« Report: NYC Sports Stadiums, Fashion Venues Researched by Man Eyed in Terror Investigation | Main | State Agency Reaffirms Land Grab »
September 21, 2009
In Lean Times, Miami Pays Most of Cost for New Ballpark
The New York Times
by Ken Belson
The New York Times has to travel all the way down to Miami to report in-depth about the folly of building a new ballpark largely with public money ("ignoring voter dissent and shaky economic forecasts, Miami and Miami-Dade County will help pay for most of a new stadium," the teaser says), while right here in its own backyard, the paper has been far less critical of its development-partner Bruce Ratner's gorging at the public trough.
The push for a new baseball stadium here began the day the Florida Marlins first took the field in 1993. While city after city worked with major league teams around the country to help build nearly two dozen stadiums, the Marlins were left to play — and endure countless rain delays — in a cavernous football stadium in front of thousands of empty orange seats.
Then the recession came along, and the team got what it wanted.
Miami and Miami-Dade County have agreed to cover three-quarters of the projected $645 million cost to build the Marlins a home with a retractable roof and four huge parking garages. In return, the city and the county will receive no new revenue from the park, and the team can keep all the money from the 50 luxury suites, concessions and advertising, as well as from naming rights, which alone could generate more than $100 million.
Three-quarters of $645 million, roughly $484 million, is a whole lot less than the $726 million that New York City's Independent Budget Office estimates the taxpayers will be kicking in for Forest City Ratner's Barclays Center arena.
Such generous terms were not uncommon during good times, before city and county officials faced yawning budget gaps, potential layoffs and cuts in social services. Yet they forged ahead, anyway, largely dismissing voter opposition and the lessons learned elsewhere that new stadiums sometimes fail to deliver the economic punch promised in forecasts and that the public financing for them can handcuff future generations.
The deal was a fresh reminder that even during a recession, sports hold sway over communities regardless of the potential costs.
“Outside of Fidel becoming part owner of the team, nothing would have stopped the deal,” said Carlos A. Gimenez, one of the three Miami-Dade County commissioners who voted against the agreement earlier this year. “I’m not anti-baseball, but I’m anti-bad deal. Anyone with any sense can see this is cockeyed.”
Even The Times.
The economic benefits could also prove illusory, analysts say, because spending at new stadiums often replaces money spent at old ones or comes at the expense of spending at theaters, restaurants and other entertainment sites.
...As the recession has revealed, some conservative forecasts elsewhere proved too optimistic. In 1996, officials in Hamilton County, Ohio, expected their local sales tax revenue to grow 3 percent a year when they agreed to add a half-penny to pay for stadiums for the Cincinnati Reds and the Bengals. Instead, it has since grown 1.6 percent per year on average and fallen nearly 10 percent this year, forcing lawmakers to consider cutting the schools budget.
“Cincinnati is a smaller market, but it underscores that all these projects have risks, and Miami has to understand in the depths of this recession it may take longer to recover than people think,” said Mark Rosentraub, the author of “Major League Losers,” which examined stadium deals nationwide. Rosentraub called Miami’s agreement “reckless.”
NoLandGrab: We bet Rosentraub, or Field of Schemes author, blogger and sports-boondoggle expert Neil deMause, would've told The Times the same thing about Brooklyn's agreement — if only The Times were willing to ask.
Posted by eric at September 21, 2009 3:24 PM