Friday roundup: Utah still unclear on where it’d get $1.4B in MLB/NHL subsidies, White Sox have lots of friends in high places

It’s been another nutty week in stadiumland, but let’s give thanks for the small things — in this case, for the WP Dark Mode plugin, which has been updated so that it again gives FoS readers the option to avoid eyestrain while still navigating the site as you’re meant to. If you haven’t clicked the little crescent moon in the corner of the screen, give it a try, it’s fun!

Or you can read about the news of the week, which is less guaranteed to be fun, but is still … interesting? Informative? One of those:

  • Fox 13 in Salt Lake City claims that both the proposed MLB stadium and NHL arena would create entertainment districts where sales taxes would be kicked back to pay for the projects. We knew this for the baseball stadium, but for the arena the legislation says “authorizes a qualifying local government to levy a sales and use tax within the local government’s boundaries and for use within the project area” and caps the amount at 0.5%, so it looks like this would actually be a citywide sales tax hike? Either way, it’s a lot of money, and still more money would be required to pay the full $1.4 billion combined cost — including, notes University of Colorado economist Geoffrey Propheter, $1 million a year in kicked-back “possessory interest taxes,” more than half of which would come out of school budgets — but it sure would be nice to see some clarity on this before the legislature wraps up its session … wait, today? Well, that’s suboptimal.
  • NBC Chicago obtained emails showing that Mayor Brandon Johnson and Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf had their comms departments work together to concoct a press statement about the team’s stadium plans in January, and while it’s sort of understandable given that it was about a meeting between the two, it’s also maybe not the best sign of a mayor being interested in driving a hard bargain for his constituents that when the White Sox asked the mayor’s office to vet their press release, the response was “Could we do a joint statement?” Especially when the resulting statement referred to a meeting “to discuss the historic partnership between the team and Chicago and the team’s ideas for remaining competitive in Chicago in perpetuity” and didn’t mention anything about the $2 billion public price tag.
  • Chicago political consultant David Axelrod tweeted that the White Sox stadium plan would be “a game-changer for the city” and immediately got piled on for “peddling disinformation” (The Athletic’s Keith Law), told “You’re not an economist, so how about trust the economists who are” (economist J.C. Bradbury) and “Claiming stadiums catalyze economic development is like arguing vaccines cause autism” (Bradbury again), among many, many others.
  • Comcast Spectacor, the owners of the Philadelphia Flyers, are talking about doing a $2.5 billion redevelopment of the parking lots around their arena, to include “hotels, residences, restaurants, shops and a 5,500-seat performance stage.” Funding for the first phase would come from Comcast and its development partners, while the second phase would be paid for by “yet to be determined,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, which isn’t a red flag at all.
  • The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill handing over the RFK Stadium site to Washington, D.C. for redevelopment which will likely mean a proposal to build a new Commanders stadium there. Every representative from Maryland but one voted against it, as did four of 11 members from Virginia; “It’s most certainly not a level playing field when one interested jurisdiction receives a free transfer of federal government subsidized land,” said Rep. Glenn Ivey of Maryland. We’re still a long way from actual stadium plans or price tags, and the D.C. council may yet vote to use the site for something other than a stadium, but it definitely adds one more potential competitor to what’s been a mostly quiet of late three-way bidding war.
  • MLB commissioner Rob Manfred called the Oakland A’s Las Vegas relocation plans “solid” and immediately got piled on for damning it with faint praise. Manfred also acknowledged that “to most effectively build the [2025] schedule, we need to know at some point in the spring exactly where they’re going to be,” which isn’t exactly giving A’s owner John Fisher a deadline, the commissioner knows who signs his checks. Fisher is apparently hoping that if he agrees to sell his share of the Oakland Coliseum site to the local group that wants to develop it, the city of Oakland will grant him a lease extension to play there through 2027, which isn’t the deal the Oakland mayor’s office has been talking about at all, so we’ll see what the reaction there is.
  • Tennessee’s tourism department has asked the state legislature for the right to deny public access to public records about how much it offers the NFL for the right to host the Super Bowl at the new Titans stadium under construction. “The Super Bowl deal is often embarrassing for the NFL because of the demands they make and for the politicians that agree to give the league things like free high-end hotel rooms and police escorts,” notes College of Holy Cross economist Victor Matheson.
  • Toronto is now expecting to spend $380 million on hosting six 2026 World Cup matches, which is, let’s see, $63 million per match. It says it expects an economic boost of $392 million in GDP and tax revenues of $119 million, which seem both optimistic and mismatched unless Toronto has a 30% sales tax rate, but since World Cup impact numbers are generally garbage anyway — Matheson once called them “so outlandish as to defy common sense” — we can safely ignore them entirely.
Share this post:

Who won the Super Bowl subsidy game?

The Super Bowl is over (presumably, I didn’t watch), and there is a winner and a loser! Or multiple winners and losers? Only one winner, multiple losers? Methinks we need a list:

For those who need a refresher: Actual after-the-fact studies have shown that the benefit of hosting a Super Bowl is at most a few million dollars, which is less than most cities spend on advertising the game, let alone increased police presenceWinners: NFL owners who keep getting large chunks of their stadium costs paid for by taxpayers, plus Nevada police who get overtime pay, I guess?

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Two counties plan Royals tax votes, plus fresh subsidy schemes for Spurs, Wild, Jazz, Bengals, [headline capacity reached, stack overflow]

No time or energy for niceties today, let’s get straight to the firehose of news:

  • The Jackson County Legislature plans to vote Monday on putting a measure on the April ballot to extend a 0.375% sales tax surcharge for 40 years to fund new Kansas City Royals and Chiefs stadium projects, even though neither team has decided what kind of stadium projects they want, let alone agreed to lease terms that would determine what if anything the county would get in return. (Jackson County Executive Frank White counters, “You don’t want to rush into something that the taxpayers have to be responsible for for 40 years without getting some equitable agreement with both teams,” but nobody appears to be listening to him.) Meanwhile Clay County appears to be readying its own sales tax hike ballot measure, only with a much larger (as yet undetermined) sales tax surcharge rate because Clay County has fewer people and so less sales. Bidding wars, man, they can’t be beat — I really need to see if I can get New York and New Jersey to compete to see who’ll agree to renovate my kitchen.
  • The San Antonio city council approved a plan to siphon off any future increase in hotel tax revenues from within three miles of the city’s convention center and spend it on convention center upgrades, a renovation of the Alamodome, plus possibly a new Spurs arena. Estimates are that the hotel tax money could come to $222 million, but it’s not clear if that’s present value or over time, and anyway the whole thing is just a guess at how much will be spent at area hotels in the future and what it’ll be spent on is still TBD, but suffice to say there’s a slush fund now should anyone want to tap it.
  • St. Paul Deputy Mayor Jaime Tincher says city officials want to spend “several hundred million” dollars on upgrading the Minnesota Wild‘s arena, and when he says wants to spend, he means he wants the state to spend it, not his city. The Wild’s current 23-year-old arena is “aging,” reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and while it’s true that all 23-year-olds are aging just like the rest of us, that’s not usually what the word means.
  • Utah Jazz ownership is exploring building a new arena and entertainment district south of Salt Lake City, and city officials are already preparing a counteroffer to keep the Jazz downtown, playing different parts of a metro area off against each other in a bidding war is absolutely the flavor of the month.
  • As Hamilton County prepares to spend another $39 million on upgrades to the Cincinnati Bengals stadium under their infamous state-of-the-art clause, county board of commissioner president Alicia Reece says she’d like the team’s next lease to require the team owners to pay more of the costs than the 4% they’ve kicked in so far: “You need to put some skin in the game for our team. Give us some respect.” No official word yet on whether Bengals ownership will be insisting on a no-respect clause in any new lease.
  • Tampa Bay Rays co-president Brian Auld says team officials won’t agree to accept $600 million in public money for a new stadium if it would require changing the name to the St. Petersburg Rays because they “want to make sure that this entire project screams inclusive welcomeness.” That’s it, perfect sentence, no notes.
  • I guess “Experts disagree on economic impact of 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona” is better than just reporting the bogus economic impact claims in a press release without rejoinder, but it’s still bothsidesing when the weight of the actual evidence is that the actual impact is a tiny fraction of what the NFL claims.
  • What will the Baltimore Ravens owners be spending their $600 million-and-more in state subsidies on? For starters, a bunch of high-end clubs including an “ultra-premium field-level experience” connecting  to an “exclusive members-only club featuring a speakeasy.” No reports yet on whether it will include a fire pit where well-heeled fans can actually burn taxpayer money.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Anaheim ex-mayor faces prison over Angels land deal, Sixers owner calls public arena input “harassment”

Ah, the dog days of summer, when news slows to a trickle and [opens up Instapaper and is hit by a firehose of saved items] BLEEAARGH!

Twenty-five years, people. I’ve been writing this stupid blog for 25 years, and the only thing that’s changed is now there are fewer decent outlets providing actual news, and the number of zeroes on the subsidy price tags keep going up. I hope you’re enjoying continuing to read this stuff, because it seems like we’re going to have to keep on rehashing the same tired absurdities even longer than The Simpsons, and nobody’s ever going to learn not to build the monorail.

Anyway, it’s Friday, let’s do what we do:

  • Former Anaheim mayor Harry Sidhu has agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges and will face up to 40 years in federal prison following an FBI investigation for soliciting bribes around a new Los Angeles Angels stadium land deal as well as something about illegal helicopter registration. (In classic getting-Al-Capone-for-tax-evasion fashion, the guilty plea is for the coverup, not for the initial alleged crimes.) That land deal is now dead, along with Sidhu’s political career; it’s possible that the Anaheim city council could even void the Angels’ sweetheart stadium lease extension on the grounds that Sidhu negotiated it, though given that no current council members would comment on the possibility when asked by the Voice of OC, probably best not to hold your breath there.
  • The Philadelphia 76ers held the first of five online forums about their new arena plans this week, one that some people criticized for only showing team executives on camera while not allowing the public to speak live. Sixers co-owner and lead developer David Adelman replied during the event, “Some people are disappointed that they can’t harass us on Zoom,” and the team subsequently rebranded the forums from “community meetings” to “community info sessions,” all of which went over about as well as you’d expect.
  • MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, in trying to argue why the Kansas City Royals need a new stadium either in downtown K.C. or North Kansas City, declared that it would be “a tremendous opportunity for this community — forget the Royals,” and then in the next breath said that “new facilities provide a ballclub with an opportunity for revenue generation that simply doesn’t exist in older footprints.” All evidence continues to be that Manfred is very bad at this, but also that he doesn’t have to be very good at it to be successful.
  • The Clark County Commission has voted to spend $440,000 in pandemic recovery money on bringing corporate CEOs to the Super Bowl in hopes that they’ll move their businesses to Nevada. Apparently neither spending $750 million on an NFL stadium for the Raiders nor being Las Vegas was enough to put the city on the corporate relocation map, but once the billionaires have been wined and dined at a Super Bowl, that’ll surely do the trick.
  • Longtime Cleveland city official Ken Silliman has a new book out about the city’s sports deals, and Signal Cleveland’s review includes some enticing snippets, including that Silliman shielded details of Guardians subsidy talks from public records requests by briefing public employees verbally but not in writing, and that he thinks Congress should “resurrect 1998 legislation written to curtail what’s known as ‘franchise free agency,'” which maybe means Rep. David Minge’s Distorting Subsidies Limitation Act that would have made sports subsidies subject to a federal excise tax, though that was actually 1999. [UPDATE: Silliman writes to say it’s actually this bill, which would have exempted sports team relocations from antitrust law.] Clearly I’m going to have to read the book before reporting fully on it, this journalism thing is a lot of work!
Share this post:

When does “How much money will Arizona make from the Super Bowl?” start?

It’s the Super Bowl! Sometime soon it will be, anyway, you can Google (or Bing?) for what time it starts, but in the meantime the nation’s sports media is all agog over how much money will be raining down on (checks where the Super Bowl will be played) Glendale, Arizona as a result:

More than $1 billion. —ASU News, citing a consultant with a marketing degree who works at Arizona State University’s business school, Feb. 7

Hundreds of millions.” —Arizona Cardinals owner Michael Bidwill, who was given Arizona Republic op-ed space for this purpose for some reason, Feb. 7

Hundreds of millions of dollars.” —KPNX-TV, citing the same ASU business school guy, Jan. 25.

All the way up to $1 billion.” —Sports Betting News, again citing the ASU guy, Feb. 3.

$600 million.” —Phoenix New Times, citing guess who, Feb. 8.

“As much as $2 billion.” —Phoenix New Times one paragraph later, citing the CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce

These are made up numbers.” —Kennesaw State University economist J.C. Bradbury, Feb. 8.

Move the decimal point one place to the left [and] you’re much closer to what it is that it actually provides.” —Lake Forest College economist Robert Baade, Jan. 27, 2007

Typically, a big number like that comes in and it gets a big headline. It doesn’t always get the scrutiny that it probably warrants, largely because newspapers, particularly, are understaffed and they don’t have the resources to do rigorous examination of a story like that every day.” —Louisville Courier-Journal sportswriter Tim Sullivan, Jan. 28, 2015

 

Share this post:

Friday roundup: How much economic impact won’t the Super Bowl have, and other dubious sports news

Under the present regime, there is no real downside risk to posting.” I probably should have spun this off into its own post, and added some anecdata about how when I post two items in one day it always seems like one of them gets overlooked, but then I would have to come up with an additional headline and post again to social media so screw it, just go give Tom Scocca the clicks, he needs ’em now that he doesn’t have a day job again.

Anyway, you probably skipped that to go straight to the bullet points, and here they are:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: New bill would give Bears a giant tax break, nobody knows how big because U.S. journalism is broken, guys

Hey, everybody! I’m finally back from my trip, where I got to visit stadiums large and medium and small, among many other things. Let’s blow the cobwebs off the remaining news from this week, and get ready for a return to a regular posting schedule next week, because it sure seems like a lot is brewing:

  • Crain’s Chicago Business reports that a bill in the Illinois legislature would grant the Chicago Bears  owners a tax break for their Arlington Heights stadium project in the form “payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT,” which, it’s usually called PILOTs, guys, but whatever floats your boat. None of this is especially new — it’s just like tax increment financing in that the Bears would still be getting their tax bill frozen and the rest kicked back, except that here the money would be called “payments” instead of “taxes” — and is what Bears execs have been going on about with “tax certainty.” Also Crain’s hasn’t calculated how much the tax kickback would be worth to the Bears, or maybe the legislation hasn’t figured it out yet, give me the weekend to get back up to speed and maybe I can get you a number.
  • Is Kauffman Stadium in as poor shape as Royals say?” Ian Betteridge can answer that.
  • “Time is running out for Oakland Athletics to get a new stadium,” according to an Associated Press story that cites exactly one person in support of that thesis, a Las Vegas-based marketing consultant, and several people saying there’s no rush, maybe it actually would have been better to go with a question mark headline here, guys.
  • How does St. Petersburg plan to pay for a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium? Fox 13 News looked into it and found that “the city is unable to identify a source” and “it’s all on the table but nothing is certain yet,” maybe “looked into it” is overstating things.
  • And rounding out the bad reporting quadfecta, Cleveland’s NPR station looked into the economic impact of upgrading the Guardians‘ stadium by consulting only one source, and for some reason it was sports columnist Terry Pluto, who wrote a very good book on the history of the American Basketball Association but so far as I know hasn’t studied economic impact, which would explain why he says things like “81 home games. That’s a lot of activity there.” (For readers unfamiliar with the Gregorian calendar, there are 365 days most years, which means a baseball stadium is dark more than 280 days a year.)
  • Glendale’s arena had record revenue in 2022 after the Arizona Coyotes moved out, which I can’t tell if the article means gross or net revenue, but either way it’d be hard not to do better after kicking out a tenant who paid negative rent, so no surprise there.
  • Oh wait, I lied about being done with the reporting on bad reporting: “Super Bowl 57 is less than three weeks away from bringing big-time spending and exposure to Arizona!” is the actual first sentence of an actual news article, yes complete with the exclamation point. And, oh god, here’s another one! I’m going back to bed to catch up on my jet-lagged sleep, see you on Monday when things will probably still be just as screwy, but at least we can tackle them one at a time.
Share this post:

What time does “What time does the Super Bowl economic impact start?” start?

The Super Bowl is happening again this weekend, so I hear, and with the game taking place in the Los Angeles Rams‘ new stadium in Inglewood, it’s time for the nation’s news media to lose their collective shit over how transformative the new building will be for the city. Let’s watch!

The takeaway is clear: An NFL stadium makes stuff happen, for good and bad! But let’s take a closer look at some of the claims.

First off, that $477 million in economic impact can easily be dispensed with: While numbers like these are claimed by the league and sports media every Super Bowl season, when economists look at the actual figures after the game has been held, they typically find numbers only about one-tenth that size. And “economic impact,” remember, is just the amount of money changing hands in your city; the actual impact in terms of added tax revenues will be a further fraction of that fraction, likely in the single millions of dollars, less than you’ll end up spending on added policing for the game.

As for the soaring rents, that’s a tougher call without a more specific breakdown of what exactly is going on with the Inglewood real estate market. Sports venues and other splashy projects certainly can act as giant billboards for new development; that’s one reason lots of developers choose to build them. But housing prices are going nuts in all of Southern California, and the way gentrification works is that lower-income areas like Inglewood will likely see the biggest price increases as wealthier residents spill over from areas that are already full up. The Times story reports that median home sales prices in Inglewood have risen a consistent $25,000 a year since the Rams moved back to L.A. and started stadium construction in 2016, but correlation is not causation, so more research is needed to determine if it’s really a big-ass stadium open 20-30 days a year that’s causing Inglewood housing prices to soar, or if this is like margarine consumption causing divorces in Maine.

One interesting item along those lines: The Times cites a local real estate broker as saying that people are eager to live near the stadium — but then, there are those poor residents in the SI story who are trapped in their homes on game days, so which is it, is the stadium a boon or a blight? Or are people moving to Inglewood because they like the view of a giant alien structure surrounded by parking lots, but then find that it’s a nightmare because of all the cars driving to those parking lots? Or does the stadium have nothing to do with the real estate boom, beyond giving the real estate press an excuse to write about how hot the Inglewood housing market is, which of course serves to make the Inglewood housing market even hotter? The science of housing values has a lot of strange feedback loops that are beyond the scope of this post — though I hope to explore them further someday — but suffice to say that pointing at a new stadium and some yuppies moving to town at the same time and saying “Look, see!” isn’t science, let alone journalism.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Guardians get their $285m public payout, Coyotes to play in teensy college arena for now

What is the deal with these five-day workweeks? Why isn’t Juliet Schor president by now? Four days work for five days pay! Sorry, where was I? Oh, right, sports stadium scams siphoning off public money to rich dudes, same thing as every day, Pinky:

  • Cleveland Guardians owner Paul Dolan has officially extended the team’s lease through 2036 as part of a deal to provide $285 million in public funding toward a $435 million renovation of their 28-year-old stadium, two months after the Cleveland city council approved the annual tax subsidies. (Dolan was probably looking for a pen that worked.) Cleveland and Cuyahoga County can extend the lease for another five years by agreeing to pay for another $112.5 million in upgrades; getting your city landlord to pay you to play is truly the wave of the future, or the present, or whatever we’re living in these days.
  • Arizona Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo is reportedly in talks to play home games temporarily at Arizona State University’s new arena, which only holds 5,000 people, which, sure, cue up your favorite “that’s more fans than the Coyotes have anyway” jokes. “We would be glad to help the Coyotes by providing a temporary home while their new arena is built just a couple of miles away,” said ASU CFO Morgan Olsen, which is maybe getting the cart a little before the horse given that the current Tempe city council lost interest in providing $200 million toward an arena once Meruelo was revealed to have been failing to pay his city taxes in Glendale, managing to get his team evicted from there. Could the Coyotes’ saga end up with them stuck in a tiny temporary home for years while continuing to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot over new arena plans? Probably not, but it would definitely be on-brand.
  • Greenville Triumph owner Joe Erwin wants a new $38.6 million soccer stadium, and are offering to pay, let’s see, they’ll “donate land they already own in the area” and “plan to bring upwards of a million dollars of equipment over from [their] temporary pitch.” The owner of the USL League One club is selling the stadium as multipurpose, enthusing, “We can play lacrosse on that field, American football on that field, rugby on that field. Heck, we can play ultimate frisbee on the field.” In my experience, USL League One teams can barely play soccer, but it’s nice to have self-confidence.
  • Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee says he’d be willing to talk about making a “significant investment” to host a Super Bowl in Nashville, and is “engaged in talks” about public funding for NASCAR, and thinks it would be “awesome” for and MLB team to come to Nashville but says that would take “partnerships.” He didn’t mention spending state sales tax money on Tennessee Titans stadium upgrades this time, but maybe that’d be part of the Super Bowl “investment”? Either way, move over, Glenn Youngkin, there’s a new contender for the crown of Governor Most Eager to Give Public Money to the Local Sports Team and/or Other Corporations.
  • Buffalo’s Investigative Post looks at how a Buffalo Bills stadium could be made to help the community it’s built in, and lands on the idea of community benefits agreements, which can “ensure the public receives some return on its investment.” Or, you know, not, as is often the case, especially in New York state.
  • The Tampa Bay Times is conducting a reader survey of where the Rays should build a new stadium and who should pay for it, which is going to be unscientific as hell — I just filled it out, in hopes that this would let me see the results so far, but no dice — but that’s modern journalism for you. At least team owner Stu Sternberg will be happy that the local paper is still flogging his new-stadium dreams, rather than moving on to some other news or issues that might also be able to use public money.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: The perils of just-get-things-done-ism, and a happy zombie apocalypse to all!

One of the special joys of running a web news outlet is the regular stream of emails you receive from people wanting to pay you to run their “articles” (really thinly disguised ads and/or link spam) on your site. I had a whole plan for a year-end roundup of the funniest of those, but various things happened this past week and — anyway, there was only one I really wanted to share with you, and that is this:

Hi Neil,

I noticed you shared an article from CDC.gov when you talked about the zombie apocalypse, here: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/mlb/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim/

We recently published an article about a related topic, basement bunkers and why it isn’t just for wealthy preppers, that I thought might be interesting to your readers.

Followed a week later, when I didn’t respond, by:

Hi Neil,

I wanted to check in and see if you got my note about the zombie apocalypse?

Truly we live in the screwiest of all possible worlds.

On with the last news roundup of 2021, the year that ended up feeling like a repeat:

  • Calgary Herald columnist Rob Breakenridge is usually one of the more level-headed sports commentators — he’s even had me on his radio show — but his column this week falls into the trap of what might be called just-get-things-done-ism, arguing in the wake of the collapse of the Flames arena deal that both the city and the team owners need to “put egos aside and figure out how this can be salvaged.” Sure, if it’s just a matter of egos; if it’s a matter of this being a plan that looked pretty bad for the city and was looking worse and worse for the team as cost overruns piled up, maybe walking away from it is the better part of valor? There’s definitely a trend in urban governance punditry to credit elected officials who “get things done,” whether those things are a good idea or not — and getting things done is a skill, but also sometimes the best deals are the ones you didn’t make.
  • The city of Pawtucket, having lost the Pawtucket Red Sox to Worcester’s $150 million stadium bribe, is looking at replacing the team’s historic stadium with … a new $300 million high school? This would allow the city to sell off the site of one of its existing high schools and possibly repurpose the other as a middle school, so it’s a good lesson about how public assets are fungible, and the state of Rhode Island would reimburse most of the costs, so it’s arguably not a bad deal — still, for that price tag, I hope Pawtucket’s high school students get some crazy fancy cupholders.
  • Doesn’t look like I actually ran a link to the final environmental impact report for the Oakland A’s Howard Terminal stadium proposal, at least not before earlier in this sentence. Reading through that is another thing I didn’t get to do this week, but now that I’ve just finished canceling vacation plans for this month in the face of (waves hands around to indicate the entirety of everything), there should be plenty of time to discuss it here before planned hearings starting on January 19.
  • The Super Bowl is set to be played at the Los Angeles Rams‘ multi-billion-dollar new stadium, and already people are warning of its “notorious parking and traffic problems” and what a mess they could create. It’s tough to be notorious already at barely one year old, but I guess that’s one way of being “unprecedented and unparalleled.”

I could probably scrape up a couple more news items, but sometimes the best news item is the one you never write, right? Happy new year to all, thanks to everyone who threw money in the tip jar or joined this site’s Patreon, and I’ll see everyone back here on Monday.

Share this post: