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.

CitiField — Brooklynian

CitiField

Comments

  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Wile I've been a Mets fan since I was a kid, I don' have any particular love for the old Shea Stadium or its name. What bothers me is about $180 million in public money subsidizing the stadium. If letting some company put their name on it meant that less came out of our collective pockets, I'd feel a lot better about it. They should have to disclose the amount, so there's be more public outrage over this corporate handout.
  • escap
    escap
    Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    escap wrote: Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
    Not sure, but do you know of a city anywhere in the U.S. that's actually made back their investment on said stadium?
  • escap
    escap
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=escap]Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
    Not sure, but do you know of a city anywhere in the U.S. that's actually made back their investment on said stadium?

    Those #s are way beyond me. I don't know of any city that hasn't made back its investment, or that has, since I'm not privy to municipal financial statements. However, it is indisputable that the city generates tons and tons of cash from both the Yankees and the Mets. Every ticket sale, food and beverage sale, merchandise sale, paid parking spot, and of course, salary, is taxed. I'd also assume the city gets some money via tax of some sort on the TV contracts, and they also reap tax revenue from gas bought while driving to the stadium, meter parking, train rides to and from, etc. I can't attest as to whether NY can reasonably expect to recoup $180MM, but it doesn't seem so improbably. And I hear Bloomberg is a pretty good business man.

    Incidentally, I'm surprised there's not more commentary on this--I expected some anti-corporate outrage. Perhaps people just don't check this forum.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    escap wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=escap]Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
    Not sure, but do you know of a city anywhere in the U.S. that's actually made back their investment on said stadium?

    Those #s are way beyond me. I don't know of any city that hasn't made back its investment, or that has, since I'm not privy to municipal financial statements. However, it is indisputable that the city generates tons and tons of cash from both the Yankees and the Mets. Every ticket sale, food and beverage sale, merchandise sale, paid parking spot, and of course, salary, is taxed. I'd also assume the city gets some money via tax of some sort on the TV contracts, and they also reap tax revenue from gas bought while driving to the stadium, meter parking, train rides to and from, etc. I can't attest as to whether NY can reasonably expect to recoup $180MM, but it doesn't seem so improbably. And I hear Bloomberg is a pretty good business man.

    Incidentally, I'm surprised there's not more commentary on this--I expected some anti-corporate outrage. Perhaps people just don't check this forum.
    All you say is true. However, the city is already getting all that money from the old stadium. We're not talking about bringing in a new team or anything. Will the city really make enough additional money on the new stadium to justify this outlay of public money?
  • pitu
    pitu
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=escap]Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
    Not sure, but do you know of a city anywhere in the U.S. that's actually made back their investment on said stadium?

    How about Forest Hills, QNS where the US Open is held?
    My understanding is that was done with private money, not subsidized with gov funds . . . mind you , this is a hazy understanding, leftover from some discussion about the west side stadium . . .
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    pitu wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=escap]Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
    Not sure, but do you know of a city anywhere in the U.S. that's actually made back their investment on said stadium?

    How about Forest Hills, QNS where the US Open is held?
    My understanding is that was done with private money, not subsidized with gov funds . . . mind you , this is a hazy understanding, leftover from some discussion about the west side stadium . . .
    That's exactly my point. The city only benefits when it doesn't have some huge outlay of public money that only benefits private interests.
  • whyfi
    whyfi
    Carnivore wrote: All you say is true. However, the city is already getting all that money from the old stadium. We're not talking about bringing in a new team or anything. Will the city really make enough additional money on the new stadium to justify this outlay of public money?
    Never been to the old stadium, but I hear it's a dump - is that accurate? If so, I would image that more casuals (non-fanatics) could be swayed by the new stadium... although its not more regular fan seating that they're after, is it? My understanding is that they're after more money-makin' luxo-suites. Are they going to have more (paid) parking, too?

    Also, if it's a dump, what kinda of life-span would it have if left untouched? What kind of life-span if it were renovated, how much would that cost, and where would the money come from?
  • homeowner
    homeowner
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=escap]Interesting. In theory I don't disagree with you; however, is there actually an example anywhere in the US of a stadium that is not subsidized with public funds?
    Not sure, but do you know of a city anywhere in the U.S. that's actually made back their investment on said stadium?

    I believe that PaeTeck Park is 100% privately financed (just pure stadium though, not sure it includes transportation or infrastructure costs).
  • escap
    escap
    All valid points, and most certainly would agree that the city is too free with taxpayer money, and way too free to incur debt to finance pet projects. No argument there.

    As far as the nitty gritty calculations over the ability of a new facility to attract additional revenues above and beyond the existing ones, the responsibility there lies with the mayor, the comptroller and other public officials who are supposed to be making these calculations in good faith and representing the interests of the we the taxpayers. I imagine state officials (like Hevesi) are involved in these types of estimates as well. If they are qualified men and women who are acting in good faith, I won't second guess them since I don't have the data handy myself. However, to the extent that they are corrupted and acting on behalf of interests other than their constituents, then they are clearly in the wrong. It is certainly hard to get transparency in a case like this, and I'm under no illusions as to the integrity of our city officials (unfortunately). Politicians are in love with jobs-generating construction, often at the expense of future generations who they will no longer be around to answer to.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories