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.

Yankee Haters, unite! - Page 2 — Brooklynian

Yankee Haters, unite!

2»

Comments

  • oiseau
    oiseau
    prodigalson wrote: Socialism sucks when it benefits the wealthy. We don't need more of this type. We need less of it.
    I'm talking about payrolls. And I hope you're not a Yankee fan saying this, the Yankees haven't paid taxes in years and look who's building them their new stadium - we are!
  • kaiserkai
    kaiserkai
    Oiseau wrote: [quote=prodigalson]Socialism sucks when it benefits the wealthy. We don't need more of this type. We need less of it.
    I'm talking about payrolls. And I hope you're not a Yankee fan saying this, the Yankees haven't paid taxes in years and look who's building them their new stadium - we are!

    That is not true. The new Stadium is financed entirely by the Yankee organization.

    State and City are building a bunch of parks around it that the Yankees dont pay for though.
  • oiseau
    oiseau
    Rather than the $800 million value affixed to the stadium (which is for only the stadium and not for the parking garages, highway improvements and other items associated with the construction), independent analysts have set the tab for the complete project closer to $1.3 billion. The city's share includes allowing the Yankees to occupy 22 acres of Macombs Dam Park and John Mullaly Park (which is already used for stadium parking on game days), and to build parking garages on those parks. City-funded artificial surface will be placed on top of those parking garages to make up for the lost parkland. The city would retain ownership of the land, but would not charge the Yankees rent or property taxes.

    In addition, the city would foot the bill for acquiring scattered parcels of land near the waterfront, about a half-mile away, and building smaller parks there, even though the project was precipitated by the Yankees' desire to acquire the current parkland. The cost of renovating the existing parkland would be about $25 million; building new parkland will cost $150 million. That cost includes demolition costs for the historic Yankee Stadium, which would be completely torn down. The building's destruction would be paid for entirely by the city and replaced with parkland. The city will also issue tax-exempt bonds for the Yankees' new stadium. The Yankees' would repay those bonds with payments in lieu of taxes; the Yankees have not paid taxes.

    I'd say the people are paying for this one way or another.
  • kaiserkai
    kaiserkai
    The same hold true for any other stadium thats being build.
    The Mets are getting a new place as well also subsidized by the City.
    One can debate about that being right or wrong but you cant pin this on the Yankees alone.

    I for one dont mind some tax dollars spent on this, it adds value (for me) to the city.
  • gradoniv
    gradoniv
    Are the Yankees exempt from the luxury tax while building the new stadium?
  • kaiserkai
    kaiserkai
    I cant find a link currently but they are defenitely getting some breaks on it if not all of it removed.
  • oiseau
    oiseau
    The Yankees getting Luxury Tax breaks? I think he means the Luxury Tax in baseball. No they shouldn't get any breaks. They spend more then any team out there. If anything, they should maybe take a year off while this is being built (give some other teams in the AL east a shot). I guess it kind of suicks to be living near Yankee Stadium, with or without this new stadium being built.
  • kaiserkai
    kaiserkai
    Yeah its the Baseball revenue sharing "luxury tax" that will be removed for teams that finance their own stadium.

    Along with the Yankees, the Mets Dodgers and 1-2 other teams are starting to build their own stadiums starting in '09.

    There will be a LOT less money for the small teams starting in 09.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    kaiserkai wrote: I for one dont mind some tax dollars spent on this, it adds value (for me) to the city.
    By 'adds value' do you mean "your team gets a new stadium"?

    publicly funded stadium projects are a crime. I don't see why these projects aren't entirely funded by the teams. The teams make all the money. The teams retain broadcast rights. The teams own the stadium.

    It has never been conclusively proven that stadiums generate net revenue for the city through jobs or taxes. at best the results are mixed, and yet city after city gives millions or billions so that they can have a precious sports franchise.

    i am the biggest sports fan on earth (redskins, caps, wizards, u of md, dc united, european soccer, etc, etc) but publicly funded stadiums that aren't co-owned by the public are a joke. no one supports these moves except politicians, unions, owners and sports fans. ie a very small percentage of the tax-paying public.
  • oiseau
    oiseau
    kaiserkai wrote: Yeah its the Baseball revenue sharing "luxury tax" that will be removed for teams that finance their own stadium.

    Along with the Yankees, the Mets Dodgers and 1-2 other teams are starting to build their own stadiums starting in '09.

    There will be a LOT less money for the small teams starting in 09.
    I can't believe that, but if it's true baseball will continue to be fugged up and will probably get worse.

    It'll be Yankees and Mets in the World Series forever, which I don't realy care about but having to pay for their victory parades gets to me.
  • kaiserkai
    kaiserkai
    Boygabriel wrote: [quote=kaiserkai]I for one dont mind some tax dollars spent on this, it adds value (for me) to the city.
    By 'adds value' do you mean "your team gets a new stadium"?

    Its a bit more than just that but yes.

    First off, only 20% are publically funded, and those 20% are going into improving the area moreso than building a nice stadium.

    Other teams get the same treatment, so its fair and square. I can see the argument that these projects shouldnt be subsidized but then again there are a lot of things paid by tax dollars that I have 0 interest in I still have to pay the taxes.

    And I would guess the City gets a lot out of these teams (Mets, Yankees) as well, it brings millions of visitors to the city who need hotel rooms, who ride the MTA eat and drink in the city. The construction contracts go to local companies.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    How many people from outside NY do you really think are coming here just to see the Mets or Yankees? Maybe if they're coming here anyway they'll go to a game, but that's not adding to the hotel, MTA or restaurant revenue above what those tourists would be spending anyway.
  • kaiserkai
    kaiserkai
    Hey no argument that this shouldnt be subsidized at all.
    These teams or their owners have enough money.

    But I dont like this being pinned solely on the Yanks, other teams get the exact same treatment.

    I personally dont mind tax dollars going there but I can see how non sports fans can go up in arms over that.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    kaiserkai wrote: But I dont like this being pinned solely on the Yanks, other teams get the exact same treatment.
    I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was criticizing the practice in general, not just with the Yanks. I am opposed to the Ratner deal in part b/c of this (and a million other reasons). I also opposed the West Side Stadium because it's finances were a joke.

    Professional teams threaten to move all the time if the city won't help pay for a new stadium. It's legalized blackmail that benefits millionaires and their private companies. It's an unbelievable commentary on how much American society over-values sports.
  • gradoniv
    gradoniv
    I’d rather not have my tax dollars spent in tax relief or infrastructure for sports stadiums, but the threat to pick up a team and move it somewhere else is an unfortunate possibility. So I can see the city’s logic. Dogers and Giants anyone?
  • whyfi
    whyfi
    GradonIV wrote: I’d rather not have my tax dollars spent in tax relief or infrastructure for sports stadiums, but the threat to pick up a team and move it somewhere else is an unfortunate possibility. So I can see the city’s logic. Dogers and Giants anyone?
    Come on, now - this was back when every frickin' nabe in NYC had a pro baseball team and other large markets were without - it's a little different now.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    GradonIV wrote: I’d rather not have my tax dollars spent in tax relief or infrastructure for sports stadiums, but the threat to pick up a team and move it somewhere else is an unfortunate possibility.
    I'd be prepared to spend tax money on sports relief, in order to get a team to move somewhere far far away.
  • oiseau
    oiseau
    What about the $300 million - $450 million the city and state would kick to build a new hotel and conference center?

    Oh, and guess who may own that?

    The NY Yankees.

    Fuggers. They are the worst of America.
  • gradoniv
    gradoniv
    I'm not defending it, I'm just saying I can see where the city's coming from when Steinbrenner was theatening a move to NJ.
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