Left Behinds

The anti-andrewsullivan.com. Or, the Robin Hood (Maid Marian?) of bright pink Blogger blogs.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Meet the new City Council, same as the old City Council

The Yankees make more money than any other team in baseball and I guarantee they're not going anywhere. There's no way to justify this as an economic-revitalization scheme, since they're not moving to a new neighborhood, just across the street. So explain to me why the City is coughing up over 100 million? Or why that passed 44 to 3?

Under the financing plan for the stadium, the Yankees will pay for the construction through $930 million in bonds issued by the city, of which $860 million will be tax-exempt. Taxpayers will also bear some of the costs because the team will pay back the bonds through payments in lieu of taxes to the city.

In their current home, the Yankees pay rent to the city but only after deducting the cost of maintenance. The team pays no capital expenses. While the Yankees will not pay rent for the new stadium, the team will be responsible for the maintenance and operation costs and any capital improvements.

Under the deal, the city would spend at least $138 million to demolish the old stadium, create new parkland to replace the 22 acres being used for the stadium in Macomb's Dam and Mullaly Parks, and to make improvements to other nearby parks. The state's share would be $70 million of the $320 million cost of building four parking garages that could be used by local residents throughout the year; the remainder would come from private developers.

The Council must still approve the stadium financing plan at its next meeting on April 26. But Council members and others said yesterday that it was more of a formality at this point, given the strong support for the stadium among the 51 members of the Council, including Speaker Christine C. Quinn.

Guess that answers that question.

Or maybe I'm missing something.

Tags: New York, politics, Christine Quinn, Yankee stadium, Macomb Dam, Mullaly Park, Bronx stadium, land grab, giveaways


  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    I guess the issue is that Quinn knows better, and it's a matter of public record that she knows better. If I remember correctly, I am pretty sure she explicitly argued, re: the West Side Stadium, that stadiums never bring significant economic benefits to their host cities, that they're a really bad investment.

    I'd like to see a journo confront her with her contradictory statements about the West Side vs. Yankee stadiums.

  • At 10:38 PM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    Playing devil's advocate for a minute, is there a legitimate reason you can think of for the city to be sinking money and public land into this project? Because 44-3 is pretty overwhelming. Maybe the city would have been contractually obligated to upgrade the existing stadium otherwise?

  • At 1:30 AM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    I don't know enough about it, but I always hear the Yankee Stadium talked about as kind of hallowed ground. You're going to alienate a LOT of voters by even meagerly criticizing it. I assumed it was a combo of public opinion and lobbying, but maybe there's a more legitimate reason.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com