Category: Jacksonville Jaguars

There’s a new poll out of what Duval County residents think of the Jacksonville Jaguars stadium renovation plan, and while I hesitate to outright call it a dumb poll, the way it’s being presented in the media is at least 90% dumb:

Our first look at how Jacksonville voters feels about taxpayer-supported stadium renovations shows mixed emotions about funding.

A poll by the University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab finds a little over half of voters say they’re opposed to taxpayer money going to the stadium, but an overwhelming 81 percent favor the 150 million dollar part of the deal going towards community support.

The headline that WOKV-FM chose for this story was “UNF poll: Duval voters hesitant but willing to fund billion-dollar stadium deal,” which isn’t actually what “a little over half of voters say they’re opposed” means. (It’s also not really a billion-dollar stadium deal: It’s a $1.4 billion stadium renovation with $775 million paid by the city, plus about $227 million worth of additional spending on “community benefits,” about two-thirds of that paid for by taxpayers. But I digress.) Yes, people like the idea of spending money on affordable housing and other social goods, especially when part of that money would come from Jags owner Shad Khan, but they dislike the part where the city would give three times that much money to Khan so he can have a snazzier place to put on football games.

And over at the Florida Times-Union, they report that the poll actually asked whether locals would support stadium spending without the community benefits spending, and the survey says:

Combining the community benefits agreement with the renovation costs caused overall support of the deal to jump [from 41%] to 56%.

Still, 72% of respondents said they would prefer to vote on the spending in a referendum, which Deegan has repeatedly spoken against.

No, neither 41% nor 56% in favor is “a little over half opposed.” It’s all convoluted enough that I’m tempted to give News4Jax a pass for its headline “UNF Poll: Majority support stadium changes but oppose amount of public spending on construction,” except no, that’s completely wrong, there’s no excuse there.

The poll also asked what Duval County residents’ spending priorities were, and the answer was not at all positive for Khan:

In an open-ended question, respondents were asked their top priority for the investment of tax dollars in the City of Jacksonville.

The most popular response with 23% was infrastructure and roads which was followed by education and schools with 19%, and public safety and police with 13%. Four percent of respondents said downtown revitalization, and 3% said the stadium and the Jaguars, with 10% who didn’t know or refused to answer.

They are definitely not making “hesitant but willing” like they used to.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., a Washington Post poll of area residents from both within and near the city found that:

A 51 percent majority says the stadium should be built in D.C., while 17 percent say it belongs in Maryland and 15 percent say Virginia. The remainder did not specify a preference.

Among Commanders fans, the preference for D.C. grows to 63 percent, and among District residents it is 76 percent. City residents are now more open to public funding of a stadium. In 2022, two-thirds of D.C. residents opposed using city funds to help finance a new stadium in the District; now residents are split on the issue.

It’s no surprise that football fans in D.C. would rather get to watch football games in D.C., or even that many suburbanites would prefer a central location, since for many it’ll be easier to get to downtown D.C. than from one suburb to another. As for residents being “split” on using “city funds,” what were the actual results, and did the question specify how much in public money?

So now that Daniel Snyder has been replaced by a somewhat less odious Commanders owner, more D.C. residents are indeed okay with spending city money on a new stadium, though no actual price tag was included, so we don’t know whether they’re okay with spending $100 million or $500 million or two bits or what. And suburbanites still absolutely hate the idea of ponying up anything at all for an NFL stadium, which may be why they’re happy to let D.C. take the hit of hosting the Commanders.

The accurate way of reporting on polls like these is to lay out what people actually say they would support and what they wouldn’t — but when that runs afoul of what elected officials and team owners want, news outlets generally try to crowbar the findings into the terms of generally accepted horse race journalism. Polls are generally garbage at this point in history, but when they’re weaponized into not gauging the public’s priorities but rather finding ways to get a deal done, they become worse than useless.

We have our first sign of city council dissension on the plan to give Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan $775 million in city money toward a $1.4 billion stadium renovation — and it’s not about the $775 million for a privately used football stadium at all. Nope, councilmember Rory Diamond says he’s opposed to the deal because of the $300 million (sort of — more on that in a moment) in “community benefits” spending that would be split between the city and Khan:

As promised, Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan finally released her Jaguars stadium plan yesterday, in the form of a presentation to the city council. Let’s get straight to answering your questions about it — no, no need to ask actual questions, I’ve got that covered for you:

How much would the stadium renovation cost, and how much public money does Jaguars owner Shad Khan want?

Action News Jax reports that the total cost would be $1.7 billion, with $925 million coming from the city of Jacksonville, while Florida Politics calls it a $1.25 billion deal with a 50/50 split between the city and team.

You’re confusing me already.

In the form of a question, please!

Sorry. What’s the actual breakdown?

• $625 million from the city for the stadium renovation
• $625 million from Khan for the stadium renovation
• $150 million from the city for “maintenance costs on the existing structure,” which Deegan claims the city would have to spend either way
• $150 million apiece for “community development projects” including affordable housing, homelessness programs, and parks

Is that a lot of public money?

That all depends on how you look at it. Even if you count the deferred maintenance costs, $775 million is less than the $800 million to $934 million that was previously floated. And Deegan was quick to note that it’s less than Tennessee and New York taxpayers are spending on new stadiums for the Titans and Buffalo Bills, though those are whole new stadiums, not just renovations.

All that’s just anchoring, though. Some other ways to look at it:

• In exchange for a 30-year lease extension, $775 million comes to $25.8 million in present-day cost for each additional year Khan would promise to keep the Jags in town. That would be the third-highest cost per year of any pro sports renovation, behind only the Baltimore Ravens‘ $40 million a year and the New Orleans Saints‘ $30 million a year.
• That $775 million could build about 13 new schools, even at the inflated prices Jacksonville has been paying.
• It’s $775 million more than most Jacksonville residents or business owners would get from the city if they wanted to renovate their homes or offices.
• The city and Khan would be (roughly) splitting renovation costs evenly, but Khan would (presumably) continue to receive all revenues from the building, including naming rights.

Are there any hidden costs like tax breaks?

We don’t know yet, as Mayor Deegan didn’t include lease details in her presentation. We also don’t know, crucially, if there are any state-of-the-art clauses or other provisions that would allow Khan to demand more public money before the 30 years were up.

Is there a slideshow with lots of really big numbers?

Of course! Here’s one example:

That is number is indeed really big, in both value and type size! But is that real city revenue or just one of those “impact” numbers that means money changing hands anywhere in the city?

Mayor Donna Deegan says the deal will provide a whopping $26 billion of economic impact over the length of the 30-year lease. [Action News Jax reporter Ben] Becker pressed her on that number because economist’s says economic impact is not revenue for a city, revenue is tax dollars.

“Do we have a number on that, guys?” Deegan asked lead negotiator Mike Weinstein from the podium, but the number was not available.

What do economists say about it?

“I think they did a really good job marketing it,” says Kristi Sweeney who is a sports finance professor at the University of North Florida… “That is over-estimated I would say.”

Where will Jacksonville get the $775 million it would be spending?

Deegan has posted a really confusing explanation to her site, but it comes down to: If the city keeps a 0.5% sales tax surcharge to fund capital projects in place through 2030 instead of allowing it to end in 2026, that would let it pay for around $600 million in city projects to be funded by sales tax receipts instead of by borrowing. So the city could use the borrowing for Jaguars renovations instead, making that free money!

Does that make any sense?

No, and doubly not since once the capital projects sales tax expires, a different 0.5% sales tax to fund city pension costs will kick in. So extending the first tax just means an extra $600 million worth of pension money that the city has to come up with somewhere, eating up any windfall.

What does the city council think of all this?

Unclear. One councilmember, Jimmy Peluso, told Action News Jax that the community development money is a nice carrot, because “this is something that’s going to benefit the whole city.” Another, Rory Diamond, called it “exactly the same as it was last year, except now we have a new $150 million of spending that has nothing to do with the stadium” and called the pension fund switcheroo “both dangerous and just dishonest.” Most of the other 17 members of the council apparently weren’t available for comment, or were just distracted by the slideshow.

Would the Jaguars at least have to stop playing one home game a year in London?

“We will have the option — not the requirement — to play up to one home game a year” in London, [Jaguars President Mark] Lamping said.

Do we have a photo of Shad Khan showing the guy who’d be collecting the $775 million in tax money? Preferably on a yacht?

I got ya:

Is that a real photo?

God help us, yes.

What happens now?

Council president Ron Salem says he wants to pass at least the stadium renovation portion of the deal by the end of June, “but not at the expense of people still uncomfortable with the deal,” whatever that means. Also, does Salem mean the stadium part might pass without the community benefits part? If so, what would Khan’s incentive be to agree to the additional spending once he gets his stadium money?

I thought I was asking the questions here?

You’re right, sorry. But there are a whole lot of questions left to be answered, so one of us had better get cracking.

After more than two years of talks, the city of Jacksonville and Jaguars owner Shad Khan have announced an agreement on publicly funded upgrades to the team’s 28-year-old stadium. And the details are:

The city announced the agreement will be presented to council Tuesday, but until then, it seems the details will be scant, if not non-existent.

“The negotiating team is currently putting the final details on paper, and we will release that information as soon as it is available,” said Mayor Donna Deegan in a statement attached to the release announcing the framework agreement.

That’s interesting, to say the least. It’s certainly a common tactic to wait until the last possible moment to announce stadium subsidy plans, lest people start looking at them and thinking about them and all the other nasty things people are wont to do. But not even releasing them until the council is actually gathered to discuss it is above and beyond the usual hurry-up-and-wait, and resulted in this hilarious back and forth between Deegan and a reporter for Action News Jax:

We asked why the city announced a deal had been reached if it wasn’t willing to provide details for days.

“Did you hear me make an announcement?” said Deegan in response.

We noted the release sent by the city.

“After the news came out. Look I will be talking to you on Tuesday,” Deegan responded.

“Did you hear me make an announcement?” while at a press conference you yourself called is truly peak elected official, A+, no notes.

One hopes that some of the stadium details will leak before Tuesday, or at least that some of the council members will get tipped off in advance so they can ask more probing questions than “Hold up, what page are we on?” At last report, Khan was still asking for close to $1 billion in public money, all to upgrade a stadium that has already been renovated three times in the last 28 years — and that’s presumably before any hidden goodies like tax breaks or infrastructure. Tune in on Tuesday along with the people who’ll actually have to vote on this thing, and find out the whole truth! Maybe.

At a sports industry conference on Thursday, Jacksonville Jaguars president Mark Lamping said this in response to a question about whether a proposed $1 billion stadium renovation subsidy would go before voters:

“If there’s a referendum, the ballot question should be: Do you want to keep the NFL in Jacksonville? … Look, if Jacksonville loses an NFL team, they’re never going to get another one. And if the Jaguars have to relocate from Jacksonville, those of us that went down there would have failed. OK? And none of us want to face that.”

That’s about as threatening as veiled threats get: Lamping is here saying that voting against a billion-dollar subsidy would mean the Jaguars would leave. Except that on Friday, Lamping immediately turned around and said he didn’t say that at all:

“That’s obviously taken totally out of context,” Lamping told News4JAX. “What will happen, and it’s been very consistent, dating back to 2016, we can’t extend our lease unless we find a stadium solution. That is so important. You’ve heard me say that many, many times dating back to 2016. And try to turn that into a statement that here’s this ultimatum, it just isn’t true.”

Um? First off, saying something is “out of context” when it contains all the necessary context isn’t a thing — I mean, it is a thing and has been for a long time, but that’s doesn’t make it any more legitimate of an excuse for saying something you later regret. And second, Lamping immediately restated the threat, since “we can’t extend our lease unless we find a stadium solution” actually means “we won’t extend our lease unless we get stadium subsidies,” and not having a lease means they’d have to play elsewhere, which means relocating.

Whether Lamping (or his boss, Jags owner Shad Khan) actually means that the team will move if it doesn’t get this round of funding approved is unknown, obviously — all we know is that he means for Jaguars fans to feel threatened that if they don’t approve the $1 billion, they’ll lose their team. But not to blame Lamping (or Khan) for making a threat or thinking they’re not nice people, oh, no no no.

This is why in our book Field of Schemes we called it the “non-threat threat”: The trick is to get all the benefits of scaring sports fans without any of the pitchforks and flaming torches. Whether Lamping’s attempt here will work remains to be seen, though there haven’t been any reports of him being hanged in effigy at Sunday’s home game, so that’s a good start, anyway!