Stadium Discussion

[mgarbowski]

Isn't there already a casino at Aqueduct?

It's a machine-games-only limited racino. The new law that passed last year authorizes three new full casinos with table games and dealers and the whole gambling experience in the downstate NYC region. Existing locations and owners can apply, but no certainty they get it.

 

[adam]

It's a machine-games-only limited racino. The new law that passed last year authorizes three new full casinos with table games and dealers and the whole gambling experience in the downstate NYC region. Existing locations and owners can apply, but no certainty they get it.

What I was going to say, no table games (blackjack, poker, roulette, carribean stud, etc…). It’s a big difference. Aqueduct has the gambling there already, so you’re not adding a bad element that’s not already there. Also, geographically convenient for me and that’s always most important.

 

[Revfugee]

Here comes the tricky part.

Will New York City’s Soccer Stadium Cost Taxpayers $0 or $516 Million?

An independent budget analysis suggests that the city will be losing $516 million in tax revenue from its deal to place a new soccer stadium in Queens.

www.nytimes.com

 

[DeGrozz]

OR

And hear me out on this one...

We could just have a toxic dump in Willets Point and get angry over these fabricated numbers.

 

[mgarbowski]

My understanding is the basis for the numbers are (1) infrastructure improvements, and (2) opportunity cost assuming someone would develop to the highest use imaginable.
Of course, the infrastructure is necessary for any development. As DeGrozz noted, the area is a toxic dump, and as the former land owners repeatedly reminded us, the area never had any sewer service, among other things, which the city refused to ever build and then used as an excuse to take their land via eminent domain.
As for the opportunity cost, LOL. Like there has ever been a big development in New York, especially on land owned by the government, that isn't a product of favors and offsets. If the stadium gets scuttled, the new deal will be no better. And the idea this is comparable to Buffalo is to laugh.

 

[Revfugee]

My understanding is the basis for the numbers are (1) infrastructure improvements, and (2) opportunity cost assuming someone would develop to the highest use imaginable.
Of course, the infrastructure is necessary for any development. As DeGrozz noted, the area is a toxic dump, and as the former land owners out repeatedly reminded us, the area never had any sewer service, among other things, which the city refused to ever build and then used as an excuse to take their land via eminent domain.
As for the opportunity cost, LOL. Like there has ever been a big development in New York, especially on land owned by the government, that isn't a product of favors and offsets. If the stadium gets scuttled, the new deal will be no better. And the idea this is comparable to Buffalo is to laugh.

My point is that once these arguments (tax breaks for oil sheikhs) get aired or even hinted, they can take on a momentum of their own, regardless of merit or positive externalities. That is the "tricky part" of which I speak.

The project still feels pretty well grounded politically, and that is what counts, but the NYT reporting the potential opposition is material.

 

[mgarbowski]

My point is that once these arguments (tax breaks for oil sheikhs) get aired or even hinted, they can take on a momentum of their own, regardless of merit or positive externalities. That is the "tricky part" of which I speak.

The project still feels pretty well grounded politically, and that is what counts, but the NYT reporting the potential opposition is material.

i wasn't taking issue with you. I agree this is out there and was inevitably coming. It needs to be dealt with.

 

[ZYanksRule]

What a bullshit article based on a premise that isn't reality.

An article based on the idea that maybe something else will happen at that site, but we have no idea what.

Also NYCFC is paying rent -- and the amount of money lost here is, allegedly, $10M/year. Our rent will peak at $4M/year by the end of this. That's couch change money for a government as big as New York City. The NY Times got played by publishing this hit piece.

 

[Shwafta]

And yet I'm fairly certain most people reading this that aren't us will be like "wow, terrible deal for the city, this sucks" and it's going to be re-posted to things like NY post and what-not.

It's classic "whataboutism" and it's disappointing seeing NYT doing it.

 

[Buckley]

NIMBYS should cry. I sleep.

 

[Kjbert]

Fuck these dummies. If they have a better offer on the table, they would take it.

If you have a solution, go spend your money and improve the site.

 

[ZYanksRule]

One more thing: The NYC budget is over $100 billion. That's billion with a B. Per year. The "opportunity cost" is $10 million/year. What even is this article? Who paid the Times to run it?

 

[moogoo]

One more thing: The NYC budget is over $100 billion. That's billion with a B. Per year. The "opportunity cost" is $10 million/year. What even is this article? Who paid the Times to run it?

RBNJ

 

[Gotham Gator]

Does anyone have an unlocked version of the NY Times article that I can look at.

I dropped my subscription a couple of years back because of slipshod bullshit like this.

 

[Gene]

One more thing: The NYC budget is over $100 billion. That's billion with a B. Per year. The "opportunity cost" is $10 million/year. What even is this article? Who paid the Times to run it?

Rocco and the 19 fanboys who still believe the Deadmos will return and bring MLS to its knees.

 

[Revfugee]

Does anyone have an unlocked version of the NY Times article that I can look at.

I dropped my subscription a couple of years back because of slipshod bullshit like this.

It's not really slipshod reporting. If you read the whole article they give both sides plenty of play. This debate process is inevitable in a climate where most stadium deals suck, so we should be happy this is the Times and not a tabloid leading with the headline "Millions in tax breaks to Soccer Sheikhs"

 

[TheWritingGuyInBlue]

Honestly, not surprised. The New York news media has been rapidly devolving over the past decade and is pretty much a collection of partisan bulldogs and low-brow tabloids. The stadium article is riddled with misinformation and miscalculations, and NYT will either ignore the criticism or double down in the face of it. The comparison to the Bills stadium situation is so asinine, it's almost funny. And then, it becomes less funny when you realize that some ill-informed person with an axe to grind will read it and possibly begin organizing opposition based on this false information.

Most likely, it's just hot air that will dissipate. However, still extremely annoying to see a paper like NYT stoop so low.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I was sent the article - thanks.

A few things to point out. The first pretty important.

• The article's lede summarizes a report. Importantly, the report is from the City's own Independent Budget Office. So, this was not something the reporters did on their own or worked on with an outside expert.
• That the Independent Budget Office has released these figures suggests that there may be an agency within the city that is casting some shade on the project. Hopefully, it is not a sign of bad things to come.
• I went to the Independent Budget Office's website to look at the report, but I couldn't find it. So, what we know about their analysis is only what we see in the article, which may not be accurate or complete. When thinking about the flaws in the analysis or worrying about their criticism, we should keep that in mind. The actual report could be different.
• The headline grabs the report's figure for lost real estate taxes of $516 million. As others have pointed out, the land is being leased, not sold, and tenants pay rent, not taxes. This is a pretty simple, fundamental mistake that the reporters don't even address. Now, if the total rent is a lot less than the total taxes would have been, that's a fair criticism of the structure. But, we can't do a full comparison because the article only gives the rent for the first and last years, while giving an aggregate and NPV for the foregone taxes.
• The article quotes a sports economist from Maryland that the rent "seems pretty low." What kind of analysis he did to come up with that conclusion is anyone's guess. My guess is no analysis.
• The article criticizes the $200-300 million in "infrastructure improvements" the City is performing. As if it is a subsidy to remediate hazardous waste and add utilities - without which nothing could be built there.
• Later in the article, the writers complain about the lack of any Payment In Lieu Of Taxes, or PILOT, an up front payment not uncommon in these types of deals. But they seem to lack the basic understanding that the PILOT is just one of many kinds of ways the City could get income from the property. It's up front money as opposed to rent money that is paid over time. You can have a lot of one, a lot of the other, or a bit of both.
• There is also the absurd comparison of this project with the stadiums for the Yankees, Mets and Bills, where there were large, direct subsidies.

 

[Seth]

And the idea this is comparable to Buffalo is to laugh.

You know, if you think something's pretty ridiculous you might say it's laughable, but when you go all the way to saying "is to laugh" that's just like just hauling back and slapping 'em right in the face LOL

 

[mgarbowski]

You know, if you think something's pretty ridiculous you might say it's laughable, but when you go all the way to saying "is to laugh" that's just like just hauling back and slapping 'em right in the face LOL