It may just be that I wasn't brought up with the experience of US government or sports team relocations etc but there are some bits of this that I just don't buy. OK, sure, I get the argument about the debt repayments not being covered by property tax, though the article neatly sidesteps the issue that if the local authority had had to shell out the additional $65m then it's debt repayments on the higher amount would've been far higher and the fixed rent wouldn't have made up the difference. However, I can't see the other points he makes.
Under the new deal, OCSC have to buy the land outright, so that entails automatic income to the city, and as the landowners it is only right that they have no extra rent prices to pay and that they take over the management (and therefore revenue) of the stadium. The idea that a city legislature should believe it has a right to operate the stadium and take its profits is nonsense. I also don't get the arguments about fears that the team will sell up. Yes, ok, they might just do that, but if they do then tough, deal with it. The city doesn't own the team and can't expect a cash cow which has fallen into their lap to also act like it's in some kind of bondage to them meaning they have an obligation to stay put and keep giving the city that lovely green. Businesses don't work like that. If they want to leave they can, end of story. As the article itself points out, in order to leave they have to either sell the land again (suggesting some kind of beneficial replacement anyway) or swallow the costs of owning two stadia with one mothballed, which is hardly attractive to a sports team.
I don't know. Is it the culture difference here or am I missing something?
A few odd parts of this deal he points out are that the city bears the cost to bring utilities and sewer into the stadium and also pay for costs of environmental remediation (normally covered by property owner). That's shown as a minimum of $18.5mm in costs according to the article. I believe those are the sticking points for the journalist (and would be for me too if I were on the city board). If OCSC paid those costs the city would only have paid the $10.6mm in land acquisition costs. That's $7.4mm profit for the city if they recieved the $18mm purchase price and OCSC paid for all utilities and remediation. Plus his estimated $67,000 pa in tax revenue that we're assuming the city would never have recoeved from another use of the land? That's a much more fair deal and looks like something that would be drawn up in a free market. I'm not going to get political, but these types of "deals" piss me off.