Comments on: Those stadiums aren’t free

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:17:20 +0000

GO BACK TO RUSSIA YOU PINKO COMMIE!!!

By: Peedlum

Peedlum — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:58:00 +0000

Nah, I’m just another socialist because I don’t buy into this structure.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:17:55 +0000

Ronald Reagan, is that you?

By: Peedlum

Peedlum — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:07:52 +0000

Isn’t that the theory of supply side economics in action, though? Take government proceeds, give the wealthy economic stimulus and have them employ the poor.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:16:53 +0000

“If I’m part of the city and a sports team — one not really in need of a new stadium and with no viable alternative relocation target — asks for tax breaks, why should I grant them and what do I stand to gain from them?”

Here’s a few things…

1) When issuing bonds, you get to impose stipulations. The most common one is that the work must be performed by businesses within your jurisdiction. By doing so, this creates more jobs within the city and ensures that (most of) the people doing the work are paying income tax to you. Income tax is a far more significant source of revenue than taxes on bond interest, even more so when you have no control over who owns the bonds but can ensure that the workers fall under your jurisdiction.

2) In exchange for receiving rent, NYC was responsible for maintenance on the old stadium. The Yankees are responsible for maintenance of the new stadium. Considering the age of the old stadium, that’s a significant expense.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:01:48 +0000

I’ll vote for you.

By: radnom

radnom — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:40:22 +0000

“What we can’t deny is that, at a time in which the city’s finances are looking rather bleak, the city has given a significant level of money to very wealthy baseball teams, and that’s just not very good government.”

Although I’m generally in agreement here with you, I think it is unfair to cite the current economic climate when the stadiums are just finishing up. These plans/deals were made well in advance before anyone could know what the economic situation would be like in 2-3 years.

By: Ben K.

Ben K. — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:25:53 +0000

It’s a baseball blog; of course I’m going to confine my arguments to sports teams and stadiums. Plus, those are other deals are often struck as incentives. If I’m the CEO of big company about to open a 600-person office in a major urban area and one city is going to offer me better tax breaks than the other, then I go with that urban area, and we both win.

If I’m part of the city and a sports team — one not really in need of a new stadium and with no viable alternative relocation target — asks for tax breaks, why should I grant them and what do I stand to gain from them?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:05:22 +0000

If you don’t think governments should be giving incentives/tax breaks to private corporations, that’s fine, but don’t confine your arguments simply to sports teams and stadiums. Every day there are deals struck to subsidize some aspect of a private project, and most of them go unnoticed. I don’t think that the stadium deal is out of line with what New York has given to other companies to secure significant investments.

By: Russell NY

Russell NY — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:50:40 +0000

I agree. The government should shut down further construction of Citi Field and give the rest of the money to the Yankees. Then sell Citi Field and give the proceeds to the New York citizens. At least this way the Mets will be doing something positive for New Yorkers.