Stories
More Ballpark Lies
By Don Bauder | Published Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009
Text size: A | A | A
E-mail the Editor
The Portland Beavers are a triple-A minor-league baseball team affiliated with the San Diego Padres. The Beavers want taxpayers to kick in bundles of money for a new ballpark — just as the Padres did. The Beavers’ arguments are economically fallacious — just as the Padres’ were. In fact, studies purporting to show that Petco Park greatly boosted San Diego’s economy — not true — are being circulated by corporate-welfare proponents beating the drum for a Beavers subsidy.
Both the Beavers and the Portland Timbers minor-league soccer team are owned by none other than former treasury secretary Hank Paulson (20 percent) and his son Merritt Paulson (80 percent). The teams now play in PGE Park in Portland. But if the Timbers are to ascend to Major League Soccer status, as desired, PGE has to be renovated as a soccer-only stadium. Merritt Paulson wants Portland to cough up $11 million for the transformation. The Beavers would build a new government-subsidized stadium elsewhere in the Portland area. (Is any of this sounding familiar?)
The mayor and some cronies in the suburb of Beaverton, a community of 86,000 just west of Portland, want to build that Beavers stadium, seating 8600. The Paulsons would plunk in only 41 percent, and the rest would fall to taxpayers. The memorandum of understanding indicates that the project would cost $59 million. Supporters claim that residents’ property and utility taxes would go up only $50 a year.
Malarkey, say opponents. First, Beaverton would have to float a general revenue bond that, with interest, would cost $43.5 million over 25 years, says Councilmember Betty Bode, a retired college administrator with a Ph.D. That brings the cost above $100 million. Then, the cost of parking isn’t included in the $59 million. She figures that 1500 spaces would cost around $37.5 million. In claiming the tax bite will be small, proponents are using “phony figures,” says Bode.
Rob Drake, who was Beaverton mayor for four terms (1993–2008), says that even if the number of spaces is cut to 750, parking would still come to $20 million. So the whole package will come to between $120 million and $140 million, “plus half a million in [annual] oversight and maintenance that would come directly from the general fund.” Drake has a home and a rental property and expects to pay an additional $200 a year in taxes if the proposal goes through. Beaverton “is being asked to build a facility billed as a regional facility but being financed by Beaverton taxpayers.” Moreover, the Portland metro area, now 2.2 million strong, is expected to add 1 million in the next two decades or so. “Within a decade, you are likely to see the first ball thrown out for a major-league team. What happens to the Beavers?”
Citizens are already swallowing a major tax increase, says Russell Draper, a former San Diegan who moved to Beaverton five years ago. More than 10 percent of the Beaverton homes are effectively in foreclosure, and unemployment is above 10 percent, he says. “This is not a flush community like Rancho Santa Fe,” says Draper. He is a member of an opponents’ committee named LOVV, standing for Let Our Voters Vote on the corporate-welfare proposal. The Oregonian newspaper denounces the group as “obstructionists.” Heard that before? Beaverton hired a new development director. He had the same post with the Beavers. Sound familiar?
Beaverton residents are being shoveled the same old nonsense: a subsidized ballpark will bring economic development. It just isn’t so, says Roger Noll, emeritus economics professor at Stanford, who has written extensively on the pro sports subsidy racket. Stadiums aren’t a growth engine. They only redistribute wealth in a community — bringing in very little new money. The only big-league ballpark that helps its local neighborhood is the ancient Fenway Park in Boston because it has few concession stands. Fans go to nearby saloons for a beer.
Proponents are claiming that San Diego’s Petco Park is an example of a successful subsidized ballpark. They are not pointing out that the City faces a deficit of more than $200 million in its next fiscal year, department budgets may be cut 27 percent, the infrastructure will rot even more, services will be slashed, and bankruptcy may loom. From an economic-opportunity standpoint, the $300 million-plus subsidy could have been much better spent. “The San Diego ballpark is obviously one of [pro sports’] worst outcomes,” says Stanford’s Noll. “The problem is that these things get sold on the basis of economic return. It is completely bogus. If people think of it as consumption instead of investment,” acknowledging that taxes will soar, and/or services plunge, for the benefit of a few citizens’ pleasure, then they can make informed decisions on how their money will be spent.
The case for economic development arising from a subsidized major-league stadium is almost zero. For a minor-league team, it might be less than that. “Minor-league teams are run by the major-league team. All the minor-league owner does is sell tickets and concessions,” says Noll. He has studied the expected financial return from the proposed Beaverton ballpark: “It’s a terrible return — obviously not worth it,” he says.
One of the propaganda pieces circulating in Beaverton is a 38-page case study done in early 2008 for the Stanford Graduate School of Business. It postulates that the Petco Park project was “a win for all involved — the City, San Diego taxpayers, and the Padres.” It was published before Petco Park attendance plummeted to levels that are 4580 lower per game than the team had in its last three years at Qualcomm. (The team had said it could not survive economically at Qualcomm.) The study was published before the City’s deficit burgeoned, but as early as 2004, the City warned that severe economic woes lay ahead. The troubles besetting condos and hotels in the ballpark district were evident before 2008, and the ballpark was already a drain on City budgets.
The Stanford case study, which former councilmember Bruce Henderson calls “an egregious failure to tell the truth,” completely missed some key points and distorted others. For example, the study doesn’t look skeptically at the City’s claim that the project would pay for itself from transient-occupancy-tax revenues. But hotels that were promised weren’t built, and those that were built are doing poorly, as are the condos. Retail and office buildings never got out of the ground. “The project went from purportedly revenue-neutral to a fiscal disaster for the City.” The study claims that $4.5 billion of development in the ballpark district was positive for the City. “It may have been positive for developers and landowners,” but the City had huge costs such as infrastructure, police, and fire protection that aren’t accounted for. The study gave short shrift to the scandal about then–Padres owner John Moores heaping financial favors on then-councilmember Valerie Stallings and didn’t report that in 2002, the mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on City Finances soft-pedaled pension woes because the ballpark bonds were going to market.
The Stanford study neglects the key question in any sports-welfare project: “The $300 million subsidy is social capital. Could it have been spent elsewhere?” asks Henderson, suggesting underground zoo parking and infrastructure.
David Hoyt, who wrote the Stanford report, says he has no plans to update it. The change in San Diego’s economic circumstances can be introduced in class discussions. It’s up to Beaverton citizens to decide if it is relevant to the Beavers’ situation.
Another piece of propaganda is a purported study by Los Angeles–based Economics Research Associates, which was paid for, of course, by the Paulsons. This firm, which was hired by the City of San Diego to tout the convention center expansion, tells Beaverton that the new ballpark will have an annual economic impact of more than $23 million. But Economics Research Associates reports only gross numbers, not net numbers, chuckles Noll. The firm doesn’t take costs into account and doesn’t report that any money spent at a ballpark is money that won’t be spent elsewhere in the region. “These reports are very carefully written so no one can accuse them of lying,” says Noll. “It’s the advocates’ misuse of those studies that is not kosher.”
Actually, nothing is kosher in Beaverton.
What's wrong with looking only at the top line? Many retailers look there, explaining why they are always having sales of marked-down merchandise. Keeps the stores busy. Profit? Do you want everything? Some of the successful retailers who did that are Mervyn's, Circuit City, CompUSA, Linens and Things, Montgomery Ward and May Department Stores (operating Robinsons-May here.)
There is an old concept in law that says anyting intended to deceive is a lie, regardless of its exact form. Consultants who sell themselves like whores to their clients are plentiful. Not a few of the old line firms that actually had some integrity have decided to use their reputations to further their clients nafarious ends. They can do that for a few years before it catches up with them. Doubt that? Just look at the consulting divisions of the national audit firms, and those firms themselves, and you will see what I mean.
By Visduh 1:46 p.m., Oct 28, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #1: What ERA does is not the same as touting the top line and ignoring the bottom line. The firm gives clients a so-called statistical justification for what they want taxpayers to subsidize -- whether it's a pro sports stadium, a convention center, whatever. ERA does this by stating that the facility will generate X number of dollars of a period of time. But that's gross. They don't take into account expenses, the substitution effect, etc. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:36 p.m., Oct 28, 2009 > Report it
Economics Research Associates gave a residual land value analysis report at the last Grantville Stakeholders Committee meeting. Residual land value is the economic value of a property for the property’s owner, i.e. the current income generated from the current leases, compared to the return to the owner after redevelopment. The ERA analysis concluded that redeveloping Grantville from commercial/light industrial to urban mixed-use is only feasible near the San Diego River and near the Grantville trolley stop. To reach this conclusion, they assumed the current properties would be replaced by high rises and that the units in these high rises would sell or rent for essentially the same price as similar units downtown. The obvious conclusion is that it does not make economic sense to redevelop Grantville. The developers and real estate agents in the room, however, tried to spin this as good news and were still eager to redevelop. Evidently, they have no problem speculating with public money backed by tax increment.
By Brian_T_Peterson_DVM 6:17 a.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #3: You have put your finger on the reigning mentality of San Diego. The real estate development industry, which runs both city and county governments, will spin any data to make the case that development is essential to San Diego's well-being, when in fact it is essential to their own well-being. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:27 a.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Additional comment to post #3 - The residual land analysis report for Grantville from Economics Research Associates did not even mention the almost 32 million dollars that will be siphoned away from Grantville to downtown unless GAG wins it's lawsuit to stop this fiasco. Spinning data is bad enough, but to completely ignore it? If they ignored that little piece of information, there's no telling what else is not in that report. You can help GAG fight the insane money transfer by donating to their lawsuit at www.GrantvilleActionGroup.com.
Great article, Don. Your post #4 says it beautifully. I hope Portland is smart enough to see San Diego as a cautionary tale. Hey Portland, wake up! Don't fall for the fantasy and end up with our nightmare.
By Linda_J_Wilson 11:31 a.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #5: I haven't followed the lawsuit, but I would be concerned: the establishment not only runs the pols, it has inordinate influence over the courts. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:43 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
What readers in San Diego may find interesting is that almost none of the issues raised by Don Bauder has been reported on in Portland's mainstream print and television media. Even Portland's Pulitzer Prize-winning alternative weekly, the Willamette Week, won't touch this story. Political sex scandals get reported (which is how they got their Pulitzer), but real news doesn't. So, thank you, Don Bauder. And there's much more to this story than the mess in Beaverton.
In Portland, the plan is to renovate PGE Park for Major League Soccer, even though the MLS "Venue Design Guide" clearly indicates that PGE Park can't meet -- or even come close to meeting -- the minimum MLS requirements for restrooms, seating, and food concession stands. This document is dated September 1, 2008, but it was never made public prior to the city council voting to approve the project in March. In fact, it wasn't made public until September, 2009, and now MLS officials and city officials are claiming that somehow these requirements aren't applicable to PGE Park, and are now, all of a sudden, in the process of being "revised." You'd think something like that would get media attention in Portland, but it hasn't.
In some ways, the situation is actually comical. Over half of PGE Park's seats are bench-style seats, which allocate only 18" per seat location, while the average adult measures 21" wide at the shoulders. That's not a problem now, because the minor league soccer team rarely draws more than 50% of capacity. But with MLS expected to draw crowds at or near capacity, for every seven tickets sold, only six people would actually fit, on average, in any given row with bench-style seats. I brought this to the attention of an editor at the Oregonian, Portland's major daily, and she replied that their reporter had checked out my "baseless accusation" and found nothing amiss.
By peterapanel 8:14 a.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #7: Very, very interesting. First, it is a surprise that a city known for its quality-of-life emphasis is so blind to a ripoff. I didn't know the Portland area media were so establishment-kept. It's very important that PGE Park can't meet Major League Soccer standards, because that means that the corporate welfare mendicants will be begging for more. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:22 a.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
As I recall OR does not have a sales tax, so they will have to do the deal on property taxes-but property owners are much more intelligent than the average taxpayer-and they won't fall for this.
They will organize and put this scam to rest. The days of the corporate welfare stadiums are over IMO.
Why don't these clowsn do what the New England pAtriots did-PAY for their OWN stadium.
No more of this poor people pay the expenses while the rich people take the profits.
By SurfPuppy619 12:15 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Note: PAULSON PULLS OUT OF BEAVERTON NEGOTIATIONS FOR NOW. Merritt Paulson, who owns 80% of the Portland Beavers, today (Oct. 30) pulled out of negotiations with the City of Beaverton. "It is with sadness that I am writing to inform you of my decision to suspend planning and negotiations with the city on a new stadium," Paulson wrote. Reason: "After more than three months of effort, there is no stadium location under city control and the city's timeframe for making a firm financial commitment is months off. This makes it impossible to meet the timelines required to start groundbreaking in time to play the 2011 season at the new stadium." However, Paulson said that he remains "open to future conversations with and proposals from city leaders should you identify a suitable stadium site." Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:09 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #9: The New England Patriots adventure was a study in intelligent government. The Kraft family, owners of the team, tried every angle with local and state government officials to get a massive subsidy. But they wouldn't budge. The Krafts threatened to move the team to Hartford, Connecticut. It is the 45th largest market in the U.S. with only 1.2 million population. Incomes are not high. The idea was a joke. The governments held firm and the Krafts built their own stadium, although governments picked up the infrastructure tab. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:17 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
response to #11
Don, the Patriots didn't threaten to move the team. Connecticut made an offer and Kraft actually signed an agreement Connecticut and work was being done on the site. It was formally announced that the Pats were moving. The Patriots also submitted an application NFL for permission to move to Hartford.
There were delays in prepping the site for construction, because of environmental cleanup problems I think, which threatened to push back the complettion date past 2002. At some point the Mass. legislature offered kick in $72 million in infrastructure costs, but the Patriots pay back $1 million a year for 25 years, and the NFL offered to kick in another $150 million from its stadium construction fund. So he didn't actually pay for it all himself.
Kraft had a option to back out of the agreement by a certain date and when Ct. couldn't get it together and Mass came calling, he took the out. I think he ended up having to pay the state of Ct. about $3 million as a result.
By gardenparty 3:08 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #12: That is a threat to move the team if I have ever seen one. These "subsidize me or I leave town" scams are made to appear like the scammer is being courted by another city and didn't initiate the suggestion. Don't kid yourself: the wooing city gets plenty of preliminary support, and probably the original plan, from the scammer. That happens behind closed doors. Kraft didn't pay for all of the Mass. stadium himself, yes, but he paid for most of it. The lesson is that if a municipality and/or state doesn't cave in, the team will build the facility itself, possibly even without major infrastructural help from government. Now, to be sure, that strategy is more likely to work in a big market like Boston than a small market like San Diego. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:08 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
response to #12:
So what you are saying Don, is that Kraft was running a scam all along. That he never intended to move the team at all? Am I correct in my assessment ?
By gardenparty 4:35 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
At some point the Mass. legislature offered kick in $72 million in infrastructure costs, but the Patriots pay back $1 million a year for 25 years, and the NFL offered to kick in another $150 million from its stadium construction fund. So he didn't actually pay for it all himself.
By gardenparty
================================
See, the NFL, the "non profit" NFL, has the money to put into the stadium deals if they are FORCED to.
And to be honest, if a $500 million stadium gets built with 85% coming from the NFL/team then $75 million in infrastructure is not that hard to swallow-especially if the team is going to kick in $1 million per year to pay those costs back-that is a deal I could get behind (and I am very anti corporate welfare). I WISH San Diego had with the Chargers.
By SurfPuppy619 4:56 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
So what you are saying Don, is that Kraft was running a scam all along.
By gardenparty
===============================
GP, that is the standard protocall/MO of every pro sports team in America that wants a new stadium-threaten to move if the host city doesn't cough over half a billion greenbacks.
Al Davis is the one that started this scam-and he did move-and it has worked like clockwork pretty much ever since.
I would almost certainly go with Don's version that it was a shake down threat. But like Al Davis, he may have gone through with it if the delays you talk about did not come about.
I dont knwo that much about the deal, so my comments are just guestimates.
By SurfPuppy619 5 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
So, Paulson, increasingly recognized as the Goldman guy who trashed the rest of the economy to prop up his own profits and help his friends at the expense of the rest of the world, has a son who is equally venal.
Using the sports subsidy scam, this scion of a spider is stinging Portland, and he won't stop until his victim is sucked dry.
Just like San Diego, the local media is complicit in the theft, deliberately ignoring the opposition to this bad deal.
Don, I do wonder when Americans will get fed up enough to drive stakes in the hearts of these vampires?
Similarly the firms that lie for a living, like Economic Research Associates, intentionally giving the public false information with the sole purpose of selling a flawed policy that benefits their paymasters...companies like Economic Research Associates should be disgraced and shamed.
Instead they get fat contracts from not just the filthy Paulsons but our own Mayor Sanders, who then uses this FALSE data to sell the convention center AND the horrendous Grantville redevelopment fraud.
Anyone else reaching for the tar, feathers, and pitchforks?
America has been robbed by the bankers. Fraudsters like John Moores, corrupt political hacks like Jim Madaffer and Jerry Sanders, self-dealing staffers like Jack McGrory...they all use positions of public trust to rape our country.
Do they think they can get away with this forever and never face an outraged mob looking for bloody vengeance.
I tremble for the future of my country.
By Fred_Williams 9:36 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #14: Precisely. Kraft is intelligent enough to know that Hartford could not support an NFL team. It was a head fake to try to get corporate welfare. These threats to move teams almost always are extortion. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:07 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #15: The NFL will help subsidize new stadiums in big TV markets like Boston. And -- sorry to say, Chargers fans -- Los Angeles. San Diego can forget it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:10 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #16: The threat to move is used everywhere in every sport. It is part of the stadium scam playbook that the leagues provide owners. The Padres used it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:14 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #17: Fred, we've missed you. Your trenchant analyses are essential to this blog. I know you are contributing to other Reader blogs. But come and share your wisdom with us more often. Please. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:16 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Thank you Don. I wrote some comments on your articles recently...and deleted them at the last moment because they were just too angry.
It's really frustrating watching what's going on in the world today. I'm worried about the future.
The fat-cat shenanigans are only the most pointed examples of what's wrong. I fear that American prestige, capability, and relevance is dropping like a stone and taking down a lot of good with it.
I'm afraid America is in for the same kind of humiliating reassessment of its place in the world that Russia faced not long ago. It won't be pretty.
What does one do? Rail at the injustice of our world, or retreat into a Voltairean garden? It's awfully tempting to resign myself to the inevitable and just ignore the evil around us. Certainly it would be healthier.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 10:32 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
response to 16,18
In this case, I find that I must disagree completely. The Hartford deal was at the time one of the richest stadium deals any sports team owner had negotiated. In addition to Ct. building him a $350-million stadium in Hartford, Kraft was guaranteed up to $17.5 million a year in sales of luxury seats, he got to keep all stadium profits without paying any rent and Ct. even was going to pay the insurance for the complex.
I find it hard to believe Kraft was running a scam on the state of Mass. in which he would give all of this up in exchange for paying to build the stadium himself instead. No construction costs, guaranteed money over the course of a 30 yr lease vs spending $150-200 million of his own money.
We've been to the Boston area numerous times in the last 15 yrs or so to visit family, and I've never read or been told anything other than the move was a serious deal. And I don't really see the corporate welfare Don's talking about since he paid for most of it himself.
It's just my opinion, but in this case Don, I believe you to be incorrect in your assertions.
By gardenparty 10:58 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #22: Fred, to misquote a great poet, continue to "rage, rage, against he dying of a culture." Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:20 a.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #23: Yeah, but could Hartford have done all the things it promised? Of course not. At the time, everybody I talked with knew Hartford didn't have the means to follow through. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:52 a.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Obviously Don, we have differing opinions . I'm just curious about one thing though. You have refered several times to Hartford and aluding to it's small size and lack of incomes being a factor keeping them from being able to pay for it. I'm curious because the funds were not coming from Hartford. The state was going to fund it and they were the ones guaranteeing the income. The city of Hartford was not involved in the negotioations.
Just wondering.
By gardenparty 5:48 p.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
as an exOregonian i'm only to familiar with beavers...they r always BIG liars Don...and they're destructive to more then just ur pocketbook
DON'T LET THEM BUILD THEIR DAMS IN UR BACK YARD
and who ever told u they knew how to play baseball???
By nan 6:01 p.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #26: The state may have been involved, but I remember writing columns (I was with the U-T then) about this being the mayor of Hartford's baby. Also, there were several articles (not mine) challenging whether Hartford could handle this. I'll bet you will find that the state was willing to kick in a certain amount. Frankly, I have never known one of these scams in which the state was the only entity picking up the tab. In Seattle, teams have been helped by state taxes (causing a ruckus in eastern areas of Washington), but I think local money was involved, too. If I am wrong on these points, I will gladly eat crow. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:32 p.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #27: Beavers are physiologically equipped to swat a baseball a long way. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:35 p.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
All I can tell you Don is that then Gov. John G. Rowland is the one who negotiated the deal with Kraft. He is the one who signed the bill that was approved by the Connecticut House of Representatives. And the stat of Ct. is who filed a suit against Kraft when he backed out. No one I know back their has ever heard anything about the city being involved.
By gardenparty 8:09 p.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
damn Don...i never thought of that
u be right...again!!!
By nan 8:12 p.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #30: I don't remember these details. I guess somebody is going to have to do some homework on this history. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:14 a.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #31: Not right again. Right for the first time. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:15 a.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
No one I know back their has ever heard anything about the city being involved.
By gardenparty
========================
I don't knwk the detaisl, but the City had to be involved because it was wihtin their limits.
It may have been a global deal, where the city, county and state all raised a certain amount, with Kraft putting in his share.
I don't know, just guessing here. But the Hartford still had to sign off in some fashion, and I cannot see them not ponying up at least some cash.
By SurfPuppy619 9:07 a.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #34, and to gardenparty's posts: I have done some more homework. Gardenparty is correct that the offer came from the state of Connecticut. I don't know what Hartford's role was, but the whole idea was to use the stadium is an anchor for redevelopment of Hartford's downtown -- something that wouldn't have worked. The $375 million offer from Connecticut would have guaranteed Kraft a nifty profit. However, there were some problems. One: the NFL did not want to lose the Boston market, then 6th largest in the U.S. So the NFL owners passed a rule that in the case of the 6 largest markets, the league would come through with loans (gifts?) for new stadiums The Mass. legislature had been balking on the subsidy to Kraft. After the Connecticut offer, the Mass. legislature coughed up some infrastructure money. This plus money from the NFL convinced Kraft to stay. There was another major factor: the league told him that the NFL could be threatened with an antitrust suit if the Patriots left, a la the Cleveland Browns. The league had been forced to put a team in Cleveland. Kraft realized that the league may have been forced to put a team in Boston. That would mean there would be teams in both Connecticut and Massachusetts -- two New England teams. So Kraft decided to stay in Massachusetts. Connecticut considered suing Kraft or the league on the grounds that they had used the Connecticut offer to extort a subsidy from Massachusetts -- that Connecticut had been merely a tool. The NFL then paid the state of Connecticut $3 million and no suit was filed. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:31 a.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
I believe that Kraft paid the state of Ct. $2.4 million.
The area that had been proposed is called Adriaen’s Landing. It has been developed and is where the Hartford Convention Center is.
From their literature: Hartford's primary advantage is its location, within 100 miles of more potential convention delegates that any other U.S. city besides new York. The
23 million people within a two-hour drive of Hartford are ranked in the top five percent
nationally in per capita income and educational attainment.
My original post had to do with the fact that Ct. courted Kraft, not the other way around, and that it was the state not the city of Hartford paying for it:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps98/Act/pa/1998PA...
The total cost was about $460 million. I believe that the NFL ponied up $150 Million and Kraft got $120 for the naming rights(that was the original deal with CMGI over 15 yrs, no info on how much Gillette assumed) So counting the naming fee, Kraft is paying less than half. I think I read somewhere that the seviceable annual debt is $25 million, but the revenues are $58 million.
Everything to do with the NFL AND Ma conspiring to keep them in Boston is irrelevant to the point I was proffering in my post.
And as surfpuppy said, the Ct. deal wasn't a bad deal, especially when Vt. has extra cas of about $300 million at the time. If the state of Ca. would would have had the money and come to SD a few years ago, the Chargers would have jumped at it.
BTW, I forgot to mention earlier that as far back as 1995 Kraft had been looking to build his own stadium, in south Boston, which the mayor at the time supported. When the neighborhood ptotested againt it, the back out of his support backed out fearing it would ruin his chance at re-election.
By gardenparty 2:54 p.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #36: You may well be right on several points, but I would like to add a couple of things: 1. When you say that 23 million people who are in the top 5% in U.S. wealth and education are within a two-hour drive of Hartford, I assume you are primarily referring to that upscale area right on the NY border -- Greenwich, Westport, etc. They are part of the NY City metro area. I'll bet most are Giants/Jets fans. 2. I don't think the NFL and Mass. conspiring to keep Patriots in Boston area is irrelevant to your post. Remember, you were arguing with my assertion that Kraft used the possibility of a Conn. deal to extort the funds from Mass. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:43 p.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
response to 37
re point 1, I am not refering to anything. If you read my post, you will see that came from literature regarding the Hartford Concention Center; It had nothing to do with a football stadium and I was pointing out that the area from the stadium has been successfully redeveloped
As for point 2, my assertion was that Kraft didn't go to Ct. for a stadium deal, but that instead they came to him. I have read the entire agreement and there are escape clauses in it, so obviously both sides were aware of that possibility. I believe the lawsuit was to be for breech of contract, not extrotion. I also was disagreeing with your statement that Kraft paid for it. From the info that I have looked at, it is apparent that the NFL financed about 1/2 of the stadium, give or take, not including infra structure. I know it doesn't sound like much, but when another entity, in this case the NFL, decides to kick in almost 1/2 the projected cost some $150 million, well it's hard to say somebody paid for it themselves.
Neither one of us knows for a fact whether the Hartford deal was a scam to "extort" the funds from Ma or not.
You are the one who declared "The New England Patriots adventure was a study in intelligent government." How can that be so if Kraft "extorted" the funds from Ma.
Sounds like a contradiction to me.
By gardenparty 7:53 p.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #38: It was a study in intelligent government because the legislature wouldn't cave in to Kraft's big, original demands, even though the Boston media were blaming the pols for losing the team to Connecticut. In the end, Massachusetts gave in on the infrastructure, but NOT on anything else. Kraft had demanded much more -- outright stadium subsidies, etc. It is a good example that if governments hold out on these billionaires, they will eventually cough up themselves if they are in a rich market like Boston. In this case, they also got help from the league. I also don't know whether Kraft had to pay back some money to the league. He did promise to pay the state back for infrastructure over something like 25 years -- admittedly not a great gesture, but meaningful nonetheless. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:20 p.m., Nov 1, 2009 > Report it