Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 30, 2006
Responding to Opponents

Bill Madden editorializes in the NY Daily News in favor of new stadiums for the Mets and Yankees:

But as badly as they need new ballparks, the Yankees and Mets are not asking the taxpayers to pay for them. Because they have said they will foot the building costs of new stadiums themselves - unlike all the aforementioned teams - the Yankees and Mets seemingly removed the crux of the opponents' case for denying them. Nevertheless, the opponents have not been quieted or satisfied, even if the city itself has satisfied all the "equal or better" provisions of replacing the 22 acres of parkland on which the new Yankee Stadium will be built with 26 acres of parkland on the present Stadium site as well as the adjoining parking lots along Ruppert Place.

From what I've read, the Yankees and the Mets are going a long way to satisfy the politics of the situation. They're getting a great deal in terms of the bond issue, but they appear to be giving a lot back also. Opponents of stadiums can be very tough, however, so we'll see how quickly this deal is completed.


Baseball Musings is conducting a pledge drive in March. Click here for details.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:06 AM | Stadiums | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Unless there's a threat that the Yankees or Mets can move to other locations and be economically better off by doing so, why should taxpayers foot any costs at all for those businesses?

Posted by: Michael at March 30, 2006 08:46 AM

I'm for the stadiums but there are apparently issues with that parkland - it can't be in use during the days of Yankees games - security reasons, I believe.

I'd check out this site for more info. Steve Lombardi linked to it a while ago at WasWatching and I picked it up for YanksBlog from there.
http://www.onnyturf.com/gmap/?gmap_id=4

Posted by: James Varghese at March 30, 2006 08:59 AM

Take it from someone who's lived here all his life. New York City is different. Every other big city in North America would be overjoyed to hear that it was getting two new stadiums, and not paying a penny for either. But the people who hold the power here are just, well, different.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at March 30, 2006 10:00 AM

True enough Jim. But these will both go thru. The Unions got burned on the West Side Stadium. They will go to war with any pols that don't get on board. And there's no issue for opponents to sink teeth into. Both are industrial type areas, and will be left in better condition than currently exists. No financing issue etc. The is small time hood pols in the Bronx looking to get paid. To be clear, I don't mean bribed. They see rich corps, have them over a barrel, and are shaking to see what they can loosen. That the stadiums get built is not at issue. Our political class is made of small-time, opportunistic chiselers; here we see them at work.

Posted by: abe shorey at March 30, 2006 10:42 AM

I can envision the political cartoon of the scenario that Abe just described, with George Steinbrenner being held upside-down by the ankles, and money pouring out of his pockets. Hilarious!

Posted by: Dave S. at March 30, 2006 10:48 AM

Walter O'Malley wanted to pay for a new stadium too. Never underestimate the power of intertia in preventing things from being built in NY. Look at Ground Zero.

Posted by: Crank at March 30, 2006 12:22 PM

"I'm for the stadiums but there are apparently issues with that parkland - it can't be in use during the days of Yankees games - security reasons, I believe."

Well, that's a deal-breaker right there.

Posted by: Joseph J. Finn at March 30, 2006 02:37 PM

i seem to remember reading that the money the mets and yankees spend on these stadiums is money that they DO NOT have to contribute to revenue sharing. it's a good thing not to use taxpayer money, but it's pretty shreud for teams that did not favor revenue sharing in the first place.

Posted by: benjah at March 30, 2006 03:27 PM

Joseph, for some people it apparently is. I personally would love to see a new Yankee Stadium but I don't live in the Bronx anymore so I don't get a say.

I was just mentioning one of the points that seem to be coming up repeatedly in the arguments for the stadium.

Posted by: James Varghese at March 30, 2006 03:53 PM

That being said, I can understand why some locals might be annoyed by it.

210 days (give or take) from April to October.
81 home dates - not including playoffs.

Almost 40% of the days in spring/summer/fall will be blocked off - that does kind of suck.

Posted by: James Varghese at March 30, 2006 03:56 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?