Stadium Discussion

[Ulrich]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that dump of a... I don't know scrap metal recycling company? on 132nd and Lincoln Ave:

View attachment 8559

It's still there on the development renderings:

View attachment 8560

Talk about an eyesore!

Hahaha, that’s hilarious!!!

Maybe the scrap metal site will be used as the mobilization site for the construction crews and materials? Once all is done, it’s developed into additional park space (optimal) or a mid-rise (more likely)? Or the photoshop intern was late for drinks one night and forgot to finish the mashup (most likely)?

 

[JayH]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that dump of a... I don't know scrap metal recycling company? on 132nd and Lincoln Ave:

View attachment 8559

It's still there on the development renderings:

View attachment 8560

Talk about an eyesore!

Or get excited for scrap metal recycled jerseys replacing ocean recycled jerseys.

 

[sammy3469]

I also wonder if they will build a small footbridge directly linking Randalls Island. Then you could have some parking and tailgating there. The closest field is actually a soccer pitch.

View attachment 8558

They are proposing that the ferry would stop at current Randall's Island ferry stop and go to the proposed site.

 

[LionNYC]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that dump of a... I don't know scrap metal recycling company? on 132nd and Lincoln Ave:

View attachment 8559

It's still there on the development renderings:

View attachment 8560

Talk about an eyesore!

Eminent Domain! Eminent Domain!

 

[adam]

YES PLEASE!

Footbridge off randalls direct to the stadium would make a drunken stagger (or sober stroll, if you're into that) to-and-fro so damn amazingly easy for me. Who needs to pay $12 for stadium beer when i could pregame at home and have it hit me as I take my seat.

Although, I don't see how a public bridge between randalls and the stadium would be a part of a deal. I mean there already is a bridge in the area towards manhattan, and if google maps is correct and im not walkin on water, then there appears to be a bridge to the bronx under or along side the RFK. I don't see how another bridge to build and maintain wouldn't be considered a boondoggle. You'd just be giving the naysayers a talking point.

I mean it looks pretty shallow at this point. Maybe wear a sky blue waterproof bib and some wading boots to the match. Or hide a small canoe under the brush somewhere.

 

[sammy3469]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that dump of a... I don't know scrap metal recycling company? on 132nd and Lincoln Ave:

View attachment 8559

It's still there on the development renderings:

View attachment 8560

Talk about an eyesore!

They also have the rail line still there. My guess is this is to keep down costs and to only construct a platform for the stadium.

 

[Ulrich]

Someone explain to me how this proposal involves public financing? I don’t consider not paying property taxes for land you don’t own as public financing. Is there anything else?

As with any construction, there will be tie ins to the underground utilities (water, sewer, electrical), and the city picks that up to the property line. Technically the city is sending money, but they have to provide it for anything that goes there, so not really a subsidy.

The other part of this that the neg-articles fail to mention, is that while there aren’t any property taxes for the city to grab, there will be a few thousand more residents & multiple businesses that’ll be paying income taxes, and sales tax from game-day stadium revenue. Right now, there are trains that pay zilch.

 

[SanBartG]

As with any construction, there will be tie ins to the underground utilities (water, sewer, electrical), and the city picks that up to the property line. Technically the city is sending money, but they have to provide it for anything that goes there, so not really a subsidy.

The other part of this that the neg-articles fail to mention, is that while there aren’t any property taxes for the city to grab, there will be a few thousand more residents & multiple businesses that’ll be paying income taxes, and sales tax from game-day stadium revenue. Right now, there are trains that pay zilch.

So, there is no public financing (we know of) currently tied to this proposal except the city’s fictitious right to property taxes that would remain uncollected? Got that about right?

 

[Rimil]

I mean it looks pretty shallow at this point. Maybe wear a sky blue waterproof bib and some wading boots to the match. Or hide a small canoe under the brush somewhere.

View attachment 8561

mhmm, drunk canoeing sounds like a great idea nothing can go wrong with that.

on the other hand, my step-son could use a job. Maybe he can man the canoe, gypsy cab style.

 

[Ulrich]

So, there is no public financing (we know of) currently tied to this proposal except the city’s fictitious right to property taxes that would remain uncollected? Got that about right?

That we know of.

I could be greatly mistaken, but it’d be hard for the State to select a winner & enter into a contract, with said winner, that also happens to bind the City to providing material support of some nature. I just don’t think it works that way.

 

[snugglefarts]

Hahaha, that’s hilarious!!!

Maybe the scrap metal site will be used as the mobilization site for the construction crews and materials? Once all is done, it’s developed into additional park space (optimal) or a mid-rise (more likely)? Or the photoshop intern was late for drinks one night and forgot to finish the mashup (most likely)?

It's still here in this rendering (red arrow)


I'd also like to point out that our stadiums has ground level retail (green arrow) which means that people will be visiting it year-round. Isn't that nice?

 

[SanBartG]

That we know of.

I could be greatly mistaken, but it’d be hard for the State to select a winner & enter into a contract, with said winner, that also happens to bind the City to providing material support of some nature. I just don’t think it works that way.

Also, because CFG is not purchasing the property, there isn’t really a way to structure any public incentive. You’re not providing any tax abatement because there isn’t a tax to abate to begin with. This may be the one stadium deal that actually works to the public benefit. The city and state aren’t going to lose any revenue they currently have or would be otherwise ENTITLED to but CFG will add an asset that will create significant support for local business and a new field available for a soccer academy populated by local kids.

 

[SanBartG]

It's still here in this rendering (red arrow)

View attachment 8562
I'd also like to point out that our stadiums has ground level retail (green arrow) which means that people will be visiting it year-round. Isn't that nice?

It’s bad! Cause stadiums!

 

[EganSoccerWords]

Someone explain to me how this proposal involves public financing? I don’t consider not paying property taxes for land you don’t own as public financing. Is there anything else?

The argument field of schemes makes is that the lease would not reflect the fair market value if the state straight up sold the land and was able to collect property tax. The state will likely require sometype of payment in lieu of property tax like what Harrison got when they took over RBA.

 

[SanBartG]

The argument field of schemes makes is that the lease would not reflect the fair market value if the state straight up sold the land and was able to collect property tax. The state will likely require sometype of payment in lieu of property tax like what Harrison got when they took over RBA.

I understand what he is trying to argue. It’s just a bad argument. Like saying- you should pay us not what we currently get or what we would ARE entitled to but what we WOULD be entitled to in some alternate universe.

By that logic, why not tax everything according to its best and highest use regardless of whether or not that IS the actual use? Cause it could be, right?

Also- didn’t RBA actually buy the land whereas CFG will not under the current proposal?

Like asking you to pay sales tax for the car or apartment your rent. Cause if you actually paid me for the full value of the thing instead of for the use of the thing which i will continue to own...

I’m not knocking you. Just fleshing out the VV’s absurdity.

 

[Ulrich]

It's still here in this rendering (red arrow)

View attachment 8562
I'd also like to point out that our stadiums has ground level retail (green arrow) which means that people will be visiting it year-round. Isn't that nice?

Most stadiums don’t have street-level amenities that generate foot traffic and revenue because they aren’t in city centers, but this is a rare opportunity to drop one in the middle of the most dense US metropolitan area. This isn’t to say that the other residential project proposals wouldn’t have street-level businesses, but simply residential projects will typically only generate the same foot traffic every day, whereas a stadium will bring in new traffic from other areas of the city, and beyond. 26k additional potential customers every week can take a business from doing ok to doing very well. And those are just the ones on game day. Considering how many foreigners I’ve encountered at matches that want to see Yankee Stadium, NYC soccer, or one of the DPs, I could easily envision soccer-enthusiasts venturing to the neighborhood to check out the stadium (tours?) and do a little shopping/eating while there.

 

[adam]

mhmm, drunk canoeing sounds like a great idea nothing can go wrong with that.

on the other hand, my step-son could use a job. Maybe he can man the canoe, gypsy cab style.

Never mind. You can actually just walk across with some high boots. Damn that’s shallow.

(Again can’t seem to download a photo from phone)

 

[Ulrich]

Never mind. You can actually just walk across with some high boots. Damn that’s shallow.

Wonder if there’s any possibility of filling in that stream of polluted water and outright connecting Randels island to the Bronx? It’d be far easier to get to (the triborough sucks to cue up to during rush hour to endlsure you’re in the proper offramp lane) for the neighborhood and the potential soccer prep school.

 

[FredMertz]

I understand what he is trying to argue. It’s just a bad argument. Like saying- you should pay us not what we currently get or what we would ARE entitled to but what we WOULD be entitled to in some alternate universe.

By that logic, why not tax everything according to its best and highest use regardless of whether or not that IS the actual use? Cause it could be, right?

Also- didn’t RBA actually buy the land whereas CFG will not under the current proposal?

Like asking you to pay sales tax for the car or apartment your rent. Cause if you actually paid me for the full value of the thing instead of for the use of the thing which i will continue to own...

I’m not knocking you. Just fleshing out the VV’s absurdity.

It's really not absurd at all. The land is going to be developed so the opportunity cost of this deal is the best deal you could otherwise get.

And the best deal they could get would be a market price for the land and the corresponding tax revenue stream. The bogey is not whatever they make from the land now from undeveloped labs, because the decision had clearly been made to develop it.

Make if you seem to be sacrificing objectivity at the start of your fandom.

It's a corporate giveaway regardless of whether or not you approve of the final use.

 

[Kjbert]

The author has an ax to grind and he's full of shit. Stop pussyfoooting around the reality. Any development on that site brings revenue to the city.

You can argue as to what the best use is, but he's full if crap. He's picking the wrong fight