Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
The flaw with this argument (and most similar development arguments) is that it has been impossible to prove (or even strongly suggest) that any of the revenue from an entertainment project like this is incremental, rather than just shifted from elsewhere.
You can shit in one hand and wish in the other. Which fills up first?
Your point about opportunity cost is a good one but in the absence of another deal that would provide property tax revenue to the city it’s an academic argument with no practical effect. Ultimately, the city isn’t entitled to the revenue from that site nor is the state obligated to sell to maximize the city revenue. Opportunity cost relates to your actual choices, not the possibility of something that isn’t a choice.
Giving a corporation (the developers) land at a fraction of market value is a corporate giveaway.
And this is a rare case where we have an almost perfect comparable to determine what that market value is.
That perfect comparable didn’t have $100M of upfront costs needed. So it’s not exactly comparable.
Something that is impossible to prove is not necessarily flawed. It’s also impossible to disprove.
But someone paid a shitload of money for the nearly identical, adjacent land. It's not theoretical at all.
What is the benefit to the city of doing a below-market deal with this party vs. an at market deal with some other party?
And why are you all so comfortable with abtriple-digit million dollar subsidy to the royal family of a foreign nation? There's no reason why they couldn't pay full freight.
They are not giving the land. They are renting it out.
The state retains owership AND use of the land. Now instead of the state having the land and zero rent, they have the land plus rent.
This is a good deal for the state and the city is not losing any money it is actually otherwise entitled to.
No independent economic study has shown that stadiums/entertainment development are incremental to overall entertainment spending in a given area.
I cannot price to you that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we have seen enough trials to say with a high degree of certainty that it will.
If the state sold the lot to CFG I would agree. But they aren’t and the state and city are not losing anything they have a right to. The fact that the city doesn’t benefit doesn’t mean they are subsidizing it. It just means they are not realizing a benefit the COULD have had, not thay they WOULD OR SHOULD have.
This is a naive way of looking at it. A 99-year lease is economically a sale.
Instead of having hundreds of millions of dollars and a recurring stream of income, they will have the equivalent of $10 million dollars and no tax income. How is that a good deal?
I understand that, I just think Field of Schemes is comparing apples and oranges.
Those other plots were for market rate apartment buildings with retail and little extra site improvement needed. That's a fairly easy thing to value (though apparently harder to get financing).
This site is for a lease (one thing that gets lost is that the site is already leased by NYDOT to HYRV, so there will never be propert tax assessments; only payment in-lieu of taxes payments) with additional construction needs and with ESD wanting affordable housing while creating an economic engine. That's an entirely different ball of wax in valuing a piece of land. Maybe there are other uses for the site, but without seeing the other proposals, it's impossible to know.
In any case, the land certainly isn't worth on $/acre basis what the plot next door without these restriction is worth.
Those studies relate only to the stadium, but nearly all stadiums are void of street-level amenities accessed by local foot traffic, so this is an outlier of a stadium and those studies aren’t relevant.... they’re looking at game-day revenue and not every-day revenue.
If the state were forfeiting USE of the land- absolutely totally agree. But they aren’t. So the distinction between ownership and rent of the land is meaningful in this case.
Again- it may not be a good deal for the city- but that doesn’t make it a subsidy. They city is not transferring anything of economic value to CFG nor are they foregoing anything they have. right to.
It's not just the lease payments; it's the lease payments plus site improvements plus meeting the conditions required in the RFP/RFEI; all of which have economic value to the state.
How do you just wave away the easement for the freight trains? It’s not a comp when the other site doesn’t have that.
Last edited:
I don't distinguish between the city and state, although wouldn't the city be giving up significant tax revenue if the site were sold?
You think that reduced the value of the land to only $10 million?
Whether a lease or sale, how does the city or the state benefit from a below-market transaction?
It's not the city's choice. The site is owned by New York State Department of Transportation and leased to Harlem River Yard Ventures, Inc.
That’s a tortured argument. The state’s interests in this are not the same as the city’s and so you can’t just use them interchangeably.
The state is getting a good deal. They lose nothing and gain something.
The city isnt Gaining anything that could be possible but they are losing anything either.
Not getting something you could have under a completely different set of circumstances is not a subsidy.
