Most likely they’d be looking for some kind of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) deal which is what Yankee Stadium and CitiField got, IIRC.
And those were both Bloomberg deals, right? That would explain that part of Patchett's answer.
Most likely they’d be looking for some kind of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) deal which is what Yankee Stadium and CitiField got, IIRC.
Probably, I'd just be curious to see what that is in comparison to the affordable housing.
Basically, my point is (without knowing the details obviously), is this a case where the CEO of the NYC EDC doesn't support materially subsidizing a stadium, or is this a case where its easy to use that as an argument because he generally doesn't want a stadium there?
Good.By the looks of things, the only way this stadium happens is if City Group bankrolls the lot.
I’d add that CFG probably is looking for the city to bring the infrastructure/utilities to the site (plumbing/electrical/sewer/etc) which is a very standard request, so if that’s the sticking point with the city, then IDK.....Most likely they’d be looking for some kind of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) deal which is what Yankee Stadium and CitiField got, IIRC.
I’d add that CFG probably is looking for the city to bring the infrastructure/utilities to the site (plumbing/electrical/sewer/etc) which is a very standard request, so if that’s the sticking point with the city, then IDK.....
unless it helps the fucking poor he could give two shits less.
deblasio is a fucking goon...unless it helps the fucking poor he could give two shits less.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the definition and means of help, iyam.I mean, that's not the worst character trait. And I'm a Republican
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the definition and means of help, iyam.
And since we’re self-indentifying, I’m not a Republican, if anyone cares.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the definition and means of help, iyam.
And since we’re self-indentifying, I’m not a Republican, if anyone cares.
The problem is, his policies generally lead to increased poverty in the long run.Yeah sounds awful.
I do support an anti-stadium subsidy position though, outside of required infrastructure that would be needed anyway for any other development.
Finally, something Americans of all political stripes can agree on: using public funds to build stadiums for billionaire sports owners is a scam.
Finally, something Americans of all political stripes can agree on: using public funds to build stadiums for billionaire sports owners is a scam.
The problem is, his policies generally lead to increased poverty in the long run.
I do support an anti-stadium subsidy position though, outside of required infrastructure that would be needed anyway for any other development.
Finally, something Americans of all political stripes can agree on: using public funds to build stadiums for billionaire sports owners is a scam.
Its not a scam; its just never done at the right price for the city. You cannot argue that the olympics/world cup does not bring revenue to the host. If its done at zero acquisition cost its a massive boon. The problem is its never done for zero. That revenue boost is worth something and the organizers know it, so they have a demand list that cost a lot of money. Unfortunately the public is always overpays for the right to host. Public sector is bad at spending efficiently. Private sector is good at waiting for the right price and taking when the gettings good.It’s like the Olympics or World Cup- the host city or country almost never recovers the money spent. Bad investment.