, journalists. Wonder where the Post could find some of those.

UPDATE: Ah, this makes it all somewhat clearer: Apparently the Rockies owners are refusing to sign their lease extension, trying to use it as leverage to get the state to hand over development rights to the Coors Field parking lot in exchange for the team taking on maintenance and upgrade costs. (Aka “the Los Angeles Angels gambit.”) With this as the backdrop, the Post editorial makes even more sense, if by sense you mean “trying to shift the debate in favor of someone else paying for unneeded upgrades,” which is about as much sense as is on offer today.

Share this post: