This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Mugging on Carlton! $350,000,000 stolen!! ESDC on the loose! — Brooklynian

Mugging on Carlton! $350,000,000 stolen!! ESDC on the loose!

raulism
edited November -1 in Brooklyn and Beyond
Mugging on St. Marks & Carlton! $700 stolen!!!

Okay, the subject heading is a slight exaggeration. In reality, $350,000,000 is being taken from taxpayers without any oversight, but it didn't happen on Carlton. It's so much more tangible if you can put a place and a comprehensible number on an event. When you start mentioning hundreds of millions, people's eyes glaze over.

Here's some news about the Yankees trying to get an additional couple hundred o' mil ($350,000,000 or $400,000,000? What's $50 million among friends?):
Village Voice wrote: City on Yanks Bond Details: Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later

As promised, state assemblymember Richard Brodsky held a hearing this morning into the Yankees' latest request for $350 million (or so - see below) in city-backed tax-exempt bonds to help pay for extra doodads for their new stadium. The surprise: On the hot seat for the entire three-hour hearing was a single witness, Economic Development Corporation president Seth Pinsky, who at times struggled to come up with detailed responses to the questions posed by an increasingly impatient Brodsky.

Pinsky did explain one mystery right away: The reason no one can agree whether the additional Yankees bonds would total $350 million or $400 million or what is that the team hasn't submitted a formal request to the city, and won't until the Internal Revenue gives its blessing to the deal. "The Yankees have submitted a partially completed draft application to the [Industrial Development Agency] to put their project into the IDA queue," said Pinsky, and city lawyers have begun drawing up the paperwork, but nothing will go forward unless the IRS rescinds proposed rules that would have the effect of making the bonds more expensive. (Pinsky insisted no bond buyers would touch them at any price, effectively making them unusable for sports projects.) Likewise, a new set of bonds for the Mets (estimated by Pinsky at "tens of millions" of dollars) and promised financing for the Nets' Atlantic Yards project are on hold until the IRS comes to a decision.

Even the rough guesstimates in the Yanks' preliminary application, though, were not revealed at today's hearing - Pinsky's office had redacted them in the documents supplied to Brodsky. (At this point, visible steam all but shot out of the assemblymember's ears.) Pinsky insisted that letting on what the Yanks plan to spend their newfound money on could hurt their bargaining position with suppliers - leading Brodsky to snort that if the team wanted to keep the details a secret, CEO Lonn Trost shouldn't have gone bragging about them to reporters.

Other hard figures notably absent include the number of full-time jobs the Yankees have promised to create (numbers thrown around this morning ranged from 16 to 1,000), and what ticket prices will look like at the new stadium - Pinsky confirmed that aside from checking to see that average prices would be high enough to generate significant sales taxes (yet low enough that the Yanks couldn't afford to pay for the stadium on their own), the city didn't concern itself with how much it will cost to get through the turnstiles of the new city-financed venue....
For more, go to
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/07/city_on_yanks_b.php
or, of course, read the AtlanticYardsReport.com

Comments

  • C'mon, Raul, I'd expect better behavior from a well-mannered guy like yourself. Multiple posters (self included) have been the victims of robberies and violent crimes in the past, so using such a headline to garner interest in your post ain't kosher.
  • Fearmongering, preying on people's fears, not good.
  • Preying not praying.
  • It's stunning to me how really important issues are so uninteresting to most people. I have been upset about construction deaths for the last two years, and few people care about that. Massive subsidies to private interests made by unaccountable bureaucrats are not obscure questions. They take money away from cops and schools and street repairs and even national defense.

    Incidentally, I was mugged at gunpoint in 2001 in Boerum Hill. My personal feeling is that I would be safer if we spent more money on cops and less on schemes like the Atlantic Yards.
  • raulism wrote: It's stunning to me how really important issues are so uninteresting to most people. I have been upset about construction deaths for the last two years, and few people care about that. Massive subsidies to private interests made by unaccountable bureaucrats are not obscure questions. They take money away from cops and schools and street repairs and even national defense.

    Incidentally, I was mugged at gunpoint in 2001 in Boerum Hill. My personal feeling is that I would be safer if we spent more money on cops and less on schemes like the Atlantic Yards.
    "It's so much more tangible if you can put a place and a comprehensible number on an event. When you start mentioning hundreds of millions, people's eyes glaze over." <--THIS
  • Subject: Re: Mugging on St. Marks & Carlton! $700 stolen!!!

    raulism wrote: Mugging on St. Marks & Carlton! $700 stolen!!!

    Okay, the subject heading is a slight exaggeration. In reality, $350,000,000 is being taken from taxpayers without any oversight, but it didn't happen on Carlton. It's so much more tangible if you can put a place and a comprehensible number on an event. When you start mentioning hundreds of millions, people's eyes glaze over.
    True, but that means the onus is on you to find a more interesting or compelling way to get your message across, rather than fabricate something to grab attention and then say "Just kidding!"

    Bait-and-switch headlines piss people off. It's not a good way to get folks to read the rest of your message.
  • Okay, I'm guilty of posting a really annoying headline. I just edited it- does this improve it?

    I would like to apologize for pissing people off. Does anyone have recommendations for how it's possible to make these issues more important?
  • raulism wrote: Okay, I'm guilty of posting a really annoying headline. I just edited it- does this improve it?

    I would like to apologize for pissing people off. Does anyone have recommendations for how it's possible to make these issues more important?
    from what i see so far, it seems these people would rather discuss bagels.
  • fivefifths wrote: [quote=raulism]Okay, I'm guilty of posting a really annoying headline. I just edited it- does this improve it?

    I would like to apologize for pissing people off. Does anyone have recommendations for how it's possible to make these issues more important?
    from what i see so far, it seems these people would rather discuss bagels.

    :lol: What, this from the gal that can't stop talking about peeing in public!
    :shock:
  • Mamacita wrote: [quote=fivefifths][quote=raulism]Okay, I'm guilty of posting a really annoying headline. I just edited it- does this improve it?

    I would like to apologize for pissing people off. Does anyone have recommendations for how it's possible to make these issues more important?
    from what i see so far, it seems these people would rather discuss bagels.

    :lol: What, this from the gal that can't stop talking about peeing in public!
    :shock:

    Or the proper spelling of the name of a country.
  • Or we could talk about the issue. :mrgreen:

    OK, I'm not as fluent on big finance as I should be, perhaps someone can help me out if I am reading this wrong. I read "city-backed tax-exempt bonds" - this to me means that the money is NOT coming from the city, unless the Yankees default on them. The city's investment into them is a) they are giving up their taxes on them, and b) they are agreeing to make good on them, should the Yankees belly up. So am I correct in saying that it doesn't look like we are actually talking about $350-400million being bilked from the taxpayers? What am I not understanding right here?
  • The part that you are missing is that by the city putting its credit behind the bonds it is reducing the amount of credit it has access to overall. So instead of issuing bonds to fund say, school construction, it has used that portion of its balance sheet to guarantee the bonds of a private entity. When rating agencies and investors look at the city's books to determine credit worthiness (which has a direct impact on the city's borrowing rate) they take into account these city backed bonds just as if the city issued them on their own to fund necessary projects.

    The fact that the city is doing that is in and of iteself not necessarily a bad thing. It does the same thing for other entities (usually not-for-profits such as hospitals, universities and colleges, etc) that are financing projects that meet particular needs. Plenty of projects that benefit the city including power plants, museums, housing and the like are financed this way.

    The issue really is wheter an entity such as the Yankees, the Mets, or the Nets NEED this kind of financing. While they may be good for the city, they aren't really producing the kind of economic development that would justify the city making this kind of sacrifice. In addition the organizations have enough money, and the ability to generate enough revenue that really means that by getting city funds the owners are simply choosing not to use their own money and resources. Trust that the Steinbriners could borrow or raise $350mm on their own.
Sign In or Register to comment.