Category: minor-league baseball

Friday roundup: Bengals want $350m in stadium money from Ohio, A’s still insist Vegas stadium is happening for real

access_time personNeil deMause

The spring legislative season is always exhausting, but at least we’re already up to … April 11, is that all that it is? At least we can hope that all the team owners lining up for stadium and arena money have already gotten their bills submitted, though plenty of subsidy demands have emerged this late or later: Today is in fact the second anniversary of the Maryland legislature approving $1.2 billion in public money for renovations for the Baltimore Orioles and Ravens (a number that would eventually grow to an unlimited number depending on how much in taxes comes in) essentially without warning, so it wouldn’t be that much of a shock to see a surprise demand emerge from out of nowhere.

And speak of the devil:

  • Hamilton County and Cincinnati Bengals owners the Brown family have declared that if the state of Ohio is set on giving $600 million in tax money to the Cleveland Browns for a new stadium, it should also give $350 million to the Bengals for renovations. The entire renovation plan would cost $830 million and would include a new scoreboard, suite upgrades, new roof canopy, new seating, and improved walkways, escalators, and elevators — which sounds like a lot for that work, honestly, unless the suite bathrooms would be getting diamond-encrusted faucets — and would presumably include county money as well, though officials didn’t specify how much. “Our lease ends before theirs,” griped Hamilton County commissioner Stephanie Summerow Dumas. “Just wondering why is there so much focus on the Browns.” (Hmm, can’t possibly imagine why.) No word on whether the Bengals owners would tear up that insane state-of-the-art clause in their lease as part of the deal, you would think that would be important to ask, I’m looking at you, Cincinnati Enquirer.
  • Newly appointed West Sacramento Athletics president Marc Badain has declared that the team is still on track for a June groundbreaking for its Las Vegas stadium, blaming “skeptics” and “negativity” for the idea that John Fisher may not be able to find $1.15 billion in construction costs on top of the $600 million he’s set to get from the state of Nevada. “There’s a lot of people that make a living out of questioning the success of sports venues and what they actually do for a community,” said Badain, and while on the one hand I feel seen, I do question his description of this as “making a living,” as well as questioning whether a groundbreaking actually means you’re going to build a stadium given that just about anyone with a few shovels can hold one — whoops, there I go with the skepticism again, Badain sure has me pegged!
  • The Denver city council has some skeptics about spending $70 million for land and infrastructure for a NWSL stadium, with councilmember Sarah Parady saying, “We are facing the collapse of global financial markets. … I think we’re gonna be sitting here in a year [and] we will have paid in our amount of money from our incredibly scarce dollars that we are going to need for so many fundamental needs in the city.” Also concerning is the estimated additional $80 million in property taxes the city would be giving up by agreeing to buy and own the land under the stadium, according to  University of Colorado-Denver economist Geoffrey Propheter, who is not only a local but also the expert in calculating such things.
  • Just a few months after $900 million in tax money was approved for upgrades to the Utah Jazz and Utah Hockey Club‘s Delta Center and the Salt Palace convention center, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s office abruptly expanded the project’s TIF district last Friday to also redirect taxes from two luxury hotels, an apartment tower, and parking facilities on an adjacent block, providing an additional $59 million in tax money kicked back to the developer, according to Propheter. (That developer would be Jazz and Hockey Club owner Ryan Smith — quelle coincidence!) Then on Tuesday the Salt Lake City council unanimously approved creating the embiggened tax district, with councilmember Victoria Petro bemoaning that “we had no options” but adding that “there is no decimal point here that has been taken with anything less than the gravest consideration,” assuming the gravest consideration can be applied in just two work days.
  • “Salt Lake Bees’ new stadium in Daybreak expected to bring economic impacts, growth to local businesses” was the headline on Utah’s ABC4 website on Tuesday, and if you’re wondering “expected by whom?” and your guess was the owner of a single local coffee shop, you’re a winner!
  • Bridgeport, Connecticut now has an idea for how to pay for a $75 million minor-league soccer stadium, and it’s a TIF district, surprise, surprise. Also the full cost would now be $100 million, and would involve additional state money as well, but who can put a price on being one of the umpteen million cities to have a team in one of the nation’s two warring sets of soccer leagues?
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Oregon considers upping MLB expansion stadium ante to $800m, baseball owners twirl mustaches in glee

access_time personNeil deMause

This week’s vibes.

  • An Oregon state senator has introduced a bill to increase the state’s spending on a possible Portland MLB stadium from $150 million to $800 million, provided Portland gets an expansion team whenever MLB next expands. The source would still be funneling player income taxes to pay off stadium bonds, yet another Casino Night–style funding scheme that is both risky and not really free money, for reasons we’ve covered here before. (The increased figure would rely on rising player payrolls since the initial $150 million plan was approved more than 20 years ago.) The $800 million figure is apparently meant to compete with Utah’s proposed $900 million in property tax kickbacks for an MLB stadium in Salt Lake City; expansion city bidding war, activated!
  • Denver’s NWSL franchise is planning to build a 14,500-seat stadium, and “the ownership group is paying for the stadium in its entirety,” according to the Denver Post. Also according to the Denver Post, four paragraphs later, a tax increment financing district is already in place on the team’s proposed stadium site, meaning the team would recoup property taxes worth some number that the Denver Post didn’t deign to mention. The city would also be on the hook for buying $24 million worth of land for the stadium project, but Denver Mayor Mike Johnston says “the city would always own that public space and that could come back to us for repurposing in 50 years from now if the stadium were to move,” so really it’s an investment, see?
  • Will the Tampa Bay Rays draw more fans this season, despite playing in an 11,000-seat minor-league stadium, thanks to now being on the side of the bay where more people with more money live? Doesn’t look like it, based on the fact that opening day is one week away and hasn’t sold out yet. It doesn’t help that Rays management raised average ticket prices by 30% in response to the smaller capacity, which could complicate efforts to use the 2025 season to answer the age-old question, “Is it St. Petersburg, or is it just Florida?“
  • Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne says the financing plan for a new Cleveland Browns stadium would require average ticket prices to rise to $800 over 30 years in order for the math to work, while a Browns spokesperson says this isn’t true, and nobody’s showing their math, that’s no fun! (Yes, this website is predicated on the notion that math is fun. I’m sorry if you’re learning about this late.)
  • A Massachusetts judge heard arguments this week in a lawsuit charging that a new stadium for BOS Nation F.C. (soon to be renamed, finally) violates a state law requiring a two-thirds supermajority of the state legislature to approve any new uses of land taken for conservation purposes. The Boston mayor’s office insists that tearing down a public school stadium and rebuilding it as a pro women’s soccer stadium that public school students would still get to play in is really the same use — cue the Ship of Theseus debates!
  • The Eugene Emeralds are absolutely, positively moving out of Eugene after 70 years, uh, just as soon as they find somewhere else offering to build them a new stadium. Until then, they’ll still be playing in Eugene. But they’re gonna leave, just you watch! Don’t call their bluff, voters who rejected giving them $15 million last May!
Share this post:

Friday roundup: A’s hire ex-Raiders stadium czar, Texans want renovations paid for by somebody

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s been another week, and, yeah, it sure has. Feeling this very strongly this morning, you all go on ahead and read this week’s bullet points while I get my second wind.

  • The Athletics have new Las Vegas stadium renderings (pretty similar to the last batch, only with more entourage) and a new president, Marc Badain, who formerly worked in the same role for the Las Vegas Raiders before abruptly quitting. Badain’s role in getting the Raiders’ stadium built (with $750 million in public money) and the fact that the Nevada legislature is coming back into session this year have people speculating that Badain could be on board to go back to the state for more cash to fill owner John Fisher’s budget hole; there’s no actual evidence that’s in the works that I can tell, but this entire project has been little more than tea-leaf reading for close to two years, why stop now?
  • New Houston Texans president Mike Tomon says he doesn’t want a new stadium, just renovations to the old one. The Houston Business Journal reports: “As far as funding potential renovations to NRG Stadium — which, coupled with projects around NRG Park and maintenance, could cost billions of dollars — Tomon said it’s too early in the process to determine what that would look like.” Lobbying strategy still hazy, ask again later.
  • The A’s and Tampa Bay Rays playing in minor-league stadiums this year are “cautionary tales of what happens when big, complicated challenges are met with half-measures and inaction,” writes ESPN’s Jeff Passan, who apparently missed the parts about how the A’s are in Sacramento because they alienated Oakland officials enough to torpedo talks of a lease extension there and the Rays are in Tampa because a hurricane blew their roof off, and neither of those things would be changed even if local officials hadn’t engaged in “inaction,” which they actually didn’t. Friends don’t let friends read Jeff Passan think pieces, is the lesson here.
  • San Antonio’s “Project Marvel” that would include a new Spurs arena, convention center expansion, and other crap has “tepid” 41-36% support, according to a new poll. The plan could be up for a public referendum as soon as this November, so that undecided 23% should start reading up on the details ASAP.
  • The San Jose Giants have agreed to extend their lease from 2027 through 2050 in exchange for $5 million in public stadium upgrades, and I’m going to go out on a limb and call this not that bad — the Single-A team has even agreed to double its rent payments from $20,000 a year to $40,000, which is next to nothing but not completely nothing. It’ll probably come out next week that San Jose has to turn over development rights to 10,000 acres of land or something in addition, but until then I’m filing this under “could have been so much worse.”
  • Someone wrote in to Cincinnati Enquirer sports columnist Jason Williams to ask if Hamilton County residents could have a re-vote on the tax hike that is paying off the Bengals stadium, and Williams replied, not a bad idea, it could be expanded to help fund a new arena, too. Pretty sure that’s not what the letter writer meant, Jason.
  • There’s actual video of actual cranes doing actual work to build Inter Miami‘s new stadium, maybe this thing will actually open eventually, even if the 2026 target date still seems ambitious. Or it could be the latest fake video, for all we know, hard to trust anything coming out of south Florida these days.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Hamilton County hires guy who negotiated Rays deal for St. Pete to help with Bengals talks, this should go just great

access_time personNeil deMause

This has been a week, but it seems they all are these days. One glint of hope on the horizon: The second annual Sports Economics Conference has been scheduled for the University of Maryland, Baltimore County for April, which means I get to hang out with some of the smartest (and funniest) minds studying stadiums and other aspects of the sports business world, and you get more liveblogs like this.

Until then, the regular weekly news will have to suffice. Let’s open up the ol’ news bag and see what — oh dear oh dear, best to get started right away:

  • I have advocated before for local government to hire professional help in their negotiations with sports team owners over stadium construction and leases, so it’s potentially welcome news that Hamilton County, Ohio has hired David Abrams of Inner Circle Sports to help with its talks with Cincinnati Bengals execs — “potentially” because until now I had never heard of Abrams, or Inner Circle Sports, so it’s hard to say whether he’ll be bringing inside knowledge of how the opposite side of the table operates or just feed them the league line that pouring lots of public money into private projects is good, actually. I do see that Inner Circle was paid $1.25 million to work for St. Petersburg and Pinellas County on their stadium deal with the Tampa Bay Rays, and that couldn’t have turned out worse for the public despite the Rays owner having zero leverage, so maybe let’s hold our applause until we see the results here.
  • A Boston city council vote to block the demolition of White Stadium so it can undergo a $200 million rebuild, $100 million of which would be paid for by the city, mostly for the benefit of BOS Nation F.C., fell one vote short Wednesday when councilor Liz Breadon didn’t show up to the meeting, leaving the council deadlocked at 6-6. One of the “roughly three dozen” people who showed up to protest the stadium plan yesterday called the tie vote a “huge win,” which isn’t really how huge wins work; there’s still a lawsuit in progress that could block the plan, but it’s unclear if it will be heard in time to halt the demolition, which if it progresses would take off the table a cheaper rehab of the existing structure just for high school sports, as opponents are hoping for.
  • Speaking of the NWSL, Denver is getting a franchise! And a new stadium, maybe, the expansion team’s owners say they’re planning one, more details about things like cost and public cost later, don’t worry your pretty heads.
  • The first phase of renovation work on the Milwaukee Brewers‘ stadium that’s costing taxpayers close to $500 million has been approved, and it will include such things as a $10 million “public gathering space,” because there just aren’t enough places to publicly gather at a baseball game. There’s also plans for a future vote to spend $25 million on winterizing the stadium so concerts can be held there in the winter — something that would work a lot better if not for the fact that, as Holy Cross economist Victor Matheson points out, big stadium concert tours take place pretty much exclusively in the summer. See why I’m looking forward to this Baltimore conference? (Side note to newbies: Once you’ve read this site for long enough, you’ll recognize that for the sick burn that it is.)
  • New York Gov. Kathy Hochul watched the start of the Buffalo Bills‘ playoff loss at a Bills sports bar in Albany, because of course she did, and the Times is on it! “I am just going to bury my head in my hands for eight hours straight,” one fan said afterwards, presumably at the game result, but there are lots of other good ways to intepret that.
  • Season tickets to Salt Lake Bees games will jump from $9-18 to $17-47 when the team moves into its new stadium this year, thanks in large part to the team’s stadium capacity going from 15,400 to 8,000, and much of that being made up of luxury sections that can only be purchased on a season basis:
    (Salt Lake Bees) Daybreak Field suite layout.
    Truly, we are not far from that glorious future where sporting events will only have one seat, and it will be sold to the highest bidder.
  • I recently recorded an episode of the great Conversations With Sports Fans podcast, and if you want to hear me talk in great detail about being a New York Mets fan, as well as a sports fan in general in this current era, click that link back earlier in this sentence, you know the one.
Share this post:

St. Pete to Rays: Actually, there’s no deadline for us to fix your stadium roof, read your damn lease

access_time personNeil deMause

If you’re wondering what’s going on with repairs to the Tropicana Field roof, Tampa Bay Rays execs are waiting on the city of St. Petersburg to tell them when work will begin. Team co-president Matt Silverman wrote to city officials on December 30 declaring that a “partial 2026 season in Tropicana Field would present massive logistical and revenue challenge” and “it is therefore critical that the rebuild start in earnest as soon as possible.” City manager Rob Gerdes has now responded, and it looks like Rays management didn’t read their fine print too clearly:

We look forward to cooperating to attempt to achieve the mutual goal of making Tropicana Field suitable for Major League Baseball games by opening day of the 2026 season. However … the Use Agreement requires the City of St. Petersburg to diligently pursue repairs to Tropicana Field, but it does not establish a deadline for completing those repairs.

It’s true! According to the “force majeure” clause in the Rays’ use agreement, the city only needs to begin repairs within three months of damage that has made the building unplayable, which it has done. There’s no set date for it to finish, though — and the only consequence is that for any amount of time the Rays are homeless, their lease gets extended by an equal amount of time, which is surely no skin off the nose of St. Petersburg.

It’s kind of hilarious that Rays owner Stu Sternberg is falling victim to sloppy wording of a stadium agreement, which is usually city lawyers’ signature move. (To be fair, Sternberg didn’t hire the lawyers who wrote up this use agreement, former Rays owner Vince Naimoli did; still, you’d think he and his execs would have at least read it.) With Sternberg and the city still at loggerheads over whether the Rays owner will accept the offer of $1 billion in public money for a new stadium or demand even more, we’ll likely see more of this brinksmanship in the coming weeks and months and … years? There’s nothing stopping the city from dragging its heels for years, honestly. It’ll almost certainly be resolved before then by either negotiations or lawsuit, but it’s still fun to watch in the meantime.

Share this post:

Was the Carolina Panthers’ $650m renovation deal really the worst of 2024? An investimagation

access_time personNeil deMause

The Center for Economic Accountability, a friend of this site, announced its annual “Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year” award for 2024 this week, and the winner was the city of Charlotte, for giving $650 million to Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper for renovations of his team’s stadium. CEA said in a press release that “Charlotte’s Bank of America Stadium deal stood out from the rest of the competition for a combination of factors that included its high cost, lack of transparency, poor returns, questionable economic justifications and the Panthers ownership’s checkered history with subsidized projects.”

There’s certainly a lot to be said for the Panthers deal as a terrible one: The city of Charlotte put up $650 million out of $800 million for renovations to a 28-year-old stadium it didn’t build and doesn’t own, in exchange for Tepper extending his lease for just 15 years and getting to open “good faith” negotiations for a new stadium as early as 2037. Still, it’s worth looking at some of the other contenders from 2024:

All worthy candidates, even if there can be only one winner. The lesson here isn’t that Charlotte is singularly bone-headed when it comes to handing out public money to local billionaires; it’s that siphoning off public money for private profit is a pandemic with no end in sight, and even the less-bad deals would be scandalous in a saner world.

Share this post:

Worcester’s stadium fund is in debt to the city, but that’s not the worst of it

access_time personNeil deMause

The Great Worcester Andy Zimbalist Throwdown was so involved that I ended up writing a whole article about it elsewhere, but it ultimately came down to: Zimbalist, the former stadium subsidy skeptic who had started giving testimony-for-hire on both sides of the issue, insisted that Worcester would recoup its expense on a Red Sox Triple-A stadium via taxes generated by new housing that would spring up around it; and pretty much every other economist said it doesn’t usually work that way. “There’s a list a mile long of cities where it hasn’t worked. And there’s a really short list where it has,” said University of San Francisco economist Nola Agha at the time. “Is this development guaranteed? Is it going to happen regardless of if there’s a stock market crash or interest rates go up?”

So how’s that going, you ask, in the three-plus years since the Worcester stadium opened? Welp:

Following news that tax revenues for the independent Polar Park financing account fell short last fiscal year, with the account owing the city general fund $792,000, city councilors had harsh words Tuesday for a developer who appears to be falling short on his obligations to the ballpark district…

“They’ve gotten away with a lot and they’ve put us as a city in a pretty bad position at this point,” District 2 City Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson said.

The city’s stadium fund is supposed to collect property taxes, sales taxes, and building permit fees from development around the stadium, and use it to repay the city’s $146 million in stadium bonds. (It was supposed to be $106 million at the time Zimbalist endorsed the plan, but overruns happen.) But development has lagged as the result of rising inflation — which was largely thanks to Joe Biden’s sanctions on Russia and Bill Clinton’s deregulation of financial derivatives, if you’re keeping score — to the point where developers are now turning down the offer of tax breaks so they can walk away from properties entirely.

The good news, if Worcester city manager Eric Batista is to be believed, is that “we remain confident that the DIF will return significant funds to the municipality’s coffers as new development occurs and certain tax agreements expire.” The bad news is: Even that wouldn’t necessarily help ensure that Worcester taxpayers don’t lose their shirts on this deal. If some of the new housing construction that eventually arrives would have happened with or without the stadium; or if it cannibalizes housing construction that might have gone elsewhere in the city if not for the stadium; or if the cost of building schools for all those new residents adds more to the city expense budget than the new taxes add to receipts, then this could still be a money pit even if all the buildings around the stadium are eventually built, just like other TIF districts elsewhere.

The question now: Will the Worcester Telegram issue a retraction for the anonymous chamber-of-commerce-penned op-ed it ran last year (without fact-checking) claiming that Worcester will be different, because reasons? Your guess is as good as mine, and you can probably guess what my guess is.

Share this post:

Sacramento to keep grass field for A’s games, leaving only fans to broil in sun

access_time personNeil deMause

Amid much concern about whether baseball players and fans would bake to death once Athletics games are played in sweltering Sacramento starting next season, MLB has announced that the city’s stadium will keep its natural grass for 2025:

“Our shared, primary concern is ensuring the best and safest playing surface for the A’s, River Cats and visiting players. In light of the players’ clear preference for natural grass, and after weighing with the MLBPA the potential risks and benefits of maintaining natural grass versus replacing the playing surface with synthetic turf, all the parties are aligned in moving forward with a natural grass field for Opening Day 2025.”

This makes it sound like the driving force here was the players’ union, which could have filed a grievance over working conditions if it hadn’t been satisfied that Brent Rooker wouldn’t melt into a Brent Rooker–shaped puddle during Sacramento day games on turf. (MLB had previously announced that it would install a “hydration system” to cool the turf, but was never clear about how that would have worked.) To clear that obstacle, MLB seems to have decided it’s cheaper to pay to maintain grass at the stadium, even while the A’s and River Cats both play full schedules that will put a pounding on it.

Who’s going to pay to maintain the grass surface is still an open question, though so was who would have paid for installing turf. River Cats owner Vivek Ranadive has been promised he won’t be stuck with any costs of hosting the A’s, so it looks like this will either be on A’s owner John Fisher’s tab or on the league’s.

A’s fans, meanwhile, will continue to sit in a stadium without even a sun roof, so will likely melt into puddles on their own. They are welcome to file grievances of their own, hahahaha, the Fair Labor Standards Act doesn’t guarantee customers any right to grievances, so be sure to read the fine print on the back of your ticket as to whether you are releasing the A’s from liability in case you die of heatstroke.

Share this post:

Somebody (hint, hint) says Jerry Reinsdorf could sell White Sox to Nashville-linked ownership group

access_time personNeil deMause

The Athletic reported a weird story yesterday, citing “sources briefed on the matter but not authorized to discuss it publicly,” that Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf is discussing selling the team he’s owned since 1981. According to the article, Reinsdorf in “in active discussions” with a group led by former MLB pitcher Dave Stewart and player agent Lonnie Murray.

Why is it weird? For one thing, the 88-year-old Reinsdorf has previously said he planned to hold on to the team as long as he was alive, leaving it to his heirs to figure out what to do with it afterwards. (Though he’s the White Sox principal owner, Reinsdorf reportedly only owns about 19% of the team.) But also, Stewart and Murray almost certainly don’t have anywhere close to the couple billion dollars or so it would take to buy the White Sox; on top of that, they don’t have any particular ties to Chicago, with Stewart previously having helped lead efforts to get an expansion franchise for Nashville.

It’s certainly possible that Stewart and Murray, who would become the first Black majority owners in MLB if they bought a team (and could raise the funds to be the majority owners), figure that buying a team in Chicago would be a faster and more certain route than waiting for the possibility of one in Nashville. Or it’s possible that they have designs on buying the White Sox and moving them to Nashville, though that would seem like an expensive way of going about it, given that Chicago is the nation’s #3 media market and Nashville is #27.

Or, given that this came out of nowhere based on unnamed sources and that Reinsdorf has previously played footsie with Nashville to try to scare up public stadium funding in Chicago and that is literally his signature move, maybe this is Reinsdorf himself leaking news of the sale talks to kickstart talks about his $2 billion Chicago stadium funding demands? There’s no way to be sure without knowing who the Athletic’s Brittany Ghiroli heard this from — even then it might not be possible to know who if anyone directed them to spread the rumor, but at least if we had a name we could make an educated guess. Unnamed sources really are bad for humans and other living things.

Share this post:

San Antonio stadium would displace 381 low-income families, replace their homes with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

access_time personNeil deMause

While plans for a new downtown stadium for the minor-league San Antonio Missions would cost city residents $126 million in tax kickbacks, the more pressing issue as a city council vote approaches this Thursday is the 381 units of affordable housing that would be demolished to make way for the new development, which would also include a hotel and new stores. City officials say there will be replacement apartments as well, but after meeting with project proponents on Sunday, some residents now say they don’t trust the promises and want the council vote delayed:

[James] Boscher and [Brooklyn] Ramos told KSAT on Friday that they didn’t expect to be able to stop the stadium project, but they wanted guaranteed housing in the area at similar rates and money to help move.

Boscher’s opinion shifted after taking part in a Sunday meeting that included [Weston Urban developer] Randy Smith and three city council members. It seemed clear, Boscher told KSAT on Monday, that council members didn’t have enough information and that Weston Urban “didn’t have any actual guarantees.”

Weston Urban owns the Soap Factory apartments, which it says it would tear down in stages, with residents being allowed to move temporarily to other units before those are then demolished, or moved to other housing it owns elsewhere in the city if those are available, or maybe just given “housing navigation” services to find new homes. The stadium wouldn’t actually go on the Soap Factory site — it would be across the street, if I’m reading this map correctly — but the apartments would be torn down to make way for a mixed-use development that could eventually include 1,500 new apartments, or not:

Under terms of the Missions owners’ deal with the city and county, bonds for the ballpark’s construction would be sold only when Weston Urban has its projects for phases 1 and 2 designed and financed.

Those initial phases would add about 575 apartments and between 175 and 200 hotel rooms, Smith said….

More than 1,500 apartments could be built through all four phases.

No guarantees about whether any of that housing would be built, though, or whether it would be available at the same low rents as the current apartments. And really, no explanation of why the Soap Factory buildings need to be torn down rather than built around, other than presumably that Weston Urban doesn’t think low-income neighbors would be as attractive as thousands of new residents meant to “be a massive shot in the arm of existing businesses and small [food and beverage] folks,” as Smith puts it.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg says the new development is necessary in order to generate new tax revenues to pay for the stadium so that taxpayers don’t “end up on the hook” — which only makes sense if you think that tax revenues from new development should go to pay private developers’ costs, something that has not worked out well in the past. Some council members have reportedly expressed concern about tearing down the apartment complex; we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s enough members, or enough concern, to delay Thursday’s vote.

 

Share this post: