Octopus Overlords

Now that I have found out that a lot of the costs for Jerry Jones' new palace is going to be paid by the taxpayers (http://www.texasrepublicnews.com/0/1562405/0/35993/" target="_blank) I was just wondering if it is possible now for a sports stadium to be built today without the taxpayers footing the bill. I know why the owners love the deal, they get a new palace and the value of the team increases with no cost to them what a deal! But I was just wondering if anyone could give me an example of a modern sports stadium being built without the public paying for most of it.

Just wondering thx.

I've been following the Florida Marlins new stadium deal (on the old Orange Bowl site) which is just closing now. Much of the funding is from the a tax designed solely to be used for tourism. I think its called a Bed Tax. The rest of it is from bond funding.

The tax payers didn't even pay for half of Comerica Park.

http://detroit1701.org/Comerica.htm" target="_blank

And it is an awesome piece of architecture that is the masthead of the rebuilt theatre district of downtown.

Ford Field on the other hand, is right next door and practically an eyesore and the taxpayers paid for almost the entire thing. As much as Comerica Park was done right, Ford Field was done wrong.

It's funny how that works.

There was a long long long fight over building Comerica Park and how much would be burden to the tax payers. Illitch managed to pull off what Monahan couldn't. I'm guessing because he financed a lot more than Monahan would have which I think has worked out well for him. Illitch owned most of the theatre district already and his building and rejuvenating in the area has been symbiotic for the betterment of the Detroit experience and for the growth of his pocketbook. His biggest asset and his biggest problem is that he's willing put up the money to do things his way. Ford did a crappy job all around. I don't know how much of that is Ford's fault and how much of that was dirty local politics.

Currently Illitch has been fighting local government for years with his continued love and restoration of the area. He's not greasing government palms and they keep fucking with his practically rebuilding the city by himself.

LordMortis wrote:The tax payers didn't even pay for half of Comerica Park.

http://detroit1701.org/Comerica.htm" target="_blank

And it is an awesome piece of architecture that is the masthead of the rebuilt theatre district of downtown.

Ford Field on the other hand, is right next door and practically an eyesore and the taxpayers paid for almost the entire thing. As much as Comerica Park was done right, Ford Field was done wrong.

Personally I'd strike that and reverse it. Comerica Park is nice but relatively bland, and they screwed up on the dimensions of left-center. Ford Field is one of the nicest, most comfortable football stadiums I've been to (though granted that's not very many). It is also unique, with interesting design.

I think owners are being required to foot more of the bill now than they did in the recent past. However I think that thru tax breaks, free land, bed or some type of tourist taxes the public is still paying for more than you would think.

cheeba wrote:Personally I'd strike that and reverse it. Comerica Park is nice but relatively bland, and they screwed up on the dimensions of left-center. Ford Field is one of the nicest, most comfortable football stadiums I've been to (though granted that's not very many). It is also unique, with interesting design.

You're nuts N-V-T-S nuts!

Comerica is pretty. You can watch the game from outside. It has beautiful architecture. It's right on Woodward and you can easily walk to local bars and theatre. Parking surrounds it on all side. (though driving around the area is a huge PITA on around game times.) There's stuff everywhere on the concourse. Seating is way comfortable for stadium. From the outside driving past the Woodward parking it feels like a ballpark should.

Even though practically next door, Ford Field is dreary from the outside. It looks like a giant indoor golf range, except not as interesting. There is nothing on the concourse to speak of. There is no easy way to get to or from it. Even though it's backed up next to 375 you can't get on to or off of 375 from there. Parking for the field is the same as it is for Comerica which means you have to walk to Comerica and then further. Which is not fun in the middle of winter. There are no good places to tail gate probably for upwards of two miles from the stadium, so people do tiny tail gating parties in alley ways on the sides of the roads. I think the Gem is the only thing that immidiately sourround the field of note. Seating was pretty comfy and there is no obstucted view seating anywhere.

What interests you about Ford Field's design?

DCL wrote:Now that I have found out that a lot of the costs for Jerry Jones' new palace is going to be paid by the taxpayers (http://www.texasrepublicnews.com/0/1562405/0/35993/" target="_blank) I was just wondering if it is possible now for a sports stadium to be built today without the taxpayers footing the bill. I know why the owners love the deal, they get a new palace and the value of the team increases with no cost to them what a deal! But I was just wondering if anyone could give me an example of a modern sports stadium being built without the public paying for most of it.

I know that the Redskins stadium (the disgusting monstrosity called FedEx field) was built in 1997 with all private money.

LordMortis wrote: What interests you about Ford Field's design?

The use of the warehouse is obviously unique. The windows letting in the sunlight are nice. It's been a few years since I've been there but it was very comfortable, with wide rows, decent seats, beautiful view screen, etc.

Eightball wrote:I know that the Redskins stadium (the disgusting monstrosity called FedEx field) was built in 1997 with all private money.

The Giants new baseball stadium completed in 2000, AT&T (nee PacBell) Park was the first baseball stadium built with all private funds since Dodger Stadium in 1962, though there were some tax and infrastructure concessions:

When it opened on March 31, 2000, the ballpark was the first Major League park built without public funds since the completion of Dodger Stadium in 1962.[3] However, the Giants did receive a $10 million tax abatement from the city and $80 million for upgrades to the local infrastructure (including a connection to the Muni Metro).[4] The Giants have a 66-year lease on the 12.5-acre (51,000 m2) ballpark site, paying $1.2 million in rent annually to the San Francisco Port Commission.

Evidently none of you guys have ever played any of the SimCity series.

Pyperkub wrote:

Eightball wrote:I know that the Redskins stadium (the disgusting monstrosity called FedEx field) was built in 1997 with all private money.

The Giants new baseball stadium completed in 2000, AT&T (nee PacBell) Park was the first baseball stadium built with all private funds since Dodger Stadium in 1962, though there were some tax and infrastructure concessions:

When it opened on March 31, 2000, the ballpark was the first Major League park built without public funds since the completion of Dodger Stadium in 1962.[3] However, the Giants did receive a $10 million tax abatement from the city and $80 million for upgrades to the local infrastructure (including a connection to the Muni Metro).[4] The Giants have a 66-year lease on the 12.5-acre (51,000 m2) ballpark site, paying $1.2 million in rent annually to the San Francisco Port Commission.

I assumed the city gave them the land....but yes, the monthly bill on the stadium is paid by the Giants....the metro connection is by bus though, not Bart, now that would have been cool.

Why not have the taxpayers pay for it? We pay for everything else anyway. Hell we are giving them the money to give back to us and charge us interest on it in the way of loans via bank bailouts. /end rant

Kraft used only private financing for Gillette stadium. That was after years of trying to get public money for it though. I think he also got some concessions for road improvements around the site. He already owned the land.

Edit: This article says he was the third owner to do it. So Redskins, Pats, and who?

stessier wrote: Edit: This article says he was the third owner to do it. So Redskins, Pats, and who?

Dolphins.

Every so often, L.A. investors will make some noise about building a new football stadium so we can finally attract an NFL team to come here (by moving or expansion, we aren't picky... no Bengals). Nobody seems to want the team in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, and the L.A. Colosseum is only slightly newer than the one in Rome. Maybe four or five years ago we had one group that seemed to come the closest and privately secured most of the $1+ billion it would take to build. Tagliabue, however, insisted that the stadium be 50% funded by state and local governments, which completely killed the deal. With the state economy the way it is, we won't get another shot at making this happen for a loonnngg time. Thanks, Paul.

Oh, well. At least we have a broader range of football games to watch on Sundays (is it September yet?)

Moliere wrote:Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Stadiums

I saw this and some excellent points were made. Government needs to start standing up to extortionist threats...how many owners are going to make good on their threats, especially a threat to move to a secondary market where they might hemorrhage cash? Once a few try and fail, that nonsense will stop.

If city and state governments really want to be astute, the next time they negotiate for other concessions such as parking revenue, they ought to insist on holding the naming rights for the team. Cubs want to threaten to move out of Chicago? Fine, become the Boise Bullocks if you must: you shant be the Cubs any more.

Jeff V wrote: If city and state governments really want to be astute, the next time they negotiate for other concessions such as parking revenue, they ought to insist on holding the naming rights for the team. Cubs want to threaten to move out of Chicago? Fine, become the Boise Bullocks if you must: you shant be the Cubs any more.

Didn't stop Art Modell.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Jeff V wrote: If city and state governments really want to be astute, the next time they negotiate for other concessions such as parking revenue, they ought to insist on holding the naming rights for the team. Cubs want to threaten to move out of Chicago? Fine, become the Boise Bullocks if you must: you shant be the Cubs any more.

Didn't stop Art Modell.

And that's exactly what I had in mind. It didn't take long for the Browns to be reconstituted in Cleveland in all their sucky splendor. Same thing would happen if the Chicago National League Ballclub left for elsewhere but the Chicago Cubs brand stayed here...I doubt Wrigley Field would be vacant for long (or another stadium erected to house those very profitable losers).

LA and Seattle, to name just two, would like to disagree.

stessier wrote:LA and Seattle, to name just two, would like to disagree.

If all the cities collectively gave the leagues the middle finger: a) we'd see how much resolve owners had to devastate their brand for free hand outs and b) there'd be no place willing to build them new stadiums for free wherever the owners were thinking to relocate.

But politicians want to make their constituents happy and if they can do it by spending tax dollars with the constituents blessing, it's a no brainer.

Free stadiums for everyone!

No, there are only so many teams. Someone getting a team means someone else doesn't have one. So not every city that wants one will get one. And there have been stadiums built 100% with private money - Jets/Giants comes to mind.

There's a bit of FB stink about this going on because of the new Red Wings Arena. While I don't agree with the city giving the I's 250 Million, I know why they did. If they didn't you'd see that stadium in Romulus instead of Detroit.

Jeff V wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Jeff V wrote: If city and state governments really want to be astute, the next time they negotiate for other concessions such as parking revenue, they ought to insist on holding the naming rights for the team. Cubs want to threaten to move out of Chicago? Fine, become the Boise Bullocks if you must: you shant be the Cubs any more.

Didn't stop Art Modell.

And that's exactly what I had in mind. It didn't take long for the Browns to be reconstituted in Cleveland in all their sucky splendor. Same thing would happen if the Chicago National League Ballclub left for elsewhere but the Chicago Cubs brand stayed here...I doubt Wrigley Field would be vacant for long (or another stadium erected to house those very profitable losers).

It took the league to step in for the Browns, IIRC. AND they were granted an expansion team. Not going to happen in the MLB if Seattle or Tampa moves. Or Jacksonville or whoever in the NFL.

The Cubs are one of those rare teams where the venue/location is more important than the franchise. Any threat they make to move is transparently idle. Instead they threaten to do dumb stuff to the neighborhood to gain leverage.


And FWIW, they're officially back. The urination zone has once again expanded to our neighborhood. It's like 1998 all over again.

Time for some motion-activated spotlights and dropcams.

Isgrimnur wrote:Time for some motion-activated spotlights and dropcams.

One of our neighbors is a video surveillance installer/vendor business. Their retail window includes a live cam feeding a 36" monitor. They have footage of people watching themselves on the monitor while pissing. Even waving. Not much you can do except watch it and laugh. Maybe upload it.

Start a site for posting them, and get the local media to run some stories on it.

Isgrimnur wrote:Start a site for posting them, and get the local media to run some stories on it.

I'd get way less hits than someone in closer proximity.

It would be a communal site for all of your neighbors. Just think how popular it would make you.

Isgrimnur wrote:It would be a communal site for all of your neighbors. Just think how popular it would make you.

I prefer anonymity, even if it means that the occasional doorway_pissr runs free.

I have some friends really close to Wrigley and they take turns with their neighbors on game day going up and down the street shooing people off their lawns/porches.

stessier wrote:No, there are only so many teams. Someone getting a team means someone else doesn't have one. So not every city that wants one will get one. And there have been stadiums built 100% with private money - Jets/Giants comes to mind.

Yes. There are only so many markets that can support professional teams.

Private stadiums should be the rule, not the exception.

I would rather have any of the Boston-area teams leave than have the state pick up a huge amount of the costs of any new stadium.

GreenGoo wrote:Yes. There are only so many markets that can support professional teams.

Private stadiums should be the rule, not the exception.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11200 ... financials


market shmarket. 6 billion/32 is $187 million a year just from having a team. Then there's the equity of the team. Then you worry about having a market to fill in expenses.

Let's see how much revenue they have to split when they are all operating out of cities like Rochester NY.

My original point was that if the major cities of the US would actually stand up to the extortion, there would be no greener pastures to move a team to. If the study is correct and there is no financial gain (I find that hard to believe, but perhaps costs offset revenue) to having a major team in your city, what's the point to caving?

LordMortis wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Yes. There are only so many markets that can support professional teams.

Private stadiums should be the rule, not the exception.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11200 ... financials


market shmarket. 6 billion/32 is $187 million a year just from having a team. Then there's the equity of the team. Then you worry about having a market to fill in expenses.

According to the article, the Packers made $136M locally in addition to the national revenue from the NFL for a total around $324M. Their expenses were $299M for a profit of around $25M. The biggest single expense item was player salaries of $171M.

El Guapo wrote:I would rather have any of the Boston-area teams leave than have the state pick up a huge amount of the costs of any new stadium.

And you are dead to me.

I always heard Gillette was privately built, but I found records that indicate they got ~$70 million. I'm guessing that was for the roads around the stadium so they can say the stadium was privately financed. I think that's fair too - a place needs infrastructure.

GreenGoo wrote:Let's see how much revenue they have to split when they are all operating out of cities like Rochester NY.

My original point was that if the major cities of the US would actually stand up to the extortion, there would be no greener pastures to move a team to. If the study is correct and there is no financial gain (I find that hard to believe, but perhaps costs offset revenue) to having a major team in your city, what's the point to caving?

Morale. Surprisingly it matters in the real world nearly as much as in Civ.

stessier wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I would rather have any of the Boston-area teams leave than have the state pick up a huge amount of the costs of any new stadium.

And you are dead to me.

I always heard Gillette was privately built, but I found records that indicate they got ~$70 million. I'm guessing that was for the roads around the stadium so they can say the stadium was privately financed. I think that's fair too - a place needs infrastructure.

I'm not a hardliner, so I wouldn't stick to demanding 100% private money, but it should be the overwhelming majority of it (unless the state is getting equity in return, or something like that).

Besides, if the Patriots ever left I would enjoy getting to write jeremiads about their (newly) corrupt, cheating ways.

And honestly, with all the gambling/fantasy/excuse to booze that the NFL generates, they would probably still have huge revenue in small market cities.

I mean over 1/3 of the US to watch New England vs. Seattle in the Super Bowl. Heck, over 1/5th of Canada watched.

stessier wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Let's see how much revenue they have to split when they are all operating out of cities like Rochester NY.

My original point was that if the major cities of the US would actually stand up to the extortion, there would be no greener pastures to move a team to. If the study is correct and there is no financial gain (I find that hard to believe, but perhaps costs offset revenue) to having a major team in your city, what's the point to caving?

Morale. Surprisingly it matters in the real world nearly as much as in Civ.

If it helps, I wrote out "Civilian Happiness? Isn't that a Civ trait?" but then erased it.