During recessions, many people have to make do with less money than usual. But not major league baseball owners. The New York Yankees have just asked New York City for an additional $259 million in tax-exempt government-backed bonds to finance the construction of their new stadium. This comes on top of the $940 million in previously approved bonds and up to $450 million in direct government spending on the project. Even prior to the current funding request, the new Yankee stadium had already gotten more government subsidies than any other stadium project in American history. The rival Mets are also asking for additional government bond for their new stadium, albeit a much smaller amount.
I previously criticized government funding of the new Yankee Stadium here, here, and here. In my first post on the subject two years ago, I summarized the overwhelming evidence that sports stadium construction provides few if any broader economic benefits to the community, and noted that Yankees ownership chose to build the new stadium primarily because it will increase luxury box revenue for the team. The old Yankee Stadium - built entirely with private funds - was perfectly adequate for most fans' needs, and indeed a great place to see a game. Unlike in some other cases, the government officials who granted the money can't even claim that the team would leave the city if they refused. It's not as if the Yankees would depart the biggest and most lucrative market in all of baseball.
In fairness to the Yankees, many other professional sports teams have successfully lobbied for government subsidies for their stadiums. The Yankees have managed to extract more money than any of the others. But it's more a difference in degree than kind.
UPDATE: New evidence suggests that public financing for the new Yankee Stadium was secured in part by promising free luxury box seats and other perks to aides of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
When it comes to getting a luxury box at the new Yankees and Mets stadiums, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aides appear willing to play ball.
Recently released internal e-mails between the mayor's aides, city lawyers and Yankees officials show that City Hall gave the team even more parking spaces than had been negotiated previously, plus the rights and revenue from three billboards near the stadium in exchange for a suite.
For months, the city had publicly played down the importance of having exclusive use of the suite, but the e-mails obtained and released by state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky show luxury boxes in both ballparks were "a big issue to the mayor," as one official put it....
When city officials were angling for exclusive suites, their list of demands included perks such as free food, the e-mails show.
"Yankees said they don't want to pay for food for our suite," wrote Seth Pinsky, who was then the executive vice president of the city's Economic Development Corp., in an e-mail to Dan Doctoroff, then a deputy mayor. "My position is: if others get food with their suites, so should we."
In a separate conversation, city lawyer Joseph Gunn wrote Yankees officials to say, "if others get food as part of a base price, then so does nyc." It wasn't clear whether the Yankees gave in.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Yankees Ask for $259 Million in Additional Government-Backed Bonds for New Stadium:
- Where Dennis Kucinich and I Agree:
At least, that is how normal industrial revenue bonds work. If there is some unmentioned guarantee, I'm sure we'd like to know it.
Needless to say, none of this has anything to do with actual city giveaways, such as tax breaks.
The glee may be a little misplaced in the case of the Sonics. Yes, the owners were asking for $500 million (or some such absurd amount) from Seattle/Washington. But they knew the money wouldn't be coming. The new owner wanted to move the team to his home state of Oklahoma and used the local government's refusal to fund a new facility as their excuse to leave Seattle.
Nick
These bonds (and the other industrial development bonds) are not in any sense government-backed. No government has any obligation on the bonds; the Yankees are the sole obligors.
There isn't even an implicit or moral guaranty (unlike Fanny and Freddy). Governments never pay on industrial development bonds. Governments, bondholders and credit agencies all understand this and rate (and price) the bonds accordingly. Industrial development bonds are simply a way to give private borrowers access to tax-exempt borrowing without obligating the government.
The discount to taxable bonds is a subsidy (from the federal, and NY state and city governments), but that's at most a couple of percent (per annum) of the principal of the bonds. It's still sizable at this level (a few million a year), but it's not hundreds of millions of dollars.
There's so much uninformed blathering about the subsidies and the financing that it's hard to find the actual figures that would allow an outsider to figure out what the subsidies are. Worse, it makes it easy for the proponents of the subsidies to hide them and simply dismiss the opponents as uninformed.
I am a great fan of this blog, and (despite being a Yankee season ticketholder) an opponent of the actual subsidies. I am sorry to say that this blog entry does a poor job of advancing the argument, and plays to the dismissiveness of the subsidy supporters.
It's a lot harder for someone in NYC to get to a game in NJ. This might not be an issue for football games because they're a once per week thing and people generally have more flexible schedules on Sunday. I suspect that a baseball team that moved to the Meadowlands would have trouble getting people to the games on weekdays. Fortunately we aren't likely to find out (any time soon anyway).
Why would anyone pay money to watch such losers, much less fund them with tax money. Oh yeah, they're New Yorkers. Never mind.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.