New Calgary Flames arena plan rises from dead, shambles toward new council talks

Looks like this headline may have been slightly premature, as the Calgary city council voted unanimously Wednesday to revive talks on a new Flames arena, whether the Flames owners want to or not:

Council met Wednesday to discuss the collapse of the deal for a new downtown arena, emerging out of an hours-long closed door meeting shortly after 10 p.m. to talk next steps.

Council has also tasked city administration with determining whether there may be other parties interested in partnering with the city. The event centre assessment committee has also been re-established.

The results of that decision are due back before council at the March 8 meeting.

That’s all a bit mysterious, as any “other parties” potentially interested in filling the growing gap in arena funding is presumably going to want something in exchange, which would cost either the city or the Flames and leave everyone right back where they started — but sure, there’s no harm in seeing if you can find a greater fool, all it costs is council and staff time that could be spent on other things.

City Councillor Peter Demong added that the vote gives the council “the time we need to really consider what the future event centre looks like, whether it’s a brand-new building or renovation of the existing building,” so a renovation of the Saddledome is still on the table, too. But so is a new arena! Everything’s on the table! Maybe somebody will see a way of building a new arena for less than $600-million-plus and still make Flames owner N. Murray Edwards happy, or space aliens will land and deliver a $100 million bill to the council on the condition they can watch hockey in an arena with cupholders that fit their pandimensional space drinks, or really anything! There’s nothing more exciting than a blank page — get out your pencils and smell them, Calgary city council!

Share this post:

Bickering over new Flames arena cost is dead, long live bickering over who’ll pay to fix old Flames arena

Two weeks after the Calgary Flames owners walked away from their $600 million arena deal (including about $300 million in public subsidies) over who would pay the last $10 million in cost overruns, the plan has been declared officially dead by city officials:

The apparent fallback plan is for the Flames to remain at the Saddledome, where they have played in 1983. (The arena got an $18 million upgrade courtesy of the city in 1994, after the Flames owners dropped hints that they would move without one.) The Flamesnation fan site helpfully links to a CBC report from 2020 that used a Freedom of Information request to unearth a 2018 engineering report that projected $48 million in needed work over the next decade:

  • Architectural, $33.8 million.

  • Building envelope, $1.7 million.

  • Structural, $3.1 million.

  • Mechanical, $3.5 million.

  • Refrigeration system, $1.7 million.

  • Electrical, $4.9 million.

  • Elevator, $90,000.

Most of that “architectural” work is repair work to the Saddledome’s distinctive saddle-shaped roof, which uses a unique system of concrete panels suspended from cables, making it hard to predict exactly how much work will be needed, since you can’t just go look at how other concrete-cable-suspended roofs have fared at age 39 and up.

As for who’ll pay for it, the CBC noted that the Flames are responsible for paying for building repairs via a maintenance account that’s funded by ticket surcharges. Flamesnation, however, implies that who pays is still up in the air:

So here’s what probably happens next: the two sides will sit down and come up with a plan to determine how extensive the work required for the Saddledome’s extended lifespan will really be. (And how much it will cost.) And then they need to discuss who pays how much of the expected costs.

The Flames have 11 years left on their lease at the Saddledome, so one would think Calgary could just point at that and say, “You agreed to do upkeep, you have the money, you’re only paying us $1 a year in rent, go have fun.” Though it’s always possible that the team and the city will sit down to discuss a lease extension beyond 2033, at which point building upgrades will almost certainly be on the table. It would be nice if somebody would file a Freedom of Information request to get a look at the lease; I can’t immediately tell if you have to be a Canadian to file one (this explainer says you need to be an “interested person”), so maybe some reader or journalist from Alberta would be interested in helping out with this? You know where to find me.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: The perils of just-get-things-done-ism, and a happy zombie apocalypse to all!

One of the special joys of running a web news outlet is the regular stream of emails you receive from people wanting to pay you to run their “articles” (really thinly disguised ads and/or link spam) on your site. I had a whole plan for a year-end roundup of the funniest of those, but various things happened this past week and — anyway, there was only one I really wanted to share with you, and that is this:

Hi Neil,

I noticed you shared an article from CDC.gov when you talked about the zombie apocalypse, here: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/mlb/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim/

We recently published an article about a related topic, basement bunkers and why it isn’t just for wealthy preppers, that I thought might be interesting to your readers.

Followed a week later, when I didn’t respond, by:

Hi Neil,

I wanted to check in and see if you got my note about the zombie apocalypse?

Truly we live in the screwiest of all possible worlds.

On with the last news roundup of 2021, the year that ended up feeling like a repeat:

  • Calgary Herald columnist Rob Breakenridge is usually one of the more level-headed sports commentators — he’s even had me on his radio show — but his column this week falls into the trap of what might be called just-get-things-done-ism, arguing in the wake of the collapse of the Flames arena deal that both the city and the team owners need to “put egos aside and figure out how this can be salvaged.” Sure, if it’s just a matter of egos; if it’s a matter of this being a plan that looked pretty bad for the city and was looking worse and worse for the team as cost overruns piled up, maybe walking away from it is the better part of valor? There’s definitely a trend in urban governance punditry to credit elected officials who “get things done,” whether those things are a good idea or not — and getting things done is a skill, but also sometimes the best deals are the ones you didn’t make.
  • The city of Pawtucket, having lost the Pawtucket Red Sox to Worcester’s $150 million stadium bribe, is looking at replacing the team’s historic stadium with … a new $300 million high school? This would allow the city to sell off the site of one of its existing high schools and possibly repurpose the other as a middle school, so it’s a good lesson about how public assets are fungible, and the state of Rhode Island would reimburse most of the costs, so it’s arguably not a bad deal — still, for that price tag, I hope Pawtucket’s high school students get some crazy fancy cupholders.
  • Doesn’t look like I actually ran a link to the final environmental impact report for the Oakland A’s Howard Terminal stadium proposal, at least not before earlier in this sentence. Reading through that is another thing I didn’t get to do this week, but now that I’ve just finished canceling vacation plans for this month in the face of (waves hands around to indicate the entirety of everything), there should be plenty of time to discuss it here before planned hearings starting on January 19.
  • The Super Bowl is set to be played at the Los Angeles Rams‘ multi-billion-dollar new stadium, and already people are warning of its “notorious parking and traffic problems” and what a mess they could create. It’s tough to be notorious already at barely one year old, but I guess that’s one way of being “unprecedented and unparalleled.”

I could probably scrape up a couple more news items, but sometimes the best news item is the one you never write, right? Happy new year to all, thanks to everyone who threw money in the tip jar or joined this site’s Patreon, and I’ll see everyone back here on Monday.

Share this post:

Flames owner walks away from $300m arena subsidy over $10m in cost overruns

So yeah, if you weren’t up and checking Twitter last night, Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek took to the tweets to announce that the Calgary Flames arena deal had gone and imploded over a matter of $9.7 million in cost overruns:

To briefly recap: The original plan, approved back in 2019 by then-mayor Naheed Nenshi, had the city providing roughly $213 million toward a $550 million arena for Flames owner and billionaire oilman N. Murray Edwards. That rose to $250 million the following year, and to around $300 million this summer, with the city and the team splitting the first $25 million evenly, with taxpayers covering transportation cost overruns and Edwards covering construction cost overruns after that. When an additional $16.1 million in added costs for roads, sidewalks, and solar panels popped up — some of it in a grey area between construction and transportation, since it included sidewalks adjacent to the arena — Gondek proposed splitting them 40/60. At which point the Flames owners said “too rich for our blood” and scuttled the whole thing.

Even if you consider the entire $16.1 million as the city’s responsibility under the original deal, that’s only $9.6 million extra that Gondek asked the team to kick in, so it’s kind of nuts that Edwards and his fellow owners picked this as a hill to die on. The Calgary Sports & Entertainment Corporation, the Flames’ ownership group, later put out a statement pretty much confirming Gondek’s version of events:

It is clear that the City and CSEC have been unable to resolve a number of issues relating to the escalating costs of the Project.

Accordingly, as the City and CSEC have been unable to resolve these issues, CSEC has determined that there is no viable path to complete the Event Centre Project…

The failure of the City and CSEC to find a viable path forward was not based upon simply the “the last dollar” on the table; but rather was based upon the accumulated increase in CSEC’s share of the costs, including the infrastructure and climate costs, the overall risk factors related to the Project and the inability of CSEC and the City to find a path forward that would work for both parties.

That last bit implies that CSEC is really walking away less because of a dispute over $9.6 million than because it budgeted $275 million originally (plus some money in ticket tax surcharges) for its share of the arena, and now that it turns out its price tag would actually be closer to $350 million, it’s not worth it anymore. Which is possible — remember that it’s really hard for arenas to bring in enough new revenue to pay their own construction costs, or even a large chunk of them, plus there’s no telling whether there could be more cost overruns in store thanks in part to the price of pretty much everything going up right now — or it could be that Edwards is just throwing a hissy fit because hell if he’s gonna be the one to pay for his arena costing more than he projected it to be.

As for what happens next, the CSEC statement says the team’s “intentions are to remain in the Scotiabank Saddledome,” which would be great news for those who thought that maybe building a $600 million arena for a wildly profitable NHL team owned by a billionaire wasn’t the most pressing use of tax dollars. On the other hand, if this really is just a squabble over a few million dollars, it’s easy to see both sides coming back to the table and hashing out a new deal, or maybe deciding Flames fans don’t need quite such lavish sidewalks to lounge around on before games.

Finally, since I’m going through old Flames posts, I can’t fail to note this one from a little under two years ago:

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi says he’s not concerned about cost overruns because the Calgary Municipal Land Corp. “is the project manager on that project, they know how to build stuff on budget and on time”; all those who are reassured by this, please raise your hands.

Say it with me now: The only reliable estimate of sports stadium and arena costs is “more.”

Share this post:

Friday roundup: The correct answer to how much a sports stadium will cost a city is “more”

I’m on the road, so actually writing this on Thursday evening. Don’t blame me if there’s breaking news that I’ve missed! Just post a link in comments, we’ll get to it on Monday.

  • The Jacksonville city council approved $60 million for a new Jaguars “football performance center” on Tuesday, which team president Mark Lamping called “a key first step for the stadium of the future.” That’s a clear signal that Jags owner Shad Khan will be delivering more asks for public money to come, which we already knew because he’s said before that he will, but Lamping declared, “We know that in order to make sure we have NFL football here in Northeast Florida for generations to come, which is what Shad is committed to, we know we’re going to have to have a stadium solution,” just in case anyone hadn’t gotten the memo.
  • The St. Paul city council just approved a $209 million tax increment financing district to kick back future property taxes to developers of land around the Minnesota United soccer stadium. Why, yes, that’s the Minnesota United stadium that got $57 million in tax breaks of its own because it was going to generate so much new development by its very existence, why do you ask?
  • The projected Tennessee Smokies stadium cost has gone up from $75 million to $90 million, because reasons. Smokies owner Randy Boyd is still set to be on the hook for only about $10 million of the cost, so that’s $80 million coming from Tennesseans — unless the price goes up again, construction hasn’t even started yet, don’t forget, so there could be additional “more accurate estimates” to come.
  • Nobody’s going to Baltimore Orioles games because the Baltimore Orioles are terrible, and that’s costing the state of Maryland on its cut of ticket sales and other stadium revenues. You could say that taxpayers shouldn’t have to be on the hook for the O’s terrible baseball management, which is true, but you could also say that if the Orioles do well, the taxpayers who built them their stadium should get a cut of the boodle, which is also true, and you can’t have both, so please pick one complaint and stick with it, your call.
  • New Calgary Flames renderings! Calgary Twitter hates ’em! I don’t have many strong feelings about them, though I am wondering what’s the deal with the woman prostrating herself before a five-year-old out on the sidewalk.

That’s enough for now, have a good weekend!

 

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Record-breaking heat brings record-breaking subsidy demands

That was a busy week, considering it’s the middle of August and everybody is supposed to be on vacation (but not to Sicily, probably). In fact, be honest: You’re not even reading this, are you? Or if you are, you’re just scrolling back through old posts in September sometime, catching up on what you missed. If so, can you let me know how it all turned out? That would save me a lot of time, thanks.

  • After the Buffalo News reported that the Bills owners were seeking $1.5 billion in state money, $1.1 billion of it for a new football stadium, and a team spokesperson said the $1.1 billion stadium price tag was “pure fiction,” and then the News said the owners were seeking $1.4 billion, all of it for a new football stadium, now the Associated Press says that the stadium price tag is indeed $1.4 billion, but the taxpayer share is “up for discussion.” I think maybe let’s just go with the technical term for this range of prices, which is “a megabuttload.”
  • The Bridgeport city council, faced with a dispute with the Islanders minor-league team where the city said the team owed it $750,000 in back rent and the team said the city owed it $837,596 for back repairs and maintenance, have compromised on the city spending $28 million on arena upgrades in exchange for a ten-year lease extension. That doesn’t sound like a very good compromise at all, but at least $2.8 million a year as a lease extension price is a hell of a lot better than the $19 million a year Cleveland is considering for the Guardians.
  • Fresh arena renderings for the Calgary Flames! If people being waited on at small outdoor tables doesn’t convince you that Calgary needs to spend $300 million on this thing, I don’t know what will.
  • If you’re wondering what’s happening to the stadium in the cornfield that MLB built for last night’s Game in a Cornfield Inspired By an Old Movie That Apparently Still Needs the Publicity, the bleachers and lights and locker rooms are getting disassembled, but the field itself will stay put and be used by Little League or high school games, maybe, which the field next door already was, but seriously, there’s got to be some synergy here, right? Right?
  • This is a couple of months old, but I missed it at the time: Economist J.C. Bradbury followed up his paper finding that the Atlanta Braves stadium had no measurable impact on sales-tax receipts in Cobb County with one finding that it had no measurable impact on property values. Synergy!
  • Nobody wants to host the Olympics anymore, because it’s too damn expensive. Hey, didn’t I say that already?
  • The Tampa Bay Rays stadium may be built on a burial ground, that would explain a lot, really.
Share this post:

Rejoice, Calgary! Public cost of Flames arena is only rising to $300m or so thanks to design flaws!

The city of Calgary and the owners of the Flames have reached an agreement on how to pay for the $50-60 million in estimated cost overruns on the team’s new arena, and good news, everybody! In what Mayor Naheed Nenshi calls a “huge win for ratepayers,” instead of having to split the first $25 million in cost overruns with the team like the city agreed to do back in 2019, instead the city will split the first $25 million in cost overruns with the team! Yes, that sounds like the exact same thing, but did we mention that all additional overruns will be covered by the team owners? Which was part of the original plan, too, sure, but look, maybe it’ll sound better in raw numbers:

In the just-released documents, the estimated cost for the arena is now $608.5 million. Of that, the city will pay $287.5 million (plus up to $10 million for prep work), while the Flames will pay $321 million.

And that’s it! Oh, except for:

“There are the initial flood and site mediation costs that were already in there that we will be looking at capping at $10 million dollars. CMLC is also, as they would for any developer, doing some utility relocation and so on. That’ll probably be about $4.5 million to $4.8 million,” said Nenshi.

It’s not clear what additional transportation costs will be, though the mayor said he believe them to be minor.

Okay, so that’s $287.5 million, plus $10 million for site prep, plus $4.5 million or so for utility relocation, plus “minor” transportation costs — that’s barely more than $300 million for what was promised to be a $47 million net cost. (To be fair, the city will get some of that back through ticket taxes; to also be fair, it won’t get much of it back.)

As for why the arena is going so far over budget, it’s because of little things like the initial design being entirely wrong and failing to count how many bathrooms would be needed, totally unforeseeable issues, surely:

“It was built on an inverted bowl design which is very, very steep and it may not have worked in that particular piece of land and it would’ve been bad for accessibility. As we got into further design work, we realized there are some other things,” the mayor told reporters Monday.

“For example, there weren’t enough women’s bathrooms and, in fact much to my surprise, the thought was that there may be too many luxury boxes and not enough seats for regular people.”

The Flames owners, for their part, will raise ticket fees on concerts and other non-sports events at the arena from 8% to 9.5% to pay for their increased share, which ultimately comes out of their own pockets because it keeps them from raising ticket face values as much as they would otherwise, so that’s all fine. The city will pay for its increased costs by, um, Nenshi didn’t actually say, but there have got to be some more zoo workers who can be laid off, right?

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Raleigh to pay Hurricanes $81m to stay put, Calgary arena blows budget, plus sports owners’ 70-year-old tax dodge

Hi, all! I’ll be traveling next week to one of the parts of the globe where things happen a bit later in the day (because of time zones, not because everyone sleeps in — but wouldn’t that be a great place?), so anticipate posts to be a bit tardier and possibly more sporadic. I’ll be back in plenty of time for that big Oakland A’s stadium hearing on the 20th, though, so expect a report on that one bright and early. (Unless you live in, say, Europe, in which case you’re already taking an afternoon siesta by the time FoS wakes up, lucky you.)

But enough about living on a spherical planet, let’s get to this week’s news:

  • That five-year lease extension that Carolina Hurricanes owner Tom Dundon supposedly signed more than a year ago actually just got finalized by the state-run Centennial Authority yesterday, and we now have some more details on the terms: In exchange for agreeing to stay put from 2024-29, Dundon, a billionaire subprime auto loan baron who just completed his purchase of 100% of the hockey team, will pay zero rent starting this year, plus will get paid $9 million a year in City of Raleigh and Wake County food and hotel tax money through 2029 to cover both operating costs and arena upgrades. There’s also an out clause in the lease where the ‘Canes owner can pay a termination fee and leave early anyway, starting at $31 million in 2024, and sinking to $3 million in 2028. Authority board member and resume-padding yacht salesman Randy Ramsey worried aloud that “I can see us getting to about 2029 and the Hurricanes, or whomever our partners are at that point, saying the building is dilapidated” and needs to be replaced — and Ramsey was one of the board members voting for the lease extension. This is hardly the first case of a team getting paid to play games in its home arena — it’s practically an annual tradition in, say, Indiana — but it’s still a pretty egregious one, especially since North Carolina taxpayers will end up sending enough money Dundon’s way to pay any relocation fee for him, which isn’t quite what a lease guarantee is supposed to do.
  • The Calgary Flames arena project is now $50-60 million over budget, and the CBC reports that “adjustments are now being made to control the costs, which include interior finishings and parts of the building’s exterior.” That seems like an awful lot of money to try to save just by eliminating some sconces, but more power to them if they can do it without value-engineering the place right out of working for hockey. (In case you’re wondering, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Calgary council to approve more money beyond the $250 million-ish already approved.)
  • ProPublica yesterday ran a long article (the only kind it ever runs) about the special tax dodges that sports team owners use to cut their tax bills, in particular the ability to depreciate the value of your players as if they were machine parts that wear out. (ProPublica, as some of you may know, is currently my day job, but I had no involvement with this story.) This is an old, old dodge in sports circles, having been first invented, as ProPublica notes, by then-Cleveland Indians owner Bill Veeck in the late 1940s; here’s a good Sports Illustrated article about it from 1978. I first read about it in (checks Field of Schemes endnotes, I knew there was a reason we included those) Andrew Zimbalist’s 1992 book Baseball and Billions, and then later talked with sports economist Rod Fort about how he and fellow economist Roger Noll had exposed how then-Milwaukee Brewers owner Bud Selig had assigned 94% of the value of his team to the player contracts he’d bought along with the rest of the Seattle Pilots franchise in 1970, thus allowing him to take almost the entire $10.8 million purchase price as a double-dip deduction — only to be told by a judge, in Fort’s recollection, that “well, that’s a good piece of work, but I can see no reason that Selig’s choice violates the accepted rules of accounting in Major League Baseball.” (ProPublica also didn’t mention that the depreciation tax break only really works when the capital-gains tax rate is lower than the income tax rate, as it is now, or else you end up paying the same taxes anyway when you sell the team, something that helped keep Veeck from ever taking advantage of the tax dodge he concocted — but I think this bullet point has already exceeded its maximum allowable parentheticals, so you’ll have to look that one up yourself.)
  • Tokyo has finally given in to reality and barred spectators from the upcoming Olympics, in the face of a virus surge there. (Japan’s vaccination rate is surprisingly crappy, thanks to slow vaccine approvals and something about not allowing pharmacists to give shots but allowing dentists to.) If there’s good news, it’s that once Japan barred foreign fans from attending, spending billions of dollars to host the Olympics looked like an even worse deal once locals wouldn’t even get tourists’ filthy lucre; though I guess now they’re still spending the money and not getting either filthy lucre or the chance to watch Greco-Roman wrestling in person, so maybe there is no good news at all. (For anybody, anywhere.)
  • Looks like the Reading city council is down with giving $3 million to the Fightin Phils for stadium renovations. Now all they need is $3 million from the county and $7.5 million from the state of Pennsylvania, and they’ll be all set, at least until the next time the Fightin Phils owners — which would be the Philadelphia Phillies owners, who are demanding upgrades as necessary thanks to new MLB rules on minor-league facility minimum standards that they themselves voted to impose — decide their stadium is obsolete because their weight room isn’t roomy enough.
  • The … the Phoenix … Suns are in the NBA Finals, so of course someone’s going to write an article about how great this is for the Arizona economy. Two Arizona economists say so, arguing that people might see images of Phoenix on TV during the finals and decide to move there. Or, you know, decide that Arizona on the fast track to being an uninhabitable hellscape. Definitely one of those two!
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Angels land sale could be illegal, Calgary and Baltimore hold arena talks but won’t tell anyone what they are

So! Much! News! But first, a quick pro tip for Facebook users: If you follow Field of Schemes on Facebook, remember to go to our page and like or otherwise react to a post every once in a while, or else Facebook will not show you Field of Schemes posts, because Facebook. This has been a public service announcement.

And now: News!

  • San Diego’s arena plan isn’t the only one in hot water over the state Surplus Land Act that requires all government land transfers to prioritize affordable housing: The California Department of Housing and Community Development sent a letter to the city of Anaheim on April 28, it has just been discovered by the Los Angeles Times, warning that the city’s cut-rate sale of Angel Stadium land to Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno “may be in violation” of state law. What happens next is super-unclear: The Times’ Bill Shaikin reports that the city could be assessed a fine of 30% of the sale price, which would depend on whether the sale price is considered to be just the $150 million in cash the city is getting or also the $170 million in parks and affordable housing that are being counted as credits toward Moreno’s purchase price. (Yes, Anaheim is claiming that it is meeting affordable-housing requirements by kicking back money to Moreno to build affordable housing. Think on that one for a minute.) The Voice of O.C.’s Spencer Custodio further reports that Anaheim City Attorney Rob Fabela says that the Surplus Land Act doesn’t apply because the city had already entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement before the act was passed — except that the council hadn’t voted to enter exclusive negotiations at that time. There’s also that lawsuit in the works over Anaheim having allegedly illegally negotiated the deal in secret, and yeah, a lot of plot twists could still go down here, do not leave the theater until the credits have finished rolling.
  • The city of Calgary and the owners of the Flames have “paused” construction of a new arena to resolve a “budget difference,” but because the city council discussed the new measures behind closed doors before voting on them in public — never revealing publicly what they were voting on — there’s no way to tell exactly what is going on here. Mayor Naheed Nenshi said that “given materials cost, construction escalation, given some small changes to the program for the event centre, the costs have gone up,” but also that the question is about figuring out “what we want to build here while staying in the context of the previous agreement that the city had made. It’s not about the city pouring in a lot more money.” So that sounds like they’re talking about trimming some of the pricier elements to stay within budget? Where’s my Canadian-to-English (or maybe just politician-to-English) dictionary?
  • Slightly more news this week on the plans to renovate Baltimore’s arena: Tim Leiweke’s Oak View Group and, for some reason, Kevin Durant, would partner on paying for $150 million in renovation costs, in exchange for which they would get mumble mumble something. Presumably Oak View would get to operate the place and collect revenues, but the Baltimore Development Corporation is negotiating this — it’s a theme! — in secret, so who the hell knows what all the details are at this point.
  • NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did his favorite thing this week, warning that one of his league’s teams could move without a new stadium: “This is a really early stage to develop potentially an alternative,” Goodell told radio station 670 The Score on Wednesday regarding the Chicago Bears‘ bid to buy the Arlington Park racetrack site. (If MLB commissioner Rob Manfred knew how to perform this role, maybe poor Dave Kaval could shut his mouth for a moment and stop auditioning to be a supervillain.) Meanwhile, Arlington Heights endorsed a change to zoning that would allow a stadium to be built at the racetrack site, though zoning is the least of the problems when figuring out how to build a potentially $1 billion building. Finally, a recent poll of Chicago-area residents found that two-thirds would like to see the Bears move to the suburbs, though the fact that the poll results appeared in the suburban paper the Daily Herald and that the Herald’s story didn’t include much on methodology — aside from a quip from pollster Collin Corbett that “anyone who answered that they are a Packers fan were excluded, ‘because no one cares what they think,'” — maybe should lead one to take the results with a grain of salt.
  • “There is no agreement to build a new stadium” for the Buffalo Bills, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said this week, adding that he doesn’t see one happening anytime soon. Turns out that report that the Bills owners were ready to build a new stadium in Orchard Park was more a report that the Bills owners had hired Legends Entertainment to try to negotiate a stadium deal, which is many, many steps short of actually having a plan.
  • I keep forgetting to link to some of the good reporting by Ben Becker of Action News Jax on how Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan’s stadium development plans could lead to huge flood-resiliency costs and how economist Victor Matheson said Khan’s projection of new hotel revenues contained “the single most embarrassing line I have seen in an economic impact statement,” so go read those and catch up on what you’ve been missing already!
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Newspapers love stadium propaganda, like really love it, like would marry it if they could

One thing that both cheers and puzzles me is all the comments that surely elected officials are about to start saying no to stadium and arena shakedowns, even as they keep on saying yes. I’m not entirely sure whether it’s a dedication to optimism or a commitment to burn down the system and start anew, but I’ll just say what I’ve been saying in this situation for 20-odd years now: I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.

And now that I’ve put the Neil back in nihilism, on with the news:

  • Two guys in Oregon want to build a Major League Baseball stadium in the Portland suburb or Gresham, and build it entirely out of wood, and I’m sorry, I kind of stopped reading after “iconic all-wood stadium,” but I did see there’s a rendering of people petting dogs and roller blading outside a stadium, because who doesn’t like dogs and roller blading?
  • Sports columnist Mike DiMauro of The Day, which I know is a newspaper in Connecticut but which always just makes me think of this, has written one of those “What’s taking so long to throw public money at a sports project, dagnabit?” columns, complaining of the “tediousness” of inaction on renovating Hartford’s arena, which is “creaky” and “squeaky,” and that the problem is the “fundamental moral outrage” of the “Chorus Of Aggrieved Taxpayers” that is leaving renovations “moving forward with the acceleration of an arthritic snail.” (Snails, of course, are invertebrates, so wouldn’t be affected by arthritis. Lucky snails!) Asks DiMauro, “What other Hartford-area project is of more benefit to a wider range of people than a bustling downtown arena?” Try not to answer all at once.
  • Construction of F.C. Cincinnati‘s new stadium is complete, and the team’s press release includes a photo of it empty that is a bit drab with no lens flare or people pointing at the sky, but makes up for that with some impressively purple prose about such things as how “the back shelving of the club’s bar was inspired by the jaw-dropping five-story stacks of the Old Cincinnati Library. If that’s not worth $97 million in taxpayer money, what is? (Try not to answer all at once.)
  • Still not random enough stadium cheerleading for you? How about a local TV news exclusive video of St. Louis stadium construction workers doing stretches in unison?
  • The Palm Springs Desert Sun reports that Oak View Group wants its proposed $250 million arena in Palm Desert to be powered by solar energy and entirely carbon neutral, but complains it’s being stymied by the local power company, which is … sorry, no room for a comment from the power company, need to leave space for the note about the Desert Sun’s upcoming “informational webinar series” in partnership with Oak View Group about its new arena, something that is no doubt entirely unrelated to the four different OVG execs and architects quoted in the story.
  • The Calgary Flames arena project may require chopping down a 125-year-old elm tree, but it’s okay because someone took a 3D photo of it first.
  • Two Arlington Heights–area state lawmakers say they wouldn’t want to use public funds for a new Chicago Bears stadium in the suburban city, while one says he “probably” would. Given that “no public funds” can be defined pretty much however elected officials like these days, not to mention that no one is actually proposing to build a stadium in Arlington Heights, this maybe seems like a waste of a reporter’s time, but … oh, never mind, they just let the intern whose Twitter bio brags about their “bad sports opinions” write it, it’s all good.
  • And finally, we have the Sacramento Bee’s report that Sacramento Republic FC is showing it’s serious about moving up to MLS by … changing the name of its stadium from one corporation to another? That’s what it says in the team’s press release, anyway, gotta get that right into print, that’s what journalism is all about!
Share this post: