This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
March 31, 2011
AEG hasn't actually pledged to repay L.A. stadium bonds
AEG has been touting the success of its Staples Center as precedent for its proposed downtown Los Angeles NFL stadium, but it's not using the arena as a model in at least one way: Unlike in the Staples deal, the company won't sign any guarantees that it will pay off $350 million in public bonds for the stadium deal. Reports Bloomberg News:
Without such assurance, Los Angeles taxpayers may be on the hook if stadium and convention-center proceeds to the city come up short of what's needed for the bonds. Anschutz Entertainment Group President Tim Leiweke has said the company will make up any shortfall servicing municipal debt needed to finance the convention-center portion of the $1.35 billion project.
"With no bank, corporate or municipal insurance, you are possibly looking at the city having to make the payments," Jeffrey Appelbaum, an attorney who specializes in stadium finance at Thompson Hine LLP in Cleveland, said in an interview.
L.A. City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, one of five members appointed Tuesday to look into the stadium plan, says the lack of a bond guarantee is one issue the committee intends to investigate.
Meanwhile, the first scoping meeting for AEG's proposed L.A. NFL stadium induced about 150 Los Angelenos to make public comments on the plan, though the L.A. Times only bothered to report on a couple — the most specific of which was from the owner of a taxi company who likes that the stadium wouldn't have much parking nearby.
Where are all those stadium yahoos who kept saying we won't have to pay for anything? {crickets}
Posted by taxpayerripoffs on March 31, 2011 12:18 PM
taxpayemipoffs,
I think all the yahoos are up here in Santa Clara.
But you can build a stadium for the 49ers down there. Tnx!
Posted by SANTA CLARA JAY on March 31, 2011 05:11 PM
I am actually in favor of the City of Industry site rather than the downtown site on this one, but if taxpayers chip in a few hundred million towards an L.A. football stadium, that will be bad because _____________?
Posted by Ben Miller on March 31, 2011 07:17 PM
Ben,
I'd say it's bad because IMHO supporting NFL football should not be a core government function.
I can be argued that there are more pressing needs...
Posted by SANTA CLARA JAY on March 31, 2011 07:58 PM
if taxpayers chip in a few hundred million towards an L.A. football stadium, that will be bad because _____________?
1. We're currently laying off firefighters, police officers and teachers
2. We can't get simple things like our sidewalks and streets repaired
3. Our city & state government is severely in debt
4. Our core infrastructure items like sewer mains are falling apart
5. We simply can't afford it
Cities also need to be in the business of generating revenue to help pay expenses---
we are laying off police and firefighters because they have a pension system that is unsustainable in its current form...we simply can't afford all of them
my sidewalks are my responsibility to fix..not the city's and my streets are just fine...but if they weren't I would want the city to be looking for ways to generate revenue and not just depending upon my property taxes to manage these costs
if you want to sustain city services than you had better be in the business of growing city revenues and this is one way to do it---
Posted by SanJoseA's on March 31, 2011 09:34 PM
Fair enough. Show me one recently taxpayer funded football stadium which is generating enough revenues to pay its expenses.
Posted by taxpayerripoffs on April 1, 2011 03:57 AM
Why so silent Mr. San Jose A's?
Posted by taxpayerripoffs on April 2, 2011 04:30 AM
Maybe AEG is not financially sound enough to sign guarantees.. In which case it is an even bigger risk to the city and taxpayer. If they had the revenues I bet they wouldn't need the government bonds. The plan sounds risky.
Posted by IWDPLZ on April 2, 2011 04:51 AM
"but if taxpayers chip in a few hundred million towards an L.A. football stadium, that will be bad because _____________?"
Santa Clara's share for Jed York's $937M stadium comes to $444M.
In the first year of operation, he takes home a minimum of ***$135 million*** in television royalties, luxury box and club seating fees.
The city of Santa Clara gets a stinking
*********
$180,000
*********
...into its General Fund.
Any questions?
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
San Jose As writes, "my sidewalks are my responsibility to fix..not the city's and my streets are just fine"
If you really believe that, then get three quotes from concrete contractors when the roots of the magnolia tree out front bust up the pavement in front of your house. If you come in at less than $1,500, I'll be shocked.
Yours tend to be among the most amusing rationalizations I've read that actually advocate massive sport stadium subsidies from literally bankrupt cities - but they're only funny for a few minutes. When you finally get serious:
People such as yourself in Santa Clara make similar arguments - but when the 49ers season ticket marketers call them up to sell seat licenses to them in Jed York's stadium - which they WILL do, by the way - those same stadium boosters are going to say, "Who?? Me ?!?? I only watch the Niners on Channel 5!!"
As for your comment on cities generating revenues, subsidized sports venues are the precise reason why they LOSE those revenues. One look at Hamilton County, Ohio, and the massive subsidies to the Bengals will tell you all that you need to know.
As for the sidewalks - you must be joking, San Jose A's.
Always a pleasure,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org
-=0=-
I'd heard of the city trees recently becoming resident's responsibility in San Jose, but not the sidewalks.
At any rate, it's very uncertain that trying to foist liability for maintaining trees onto residents is at all in the interest of public at large--obviously many trees are not going to be taken care of properly. I can see the same situation with sidewalks if this ever came to pass.
Illusionary cost savings from cutting core city services so that more largess can be bestowed onto a professional sports franchise--is this what SJ A's is seriously advocating?
I respect people like SJ A's if they could just say that "I love professional sports and I don't care what it costs".
Even Jed York has never claimed the stadium will make the city money--he said that subsidizing the 49ers is akin to supporting a fine arts organization.
Posted by santa clara jay on April 3, 2011 02:25 AM