Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Study: Pupils 'do worse with computers' | Main | Anti-Advertising Agency opens offices »
Protect Your Wallets
You only need to read one article in the New York Post about the competing bids for the West Side Rail Yards to figure out that the paper prefers the Jets' proposal to Madison Square Garden/Cablevision's. In Tuesday's paper, the Post said that the "Garden's stadium bid is $320M short." Does anyone want to explain how this is possible?
The Post makes a lot of the fact that MSG would deduct the platform-construction cost from its offer to the MTA, but seems not to mind that the Jets' proposal is contingent on money the team will receive from the city and state (money that has not been offered to any of the other bidders). The MTA receives its funding from the state, so deducting the platform construction costs from the purchase price the MTA will receive is no different than the state doling out tax subsidies. It gets worse when you see the amounts at issue.
MSG is taking a $360 million credit for building the platform. The Jets are receiving $600 million in public financing for the platform and the retractable roof on the stadium.
Check my math:
MSG: $760MM - $360MM = $400MM
Jets: $720MM - $600MM = $120MM
How is the Jets proposal better at all, much less $320,000,000 better?
Posted by Charles Star on 03/30/2005 | Permalink
Comments
Charles: it actually gets worse than that. Everyone's been pretty dodgy on this point, but it's been mentioned before that much, if not all, of the Jets' funding will be from of city guaranteed bonds. Basically, we're co-signers on the construction costs, which are to be repaid with revenue. So if the revenue doesn't appear (and studies show that recent expansion for mega-convention centers has not resulted in projections being met fully 100% of the time), the city is on the hook to repay the bonds with -- you guessed it -- tax revenue. Not only will that decrease future services, it would affect the city's bond ratings, which would doubly strain services, since our other debt repayments would go up across the board as our overall rating drops.
The Cablevision offer, by contrast, is simply a $400 million bribe. It shouldn't be dressed up as anything but that, but hey, for once it looks like the city (or the MTA) is operating like an market-savvy business operation. We should see how much the Dolans can be squeezed for.
Posted by: miss representation | Mar 30, 2005 11:41:05 AM
WHAT?
the Dolans aren't ever squeezed for anything. they have been the most self centered, greedy, robber barons in this city's last 20 years.
every time the Knicks and Rangers have a losing season Cablevision rates go up. what exactly do you think they will use the stadium to do?
beleive it or not, sometimes the Post is right.
Posted by: hornsofthedevil | Mar 30, 2005 10:39:20 PM
If I understand you correctly, horns, your theory is that the Dolan's are going to pay $400,000,000 so that they can raise cable rates. That is silly. They could just raise the rates anyway if that is what they want to to do.
Just because the Dolan's have mixed motives doesn't mean that they aren't making the better offer. The city needs housing much more than it needs a stadium or convention center and it needs to get maximum value for the land.
Posted by: Charles Star | Mar 30, 2005 11:45:06 PM
Horns: I don't have cable, so what the Dolans do to Long Island residents is of little consequence to me. They are not building a stadium, if you were following the issue at all. They are going to give the city $400 million to protect their monopoly on events, and perhaps get around to building apartments. Knicks tickets aren't going to get cheaper no matter how this ends up, so I'm missing how this offer is a net loss for the city, which has zero liability in the deal, and the MTA gets a big fat check (the $440 million from the Jets' deal is contigent on massive rezoning).
Posted by: Miss Representation | Mar 30, 2005 11:57:37 PM
both of you, do just a LITTLE research into the Dolans cable monopoly and their strongarm tactics and then ask yourself:
IF(and its a big IF) the Dolans ever decided to build apartments, would you want to live in them?
with their focus on profit over all else, don't you think you are being incredibly naive to think that they will somehow bring reasonable housing to the city? i mean really?
your argument is that the Dolan's monopoly will help us.
just like Microsoft's monopoly has helped viruses become a regular nuissance for every computer owner because there is no variation of security tactics? Or maybe Rockefeller's oil monopoly is a better blueprint for a benefit to the working man?
Cablevision bills don't just increase at their every whim, the BLOCK viewers from seeing other teams unless they get their profit demands. services working people pay for are denied - and there is nothing anyone can do. hence the negative aspects of a monopoly.
the very idea that you are siding with the Dolan family is beyond idiotic.
while the Dolans have spent $29 million in advertising to prevent a competitive stadium in the city, Cablevision continually toldoraganized employee representatives that they could not afford to pay for their medical plans or afford to pay a pension contributions. I'm sure their intentions they have for housing are sincere.
i eagerly await the next articles on this website that heap adulation upon ClearChannel and the rich culture they provide our nation every day.
Posted by: hornsofthedevil | Mar 31, 2005 8:18:53 PM
Wow. You've got us dead to rights as shills for Cablevision, hornsofthedevil. I can't believe it has taken so long for someone to see through us.
If you would take a step back from your Dolan-loathing, you'd see that there really aren't any good guys here. Yes, the Dolans are being greedy and craven and trying to protect their MSG franchise. Still, the Dolans come off like white knights here, when compared to the Jets (who are picking our pockets) and Bloomerg/Doctoroff (who are telling us that the hand in our pockets is there to LEAVE money).
You may not have trusted the Dolans, but that is just the hate talking. The Dolans would have paid $400MM up front and NYC would have ended up with a deck over the yards. Don't you think that someone would have made a market value bid to buy the improved property from the Dolans once they understood that they could bid in an unrigged process? Housing would have ended up there eventually anyway, and we wouldn't be saddled with a white elephant on the Hudson.
At the very least, the Dolans forced the Jets to pay much more than the City was willing to take. As an added bonus, the IOC will give the 2012 Olympics to Paris while this is still in litigation, undercutting the main argument being made for the stadium.
Posted by: Charles Star | Apr 1, 2005 11:44:01 AM
the main argument for the stadium is an alternative venue to the MONOPOLY the Dolans have.
You see, the Super Bowl is also in the fold with countless other events. if you staood back and stopped your alternative view griping about a necessary expense that will benefit the city, you would see that a stadium has more uses than one Olympics.
the bellyaching in here about the stadium sounds EXACTLY like the consortium of pinheads who opposed buliding the World Trade Center in the seventies.
hysteria and lugubrious sentiments.
Posted by: hornsofthedevil | Apr 1, 2005 7:18:14 PM
