D
dummyrun
Guest
And those were both Bloomberg deals, right? That would explain that part of Patchett's answer.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
And those were both Bloomberg deals, right? That would explain that part of Patchett's answer.
I would assume more the former than the latter, since there was a lot of reasonable condemnation of the subsidies that Bloomberg threw at them (you were correct, dummyrun ) that had very minimal strings attached. But again, the de Blasio administration has already shown they're willing to do similar sweetheart deals for developers if they can show that they've gotten X number of affordable units out of it, so where there's a will...
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.....
Ugh, we're not going to get a stadium until Melinda Katz is Mayor, Francisco Moya is Queens Borough President, and David Villa is the local councilman.
Fuck BdB.
Fuck BdB.
I totally get not subsidizing stadiums. Historically, they have been a drain on the taxpayer. But running utilities to an area that the city has targeted for redevelopment is not only standard but required for redevelopment to occur. No business run by a competent person is going to pay for that because of the moral hazard with other entities that may come after the fact and didn’t pay for the initial costs.
If DeBlasio is actually asking for developers to do this, he is more clueless than I thought... and that was already an extremely low bar... like really low.
How about building the stadium where the Shea stood and then turning the chop shop in to parking lots?
deblasio is a fucking goon...unless it helps the fucking poor he could give two shits less.
D
dummyrun
Guest
In my opinion, some of this has to do with the Yankee Stadium deal. Part of the Yankee deal, also a PILOT deal, was the Bronx Parking Development Company Deal which costs the city millions and allegedly forfeited public land to the bondholders. Plus the Yankees were to set up a Not for Profit called NYS Community Benefit Fund to give back to the community which didn't turn out that great for the community. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/sports/baseball/yankee-stadium-charity.html Furthermore, the Yankees allegedly didn't return all 25 acres of parkland (only 21) at least back in 2017. This admin is dealing with those headaches, so I am guessing that might be the reason he said he is oppose to subsidies. (https://nypost.com/2017/05/08/city-backtracks-on-promise-to-build-affordable-housing-units/
I just hope this Administration doesn't drive this team out of the city.
I just hope this Administration doesn't drive this team out of the city.
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.
Nor am I. But I am vehemently anti-myopic/stupid, ergo vehemently anti DiBlasio. I don’t live in NYC so I generally don’t care but being a STH, I do now for obvious reasons.
Here’s the scary part- DiBlasio is stupid and you can’t fix stupid. If someone wants to view the world as they want it to be and not as it actually is, we can’t change that. My money says no stadium deal until he is gone.
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.
D
dummyrun
Guest
Finally, something Americans of all political stripes can agree on: using public funds to build stadiums for billionaire sports owners is a scam.
It’s like the Olympics or World Cup- the host city or country almost never recovers the money spent. Bad investment.
This part I've always found irrelevant. It comes down to the merit of the project, not the wealth of the owners. What if you abd I got together to own a sports team, would it then be ok to subsidize the venue because we're not billionaires?
Ownership has more than enough money to not have to depend on subsidies any how. Shame on them if they don't consider just footing the bill to make sure this gets built in the best, most potential for growth and success type plot of land sooner than later.
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.
Same goes for stadium deals. When a owner threatens to move a team from a city if they don't get subsidies it is because he is shopping for the right price for his asset which benefits himself but also the home city. If the home city doesn't budge then he will find a city willing to give him the funds. If he gets an offer for 50mm to move from Seattle to Oklahoma why shouldn't he take it right? Hard to gauge whether the 50mm is the actual benefit to the city or he is asking 30mm too much, but still, its his asset and the city gets something of value from it being parked in their municipality. They should reciprocate some funds.
Imagine you had a fantastic house that you built long before anyone else settled in your town and it was the basis for other's investing/building around you. If you could lift off the foundation and take it with you were you to moved, you would be pretty annoyed if the neighborhood said you couldn't take it because they liked it where it was. Okay, so pay me to stay if its a value to you. But they say no. Well I like it too, and I get the final say. Don't you think its a little perverse if they sued to block you from taking your asset?
Now, same situation but pretend the building was build long ago and you acquired it through some estate sale and tried to move it same day. The town revolts because its a staple of community and you have no history in this town. You're like some raider stealing from the community. An outside observer would probably side with the community in blocking the relocation.
Sports teams seem to always get the 2nd treatment in the world of public opinion even if the owner of the club was like the first example and build the franchise from the ground up. Some how he becomes a monster for spending 250mm developing the club from nothing only to ask for something in return. And yea, sometimes they do become monsters by trying to gouge the city for more then its worth, but who can really say where the line of gouging begins? When it comes to arguing over subsidies both side shoot off numbers that conflict. Unless you are really verifying the numbers with your own research in the end you are just going to pick a side based on how you feel towards the club.
Last edited:
