Friday roundup: Bears battle drags on, Blazers subsidy heats up, 15 teams now angling for Ohio unclaimed funds cash

It’s Friday! But because of other commitments, I’m writing this from Thursday evening! So if there’s any breaking Friday morning news, complain about it in comments, and we’ll get to it on Monday, which for me will probably be Sunday. You following all that? Doesn’t matter, just read your bullet points, they’re good for you:

Share this post:

Rays, college officials assure Tampa that spending $2B+ to build a stadium atop their campus is good, actually

Tampa Bay Rays officials and their Hillsborough College partners in a proposed $2.3 billion Tampa stadium plan held the first of three planned community feedback sessions yesterday, and the theme appeared to be it’s all cool, man, don’t worry yourself over the details:

“We took a no-harm approach to the work that we’re doing. No part of our financial proposal will take funding away from other priorities that the city and county have committed to,” [Rays CEO Ken] Babby said. “No part of our financial proposal will take money away from other sports teams in the community that desperately also have asked for resources around an opportunity. The Rays will take on 100% of cost overruns on the ballpark.”

That’s nice about the cost overruns and all, but vowing that “no part” of $1.15 billion in city and county spending — actually more like $2.25 billion counting free land and tax breaks — would take funding away from any other spending priorities is quite the claim, especially when the WUSF article acknowledges two paragraphs later that “where that money will come from still needs to be worked out.” And especially especially when one possible option on the table — raiding a county infrastructure and schools fund — would in particular seem to take away from those other priorities. (Presumably Babby meant that the stadium will be such a cash cow that there will be enough money to go around for everyone: He asserted that the project could generate $55 billion over 30 years, presumably in “economic impact,” also citation needed.)

Hillsborough College President Ken Atwater, meanwhile, tried to reassure students that building a pro baseball stadium and surrounding development for Rays owner Patrick Zalupski on top of most of their campus wouldn’t disrupt their studies too much, because there are lots of other colleges that have classroom and athletic fields and stuff for however many years construction is underway:

“It may mean instead of moving to temporary, we move to rental facilities or some other location or we share locations for some of our other sister institutions like the University of Tampa or like USF, which may be a possibility,” Atwater said. “We will adjust accordingly, but believe me we will remain open and available to deliver the instruction we do.”…

“There are deals that we’re making in order to maintain all of our program, especially our athletic program. You will see that we’ll be using community gyms, high school facilities, and other facilities here in the area to help support making that happen.”

Some students raised questions about all this, with Hillsborough student government member Echo Durham asking why the college needed to turn over most of its campus to the Rays instead of simply renovating its campus itself. Atwater, according to the Tampa Bay Times, replied that the campus is heavily dependent on state funding, which seems to be a way of saying that Gov. Ron DeSantis wanted this for his pal and campaign donor Rays owner Zalupski, nobody’s gonna stop him from bigfooting his way to this project, even if his feet are growing smaller by the day during his last year in office.

If all this wasn’t enough distraction, the Rays also introduced a new vaportecture video featuring creepy AI-generated people doing barely sports-related things in slow motion. I’m not sure which is my favorite bit, the seemingly 10-foot-tall performers moving about a distant stage or the lovingly generated steam emerging from coffee cups and food truck items in the Florida chill (?), but I can assure you I will be rewatching it with awe, if maybe not precisely the kind of awe that Rays officials were hoping for.

Two more public sessions are on the calendar, next Tuesday and Wednesday evenings — can’t wait to see what tricks team and college officials pull out of their hats for those.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bears face choice which state’s $1B+ in cash to accept, Rays stadium plans face growing questions

As expected, the Indiana state senate gave overwhelming (45-4) final approval to a Chicago Bears stadium subsidy package yesterday, and Gov. Mike Braun signed it into law less than an hour later. This is still a very preliminary plan — we don’t know, among other things, how big a stadium tax diversion district would be, which could go a long way toward determining if Bears owner George McCaskey would receive $400 million or $1 billion or $4 billion or what in taxpayer money. With the state government having signed off, though, that decision will now be left up to an unelected state sports authority and the city of Hammond, and neither of those is likely to have the best interests of Indiana taxpayers as a whole in mind. (Not that state legislators were necessarily thinking about that either, but at least they’re supposed to, if I’m reading the representative democracy FAQs correctly.)

At the same time, an Illinois house committee responded to events across the state border by moving forward a “megaproject” bill that Bears execs have said they require for any new stadium in Arlington Heights. The bill would allow localities to exempt any project costing over $500 million from local property taxes and instead allow it to pay a lower payment in lieu of taxes rate that developers would negotiate with the local government; for projects worth over $2 billion, like the Bears stadium, the negotiated tax rate would be allowed to be as low as zero. Property tax guru Geoff Propheter estimates the value to the Bears from this measure would be about $67 million a year, which would amount to just over $1 billion in present value. (CORRECTION: Propheter emails to say the $67 million a year was already translated into present value, so this could actually be a $2 billion tax break.)

If the bill succeeds — Chicago-area legislators are trying to block it, as they would, since there’s nothing in it for their constituents — it could also, notes Jon Styf at The Center Square, lead to data centers or battery farms demanding similar tax breaks. And because the value of those projects would count toward the local tax base without paying their usual share of local taxes, other property tax owners would end up getting soaked to cover the difference — something that should put in a slightly different light Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s comments yesterday that Indiana is setting itself up for “massive increases in taxes” while Illinois is having “really positive discussions” with the Bears.

This is going to be a difficult choice for Bears execs, given that there are lots of unknowns with both states’ offers — Illinois has also still yet to decide on how much in infrastructure money to provide to an Arlington Heights Bears project — plus the question of where the Bears owners actually think it would make more sense to play in terms of selling tickets. Fortunately for McCaskey, there’s no deadline to make a decision, so he can sit back and hope the bidding war continues to escalate. For a team owner whose options only a few months ago were a rock and a hard place, to be fielding multiple billion-dollar-plus offers is a pretty impressive an accomplishment, guess leverage really does work!

And this week in the rest of the sports extortion world:

  • Members of the Tampa Sports Authority have some questions about a proposed Rays stadium, namely how the authority will staff a stadium if Gov. Ron DeSantis goes ahead with slashing the property taxes that fund its budget, where the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County would come up with about $1 billion worth of stadium funding when the county has $1.5 billion in unmet transportation needs, and whether the planned Rays complex would include any much-needed affordable housing. Replies hazy, ask again later!
  • Meanwhile, Rays officials are planning public visioning sessions for their proposed Tampa stadium project, stock up on post-it notes!
  • The Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority has asked for $100 million in state unclaimed funds money to help pay for a $400 million Columbus Blue Jackets arena upgrade, joining the Cleveland Browns, Cleveland GuardiansCleveland Cavaliers, and Cincinnati Bengals as teams lining up to tap that state slush fund, it’s like you can’t even put out a sign reading “FREE MONIEZ!!!” anymore without billionaires lining up to take it.
  • Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told a local business and real estate conference, “We won a World Series, Stanley Cup, hosted an All Star game for MLB and MLS. We’re going to have the NFL Draft. And we will have the Super Bowl, so I think that qualifies as the sports capital.” The result was “a big ovation,” according to WTOP, though whether this is because business leaders don’t understand how sports works or will cheer anything that results in one of their number pocketing a $7 billion check is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno determined that his team’s fans don’t care about winning by issuing a survey that didn’t including “winning” among the categories fans could pick as a priority, that’s one way to justify only signing players who are clinically dead.
  • Speaking of Jon Styf, he and I had a long talk about the proposed Bears subsidies this week in which I concluded, after seeing NFL owners’ standard stadium subsidy demands climb from $1 billion to $2-6 billion in the course of just a year, “It makes me wonder why teams don’t just ask for $10 billion or $1 trillion. Clearly it’s not like there’s any point at which legislators will start saying ‘No.’” Apologies in advance for giving them ideas.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Breaking down taxpayer costs of the proposed Indiana Bears deal, plus other stadium news

The Indiana legislature’s amended bill for a Chicago Bears stadium project is finally up, and we can start to get a slightly better sense of what it would entail in terms of public costs. Tax expenditures would include: a city of Hammond admissions tax, Lake County and Porter County food and beverage tax surcharges, a Hammond food and beverage tax surcharge, a Lake County hotel tax surcharge, what looks like local income and sales taxes from a stadium district, and state sales taxes from a stadium district. The stadium authority would also own the stadium and lease it to the Bears (terms very much TBD), so it would presumably be exempt from property taxes.

That is a ton of moving parts, needless to say. There being no fiscal analysis attached to the bill to project how much each of these taxes will raise, it’s impossible to determine what the total public price tag would be, though something upwards of $1 billion seems likely given all the revenue streams involved. (WGN calls it $1 billion exactly, not sure where that number comes from, though Indiana house speaker Todd Huston did throw that number around as an estimate yesterday.)

The bill also says that “the stadium board is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the capital improvement upon completion of construction,” which sounds bad, and then two paragraphs later that “the authority has no responsibility to fund the ongoing maintenance and operations of the capital improvement,” which sounds good but also contradictory. (It’s possible this is just dividing up responsibilities between two state agencies, I need to keep going through the bill language to be sure; if so, it’s bad for taxpayers because it could end up a grift that keeps on giving.) Also “the stadium board will retain all revenues from operation of the capital mprovement,” which sounds very good for Indiana but also not likely something the Bears ownership would agree to if it really meant what it sounds like it does. So lots of questions still up in the air, we get another public hearing on this before the full Indiana house and senate votes next week, right? Right? Anyone?

Meanwhile, in other news this week:

  • The proposed Tampa Bay Rays stadium development at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry Campus would include relocating a middle school and some county offices to … somewhere, while the college’s buildings would be rebuilt in a compressed corner of the campus … somehow. The new Tampa Bay Times reporters on this story, one of whom was just promoted from intern and the other just graduated from college last summer, don’t appear to have actually asked anyone with the Rays or with Gov. Ron DeSantis’s office about how this is all expected to work, sure do miss Colleen Wright’s reporting on the Rays stadium saga.
  • The Cleveland Guardians and Cavaliers would like some of that sweet state unclaimed funds money that the Browns are using for their new stadium, please, to use for upgrades to their current homes. The state can get right on that just as soon as that little matter of the restraining order against the state using the funds at all is cleared up.
  • The estimated $750 million cost of renovations to the Arizona Diamondbacks stadium — which only cost $354 million to build in the first place in 1998, about $700 million in today’s dollars — is now expected to be “much higher,” according to team CEO Derrick Hall. Hall didn’t say exactly how much higher, or whether it will all fall on the state to increase its planned $500 million cut of the costs, or when the D-backs will get around to actually signing a new lease in exchange for the renovations.
  • Athletics team execs say $300 million has now been spent on construction of John Fisher’s Las Vegas stadium and $989 million contracted for, out of a total price tag of still figuring that out. This is either the biggest bluff in sports history or the biggest dog-catching-the-car-and-having-to-figure-out-what-to-do-with-it, honestly looking forward to the inevitable cataclysmic denouement either way.
  • The waiting to see if the state of Connecticut will provide $127 million to build and MLS Next Pro soccer stadium in Bridgeport is over, and the answer is: Nope, go kick rocks. State Economic Development Commissioner Daniel O’Keefe cited the need to reduce state spending and what the Connecticut Post termed the “mercurial nature of the sports industry,” noting that the Connecticut Sun may be about to move to Houston and the Bridgeport Islanders may be about to move to Hamilton, fool me three times, shame on me. Developers plan to instead use the planned stadium site for a project involving youth sports indoor and outdoor fields, which apparently don’t require hundreds of millions of dollars of state subsidies like pro sports do.
  • The video of my interview yesterday on whether Los Angeles should try to renegotiate its 2028 Olympics hosting deal is now up at Alissa Walker’s Torched site, go check it out if you like. Chris Tyler of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, which commissioned me to do my Olympics report, joined as well, and the three of us spent a solid hour discussing what went wrong and options for trying to fix it — suffice to say that if former L.A. mayor Eric Garcetti’s ears are burning today, this is why.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Friends don’t let friends host the Olympics, and other cautionary tales

Last week I teased a big project of mine that would drop this week, and it went live yesterday morning: a 57-page report, commissioned by Los Angeles economic justice advocacy group Strategic Action for a Just Economy, on whether L.A. can or should be trying to extricate itself from its hosting obligations for the 2028 Summer Olympics — something some local critics have suggested, especially in the wake of the city’s wildfire crisis and budget crisis and  immigration enforcement occupying force crisis. You can probably get a pretty good sense of the report’s findings from its title, “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t,” but if you want slightly more details, here’s the nut graf:

While there are numerous unknowns—the history of the Olympics shows that budget questions are never resolved until it’s far too late, a path that L.A. has headed down with its agreements for the 2028 Games as well—the available documentation and history of international event hosting shows: Yes, if Los Angeles officials, or voters, decided to withdraw from hosting the Olympics, they could do so. This would come at the risk of potentially billions of dollars in damages from a breach-of-contract lawsuit and losses from expenses already undertaken. However, continuing as host also comes with a potential risk of losses that, if history is any guide, could similarly amount to billions of dollars.

The report also contains a wealth of information about Olympic financial history, including other locales’ attempts to back out of hosting major international sporting events for fiscal reasons (the Denver 1976 Winter Olympics that never happened, plus the 2026 Commonwealth Games that the Australian state of Victoria bailed on in 2023 amid concerns about snowballing costs), as well as mention of my new favorite Olympic factoid: that time they held a Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan and nobody knows how much it cost because the local organizing committee literally set fire to its financial records. It’s all here, dig in if you’re in the mood for a long, enraging read — or if not, you can instead read the excellent summaries in Torched (which includes a quote from me on this week’s revelations about L.A. Olympics chief Casey Wasserman’s history with Jeffrey Epstein) and LAist.

And now that that’s off my plate, I have plenty of time for stadium and arena bullet points, and good thing, too, because this week brought craploads of them:

  • The Wyandotte County Commission followed suit with its neighbors in the city of Olathe and voted 7-3 to approve devoting local sales and hotel tax revenue to pay off part of the state’s $2.775 billion in bonds for a new Kansas City Chiefs stadium and surrounding development. The county, to be clear, gets absolutely nothing out of kicking in its own funding (total price tag still TBD), given that the state has indicated it will go ahead with the stadium deal regardless. Kansas City, Kansas mayor and county commission chair Christal Wilson, who didn’t vote because no ties needed to be broken, wrote on Facebook that she thinks kicking in county money is warranted because it gets the county “a seat at the table” — okay, though it’s questionable whether getting to sit at the table is worth having to split the check.
  • Indiana state Rep. Earl Harris Jr. on his bill to create a sports authority to build a Chicago Bears stadium in northwest Indiana with money from (feigns coughing fit until you go away): “Indiana does sports things like this very well. When you look at the Pacers, the Colts, the Speedway, we’re very good at figuring out a good financial plan that does not hurt the taxpayer.” Um, about that…
  • Will the Portland Trail Blazers move if the city and county decline to spend $600 million on upgrades to their arena? It’s an “urgent race against time” and “the clock continues to tick,” writes The Oregonian, citing a deadline of … huh, seems like they didn’t mention any deadline, must have run out of room. (Though there was room for “Are you ready for the Nashville or Kansas City Trail Blazers?” to cite two cities that are not particularly shopping around for NBA teams.)
  • Tampa sports radio host JP Peterson insists that spending upwards of $2 billion on a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium is warranted because it “will produce millions in tax revenue and bring major events, Super Bowls, National Championship games, World Baseball Classic, MLB All-Star games” — [citation needed], my man. Also, I can save you some time: Even if a new baseball stadium does bring in millions in tax revenue, from hosting, uh, football games, when it costs hundreds of millions a year in tax expenditures, maybe that’s … not good?
  • Speaking of the Rays, fresh Rays vaportecture! I’m sticking with my comment from yesterday: Glad to see the Rays acknowledge that even after a future stadium is built, fans still won’t buy jerseys with player names because they know they’ll be sold off as soon as they reach arbitration.
  • And if you want still more Rays commentary from me, I spoke with both WMNF radio and Tampa Bay 28 TV about the ongoing dispute this week; the former is much longer, the latter offers a view of what I have on my living room walls, pick your poison.
  • Just in time for the Super Bowl (what time does it start again?), here’s a Top 40 list of things the NFL demands from Super Bowl host cities. It’s impossible to pick just one favorite, but equally impossible to beat “three championship-level 18-hole golf courses and two top-quality bowling alleys, free of charge.”
  • Plans to build an Indy Eleven a soccer stadium for a new MLS team on Indianapolis’s former heliport are on hold because something about not rewarding a city that “continues to thumb its nose” at ICE; the FAA will soon be weighing in on the matter.
  • Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has met with NBA commissioner Adam Silver, though not in the sense of actually meeting meeting like in person, and “offered to be helpful in bringing back the Sonics” as an NBA expansion team. Seattle already has a practically brand new arena, though by the time the NBA is ready to expand it could be pushing 10 years old, is that too soon to ask for upgrades?
  • San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones says Spurs owner Michael Dell donating $6 billion to Donald Trump’s “Trump accounts” savings plan “really pissed me off” because “if you can give $6 billion for these accounts, you could have paid for your own arena.” But then Dell wouldn’t have those billions he saved by getting taxpayers to build his arena! Sounds like somebody doesn’t understand what the whole point of being a billionaire is. (Hint: It’s getting billions of dollars, not spending it.)
  • And finally on the Rays front, Frank Nockels of Land O’ Lakes, Florida asks: “If we pay for half of the Rays’ new stadium, can we get free tickets?Ian Betteridge has some bad news, Frank.
Share this post:

Hillsborough County considers raiding infrastructure fund to give $1.15B to Rays

With the Hillsborough County Commission set to meet to discuss plans for a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium yesterday, on Tuesday Rob Manfred showed up in Tampa to meet with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and generally do Rob Manfred things. “Baseball belongs in Tampa Bay. Baseball can succeed in Tampa Bay,” DeSantis told reporters, while Manfred took on the more difficult jobs of trying to impose a sense of urgency in a stadium battle that’s been going on for decades, saying, “We’re at a point in the history of the club that something needs to get done.” DeSantis also said that he would be “looking to help” fund new Hillsborough College buildings on one portion of its Dale Mabry campus with state money, so the rest of the site can be handed over to the Rays.

As for how the public’s expected $1.15 billion share of the $2.3 billion stadium would be paid for, DeSantis didn’t breathe a word. So when the county commission sat down to discuss the plan yesterday, they had some questions. In particular, commissioners wondered if it would be kosher to use money from the county Community Investment Tax — a half-cent sales tax surcharge first approved back in 1996 — for a Rays stadium, given that when the CIT was renewed in 2024 two years before its initially planned expiration, it was designated “to fund infrastructure for transportation and public works, public safety, public facilities, public utilities and public schools” and the commission specifically promised that it wouldn’t be used for new sports facilities:

“We promised everyone on the public record that the CIT numbers would be ineligible,” [Commissioner Joshua] Wostal said. “We have not even began to collect that tax, and here is a suggestion that we already deceive the taxpayers that we made a promise to no less than two years ago.”

Commissioner Chris Boles echoed the concern.

“When voters approved the CIT, the discussion language primarily focused on maintaining the existing facilities, strengthening public safety and supporting core infrastructure,” said Boles, who was not on the board at the time. “And that, I believe, intent still matters today.”

Both Wostal and Boles stressed that they still might vote for a stadium deal, and indeed the commission voted unanimously to move ahead with negotiations with Rays ownership. But with Commissioner Ken Hagan already declaring that “this agreement does not happen without the CIT,” it looks like the first negotiations will be among county commissioners about whether it’s okay for a county without a ton of tax revenue streams to scrounge up $1.15 billion by first raiding the infrastructure and schools budget.

The Tampa Sports Authority, meanwhile, also met this week to discuss the Rays plans, and revealed that it will eventually release two, let’s call them “reports”, by their favorite consultants Skanska and AECOM — one on whether the $2.3 billion stadium will actually cost $2.3 billion, the other reviewing the Rays’ own economic projections for the project. (The AECOM report is expected to be ready by April 1, the Skanska one will be sometime later.) Board member Andy Scaglione also asked if anyone had appraised the value of the Dale Mabry campus (nope) and how much money was available in hotel tax funds for tourism spending that could go toward a stadium ($11-12 million, which won’t go far toward that $1.15 billion nut).

There’s still a lot to be worked out here, in other words, and while there’s no real deadline, presumably Rays owner Patrick Zalupski wants to get everything settled while his pal/$250,000 campaign PAC donation recipient DeSantis is still in his last year in office. Resolving a decades-old stadium demand by having a county with limited tax resources fund the biggest MLB subsidy in history will be no easy needle to thread, but you can bet that everyone involved is busy warming up their needle-threading fingers.

Share this post:

Rays owner now demanding $2.25B in public stadium spending, land, and tax breaks

We finally have a price tag on how much Tampa Bay Rays owner Patrick Zalupski wants in spending by Hillsborough County to help build a $2.3 billion stadium in Tampa:

notice for the meeting says the Rays would pay at least half the cost of a stadium. The rest could come from tourist bed taxes or increases in property taxes collected from the surrounding area after a stadium is built.

So if Zalupski is asking for the county to cover half the cost of building a $2.3 billion stadium, that’s $1.15 billion. (Whether county hotel tax receipts plus increased property tax proceeds would be enough to raise $1.15 billion is a question no one appears to have asked yet, though I suppose they could always just make the stadium tax district the size of the entire county, as one does. WUSF also suggests several other funding options that could be on the table, including a Community Development District and hotel and car rental tax surcharges.) The cost of providing state-owned land has previously been estimated to be at minimum $250 million, plus the Rays would duck out of $839 million worth of future property taxes and parcel fees over the course of their 99-year lease. Add it all up, and you’re at something like $2.25 billion in taxpayer subsidies that Zalupski is requesting, which would be by far the biggest public spend on a stadium deal in MLB history.

Or, if you’re the Tampa Bay Times, you go with this glass-half-full headline:

Rays tell Hillsborough they’ll cover at least 50% of Tampa stadium cost

Focusing on the fact that the billionaire who just bought the local sports team plans to cover half the cost of a stadium that he’ll receive all the revenues from, instead of the fact that he’s asking the public to cover the other half, is certainly a choice. (As is describing the team as having “honed in on” Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus, which is not the actual phrase, but that’s a separate issue.)

The meeting referenced above is tomorrow’s Hillsborough County commission meeting, which kicks off at 9 a.m. — the official agenda doesn’t actually mention anything about a Rays stadium, though it does helpfully include a link to a giant image of an American flag. With any luck, we’ll get some questions then about why the county should gift Zalupski more than $2 billion just so the baseball team he bought for $1.7 billion can increase in value; maybe we can even hope to get some answers, but we probably shouldn’t push our luck.

Share this post:

Rays stadium cost set at $2.3B, public share still TBD

The proposed Tampa Bay Rays stadium at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry Campus in Tampa may not have a design or a funding plan, but it does now have a price tag: $2.3 billion, according to Tampa Sports Authority CEO Eric Hart. And that’s just the stadium itself, before the cost of a planned surrounding mixed-use development, or the cost of relocating college facilities to one corner of the campus to make room for the stadium district, or the cost of acquiring the land from the state in the first place (assuming Rays owner Patrick Zalupski plans on paying anything for that, which only he and his lame-duck pal Gov. Ron DeSantis know).

As for where the money for all this would come from, Rays CEO Ken Babby made clear that a bunch of it would be on taxpayers’ tab:

“We need a great public/private partnership where the community, whether it be the county or the city or both, the state, all come together to build something really special here for Tampa Bay. That’s how we’re thinking about it.”

Fox13’s Evan Axelbank has a little more on possible revenue sources: The Rays owners, he said, are “considering a host of options, including community redevelopment funds, hotel taxes, car rental fees and the creation of special taxing districts that would take money from the development itself.” (Note to Evan: A special taxing district doesn’t really take the money from the development itself.) There would also be the value of getting to use all that state land — somewhere between $250 million and $1.7 billion, according to economist Geoffrey Propheter — plus getting out of paying property taxes for 99 years and parcel fees, which he just guesstimated at $839 million in present value. Total public price tag: Who the hell knows, but “way over $1 billion” seems a fair bet.

Tampa and Hillsborough County elected officials, who would have to sign off on any stadium subsidies, are so far saying all the right things about how any plan has “gotta be good for taxpayers, it can’t just be good for [the Rays],” but there’s still a long ways to go. After Hart added that the Rays would provide an economic analysis of the stadium project, the sports authority voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend that the city and county conduct their own study. Hart again:

“That’s why you’re seeing me doing economic analysis, because I think that would give better answers to be able to answer all your questions,” Hart said. “So right now, I would tell you that there’s ingredients, but there’s no soup. So it might be premature for us to say they’re at a point or not. There’s nothing like that at that level.”

I’m not sure there’s even ingredients yet, really, but it’s your metaphor, go with it. One thing’s for sure: Whatever the mystery soup ends up having in it, it’s likely to be really, really expensive.

Share this post:

Rays don’t have to threaten Orlando move to get billions from Tampa, because county official is doing it for them

If there’s one basic principle in negotiations of any kind, it’s to hold your cards tight and not give your opponent any unnecessary leverage. Even if you want to ultimately agree to a deal, to get the best one possible for your side you want to keep your focus on your own advantages, and don’t let — oh just never mind:

“I believe that it’s either going to be located at (Hillsborough College) or the team’s going to be in Orlando,” [Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken] Hagan said on a sports radio show Wednesday. “The reality is the they have significantly more bed tax revenue than we do, and they’ve been pushing for a team.”

Let’s say that it’s true that Orlando officials are likely to jump to throw money at the Tampa Bay Rays if Tampa does not. (They haven’t before now, but also former Rays owner Stuart Sternberg was mostly focused on playing off cities in Tampa Bay against each other, plus Montreal for some reason.) Or even let’s just say that Hagan believes that Orlando will jump to lure the Rays, and that new Rays owner Patrick Zalupski would be willing to move there. You still don’t say that out loud! Not when your city and county are about to have to negotiate unspecified “incentives” to help Zalupski build a new stadium on the campus of Hillsborough College, on top of $1 billion or more in land and tax breaks.

Hagan said something similar back in September when Zalupski first bought the Rays, declaring, “If for any reason we’re unable to get over the finish line, then the team may ultimately be in Orlando. It’s Tampa’s to lose.” But this week’s statement was phrased as even more of a threat on Zalupski’s behalf.

There’s been a lot of speculation over the years about why local elected officials do the bidding of sports team owners when they don’t have to, most of which come down to the ideas that they’re 1) stupid or 2) on the take. (My leading theory remains that they’re just doing what all the lobbyists and other people at the right parties are telling them to do.) But statements like Hagan’s betray a deeper problem: Many elected officials just want to make team owners happy, regardless of the cost to taxpayers. Announcing that the Rays will move to Orlando without subsidies in Tampa is horrible tactics — it will almost certainly raise the eventual public cost — but it does increase the chances that Tampa will win the right to shower Zalupski with money, and if that’s the only goal, then Hagan has done his job perfectly.

This has been Hagan’s M.O. for a long while now, back to when he declared the “sense of urgency” around building a Rays stadium to be “borderline dire” way back in 2013. Normally I would warn that being the commissioner who cried wolf will stop you from being taken seriously, but here Hagan is still getting headlines in the Tampa Bay Times with his dire warnings, so I guess it works different when you’re a county commissioner-for-life.

Share this post:

Rays owners probably demanding another $1b stadium subsidy in Tampa, counting free land and tax breaks

The Tampa Bay Rays‘ proposed memorandum of understanding with Hillsborough College on a site for a new stadium is out, and the initial news coverage of same tells us next to nothing we want to know about who’ll actually pay for what. So let’s go to the actual document and see what’s what, then reconvene at the bottom to try to estimate a total subsidy cost:

The Property is an approximately 113 acre-site located in Tampa, Florida, bounded by W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, N. Lois Avenue, W. Tampa Bay Boulevard., and N. Dale Mabry Highway

This is Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry Campus, which would largely be turned over to the Rays, with the college building new facilities on one corner of the property. How much room the campus will get to retain “shall be agreed to in the Definitive Agreements,” which are TBD.

HC and the Rays will negotiate in good faith to agree on an ownership and financing structure and the conditions precedent for the contribution of the Property by HC.

I.e,, final lease terms, including things like whether the Rays will pay any rent for the state-owned site, are also TBD.

The Rays will construct a mixed-use development that may consist of, but is not limited to, hotels, retail space, multifamily buildings, sports and health related buildings, commercial buildings, parking structures, restaurants and other related buildings (“Mixed-Use Development”). The Parties acknowledge that the Rays will have sole and exclusive control over the Mixed-Use Development, during and after construction. The scope of the Mixed-Use Development will be determined as part of the Definitive Agreements

In addition to a stadium, Rays owner Patrick Zalupski will get to build a whole new neighborhood, as former team owner Stuart Sternberg planned to do at St. Petersburg’s Gas Plant District before backing out of that deal early last year. All revenues from that project will go to Zalupski, nothing to the land’s state taxpayer owners.

HC will ground lease the entire Property, except for the College District, to the Rays or a Rays’ affiliate by long-term lease of not less than 99 years.

Since Hillsborough College is a state facility, the property will be exempt from property taxes, including the parcel the team plans to build its mixed-use district on. Also, hey, it’s another 90-plus-year lease, just like the Washington Commanders deal! Lease terms TBD, of course, but it means that any discounted rent could add up to one hell of a lot, as it did for the $6.6 billion Commanders subsidy.

(Economist Geoff Propheter, who crunched the numbers for the Commanders deal, delivers the mic drop on this via email: “If there’s an upside to all of these stupidly long land leases that are so common in sports, I won’t be alive to remind people that I told them so.”)

The Parties anticipate the prominence and activity generated by the Project that will significantly enhance HC’s visibility, strengthen its community presence, and create valuable opportunities for outreach, partnerships, and student engagement.

LOL.

The Rays will pursue various economic incentive programs at the local and state levels in connection with the Project

You didn’t think Zalupski would be content with getting to build his stadium on state-provided tax-free land, did you? Florida already has a sports slush fund that draws on state sales tax dollars, and Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa could always offer tax breaks as well.

The MOU has already been unanimously approved by Hillsborough College’s board of trustees and has the backing of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has a long history with Zalupski, appointing him to the University of Florida’s board of trustees after Zalupski gave $250,000 to his Super PAC. DeSantis said yesterday that while he wouldn’t help fund the stadium itself, he would consider spending to move a juvenile jail currently on the site and, in the words of the Tampa Bay Times, “help pay for roads and sewers to prevent traffic jams,” which suggests some innovative mass transit solutions.

So, what are we talking about in terms of public cost? It’s hard to say until we see the final lease agreement, but Propheter does provide a figure for the value of the land itself: $250 million if the college were to sell it, between $582 million and $1.7 billion (in present value) if they leased it. Add in whatever Zalupski would get in tax breaks (Propheter can’t estimate those yet because he doesn’t know how much the stadium and development would be appraised at), state road and sewer spending, and any “economic incentives,” and it all seems very likely to exceed the $1 billion that Sternberg rejected one year ago. All this has to get approved by the state and likely Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa as well, of course, but never bet against team owners finding a greater fool.

Share this post: