Cubs-Mesa Spring Training Deal: "Win-Win" For The Team And Arizona
by Al Yellon on Jan 26, 2010 8:00 AM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print 
Exclusive photos for BCB
Sometime in the next five years, if all goes according to plan, Cubs fans attending spring training games in the new spring training complex that will be built based on the preliminary plan approved by the Mesa City Council last night will look out from their seats and see the beautiful mountain vista (pictured above) beyond the outfield berms. (It'll look better in the bright sunshine of March; these photos were taken last weekend, on a partly sunny January day.)
Among other things before last night's unanimous 7-0 Mesa City Council vote in favor of the plan, a resident serenaded the council with "Stay Cubs Stay", his own personal version of "Go Cubs Go". (I listened to it online. It was cute for a line or two, but eventually it was, "Get on with it already!")
I've made no secret of my belief that the Cubs belong in Arizona for spring training, not just because of their long history there and the deep connections that many Chicagoans have in the Valley of the Sun, but because I firmly believe that Arizona is the best place for spring training. This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that since 2003, five teams have fled Florida spring training for Arizona, lured by better weather, easier logistics and state-of-the-art training facilities.
Here's a timeline of events leading up to last night's vote.
Assuming all goes according to the plan, the Cubs will get one of those; there's a more detailed description of what's going to be built and how it's going to be paid for here. There were Mesa residents at last night's council meeting who railed against using "our money" for a private business, but that's not how it's going to happen. A large chunk of the money to be raised will primarily be from increased rental-car taxes -- generally not paid by local residents -- and a $1 surcharge on every Cactus League ticket sold, something that's not unreasonable considering that Cubs fans make up a substantial minority of fans at Cubs road spring games in Arizona.
It is indeed, as the linked article above says, a win-win. There will be a substantial sum of money spent to build the facility and the "Wrigleyville West" complex of hotels, restaurants and residences. However, with the jobs and taxes that will be generated by those facilities, the original investment should be returned to Mesa and Maricopa County many times over; the deal will keep the Cubs there for at least 25 years after it opens (likely to be no earlier than 2014). There are financial benefits for both Mesa and the Cubs in this deal -- anyone who doubts that should read the Memorandum of Understanding that was approved last night (link opens .pdf).
The Cubs will be happy to have a top-notch facility that they share with no other team; they'll be happier to not have to travel more than 45 miles to anyone else's spring training stadium, and they should be happiest to have the virtually guaranteed good weather and unlimited sunshine that March springs in the Valley bring almost every year. Some say that the altitude and thin air makes it more difficult to evaluate players; while there may be something to that, many players work on things unlike what they'd do during the regular season in spring training and I'd think any good manager could adjust for that.
There was in the last few weeks a comment made that "16 of the last 19 World Series winners trained in Florida". Well, since 2001 three of the nine (Diamondbacks, 2001; Angels, 2002; and White Sox, 2005) have come from Arizona spring camps -- about what you'd expect given that until 2003 only one-third of all teams trained there. Further, the 2002 Giants and 2007 Rockies also made the World Series within that nine-year time frame.
Soon, the Cubs will make yet another Arizona-trained team to win the World Series. Here are two more photos of the views Cubs fans and players will have from the new stadium site and practice fields:
118 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is a new post.
Yes, you are losing your mind.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No I’m not. Lost it years ago.
2/18/2010 B&B become a We
by puckishcubsfan on Jan 26, 2010 8:11 AM CST up reply actions
♪♫♪ Haha, they´re coming to take you away, Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha... ♫♫♪
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind." - Terry 'Fat Tub of Goo' Forster
@Twitter as @brommmietze
Hehe, you're not alone.
I never had a mind to begin with … ;)
Who cares if he's a Cubs fan? This is a football forum! He is a PACKER fan as well. So, from now until March, I’m sure he’ll dedicate a lot of his time here. In late March, then we can be enemies during the baseball season. Besides, the Cubs have perhaps the most loyal baseball fanbase in the country. You have to respect that.
Go Pack!
by Jabooty on Jan 25, 2010 2:58 PM EST
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 26, 2010 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
Press Conference Scheduled Tomorrow AM
The Cubs shared their decision with Mesa, and while it hasn’t been made public, a news conference with the city and Brewer signals the team is staying. The event includes lawmakers — who passed a resolution in support of the Cubs on Tuesday — and "other special guests," according to a release.
North side view of Camelback, eh?
Was this really a surprise to anyone? The Cubs leveraged the economics of the area and seem to be in line to get pretty much what they want. My only issue is the drive from my buds’ house when they’re in the new location. E-Mesa will mean just another increase in drive distance from his home in the Sonoran foothills.
Just win the next game...!
That's not Camelback Mountain.
That’s a mountain in east Mesa.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Is this almost to Apache Junction?
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
Here's hoping...
…that everything goes smoothly and that the new complex will be a resounding success.
My gut feeling is that this is the correct decision on the Cubs part.
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind." - Terry 'Fat Tub of Goo' Forster
@Twitter as @brommmietze
My buddy out there is already bitching about the deal
saying AZ in general and cities like Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale etc make governmental decisions without thinking them through and then there’s a budget deficit.
Guess its still not a done deal. If Mesa and the State miss deadlines, the Cubs can still move even though there’s an MoU on record. According to this article, the Cubs draw $52M of business to the area annually.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/01/26/20100126cubs0126.html
Just win the next game...!
Your buddy out there...
… should read the MoU before he bitches.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I forwarded it to him
He’s still frothing about the $100M in tax credits given to a parking lot developer, photo radar pulling in only 30¢ on issued ticket-dollars and giving up CO river water rights.
Just win the next game...!
I heard about the photo radar thing.
This deal will work out better than that one.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
How do you have any idea?
As I said below, every single time an economist has seriously looked at the idea of public financing, they have found it to be a bad deal for the municipality/county/state footing the bill. What do you think is so different about this deal?
Because they are NOT footing the entire bill.
Have you actually read the MoU? Or are you just quoting economists?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yes, I have read it
And it is not so out of line from other stadium deals.
Your reasoning is that because the Cubs are paying part of the bill, it’s necessarily a good deal for Mesa? Really? That’s your argument?
Here’s just some of what the City is on the hook for: utility infrastructure for the stadium, ancillary stadium facilities and other facilities; public street improvements; costs associated with operating and owning the other facilities; cost of all parking including overflow parking; capital expenses after initial construction; costs of utility services, costs of operating additional City services, taxes and fees, costs of material design or engineering changes requested by the City; and more.
Furthermore, Section 5.5 of the Memo says that if any five teams have “have a Spring Training facility or feature equipment, amenity, capacity or character including such improvement” then the Cubs have the right to make Mesa pay for it. That’s any five teams. So since some teams share stadiums, that could mean any improvement that three stadiums have, no matter who pays for it in those cases, the Cubs can force Mesa to cover the costs.
So again, what evidence do you have that this is a good deal for Mesa?
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 10:13 AM CST up reply actions
Not quite accurate
the stadium improvements, if and when agreed upon, would be funded by the ATSA, which has funds already set aside for that purpose for Mesa. Since this would be the newest ballpark in the Cactus League, it would likely be 2020 or later before any improvements would be needed.
As far as utility infrastructure, street improvements, etc., these are costs that would be borne by the City no matter who was developing this land. The cost is mostly covered by Development and Impact fees paid by developers.
The other facilities, in this case, some ballfields that will be part of the city parks system, is a cost that will be borne by the City of Mesa. These ballfields and the park will be usable by the Cubs as well as by the residents of the City of Mesa (much like the ballfields near Scottsdale Ballpark at Indian School). This is the only part of this deal I can find where the cost will be fully assumed by the City of Mesa and funds would have to come from a special bonding authority they have under a “quality of life” provision for things like city parks.
Generally, there is little public resistance to spending money for city parks, etc., since residents can readily see the benefit to the community and usage/demand is so high,
Agreed in part
Yes, it will be a while before some of the money is needed. And yes, some of the tangential costs would be borne by the City no matter who pays for the stadium. And yes, there will be some direct benefits like more parks for the public to use.
But the point isn’t that this deal is all bad for Mesa; it’s that, taken as a whole, it’s a bad deal for Mesa.
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 10:50 AM CST up reply actions
Well that is the reason it is a good thing
that the public will get to vote on it. My guess is that they will concur with the city leaders that this is not only a good deal for Mesa, it is actually a GREAT deal for Mesa…but one way or another, the citizens will get their say.
The public vote
Sadly, I suspect you are right that the people will vote to approve it. The election will feature a PR battle that on one side features the government and major business funding a Vote Yes campaign, and on the other side has some citizens with only their own money to use to get the word out.
The Vote Yes side will convince the people of Mesa that because the funding will largely come from tourists, the people of Mesa get all of the benefits with little to none of the burden. It’s an argument that has been refuted time and time by the experiences of other cities, but educating a busy public that is focused on other, more immediate issues is incredibly difficult.
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:04 AM CST up reply actions
No
you don’t understand Mesa.
They voted no on the Cardinals football stadium based on the Vote No argument you just put forth. They have seen how that stadium has benefited Glendale, how it truly was mostly funded by tourists. There is no argument that trumps reality.
If they vote yes, and I think they will, it will be because they feel they made a mistake back then.
There have been three public votes on tax breaks for large developments since then…a questionable shopping complex, a HIGHLY questionable water park and a solid proposal by the Gaylord resort people…all passed. The conventional wisdom is that remorse over the Cardinals stadium is at least part of the reason why.
Turning down the Cardinals and approving the Cubs
makes sense to me.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
Not THOSE Cardinals
all of the politicians that railed against the Cardinals stadium are now involuntarily back in the private sector.
The interesting thing is that around the same time, Mesa DID approve an overblown and unneeded $100+ Million dollar arts center that is ugly, underutilized and has spurred NONE of the accompanying development that the football stadium has.
Sometimes you wonder…
I think what a lot of non-Arizona people don't understand about Glendale...
… is that there’s more than just a football stadium there. In addition to a hockey arena, there’s an entire residential/hotel/restaurant/entertainment district called Westgate, that brings jobs and money to Glendale year-round.
It’s exactly this sort of development that would be built near the proposed ST stadium in Mesa.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Seriously?
Leaving aside whether the U of Phoenix Stadium was a smart investment of public funds, you’re actually comparing a Spring Training stadium in Mesa to a huge multi-purpose stadium in Glendale that was agreed to after another professional sports team (Coyotes) had already agreed to move there.
A football stadium has the ability to host a variety of other huge events, especially a stadium like the one in AZ where the grass can actually be removed from the stadium. And of course U of Phoenix Stadium has already hosted a Super Bowl and BCS games, huge revenue generators that the Cubs stadium will never attract. Furthermore, nearly $145 million was paid to for naming rights for the football stadium, offsetting even more of the costs.
Given your refusal to respond to the simple point that economists who study the issue are opposed to public financing of stadiums, I have to assume it’s an issue you haven’t really looked at. Like I told TC Cubby earlier, I’d encourage you to read Andrew Zimbalist to at least learn what the arguments are on this.
If an area is ripe for economic development and a sports stadium will help spur it, then it makes good long-term sense for the team to foot the bill as the Giants did in SF.
I think you missed his point.
I agree, you can’t compare the two facilities. That said, you also cannot compare the numbers — The Cards stadium cost $450M while the Cubs stadium will be $84M. But I think Al’s point is that the ST stadium would be the center piece of a new development that would create jobs, tax revenues, etc on a year-round basis.
As for the $145 million in naming rights — That money went to the AZ Cardinals and recouped THEIR investment in the stadium — It did nothing to repay the state or city for their contributions to the construction costs.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
2 good points
There is a size difference, but there’s also no good reason to think 1) that the stadium will spur more development (see below in my response to Al), particularly in this climate and 2) that the fact that development might follow justifies the public paying for the stadium rather than the Cubs.
Your point about the $145 million is right. Hard to believe I was actually thinking of that stadium deal in a more positive light than it deserved. Thanks for pointing that out.
You completely ignored my argument and changed it back to stadiums only.
I suggest you check out what Westgate has done for Glendale; that might not have been built had the stadium not been there.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Didn't miss your point at all nor did I ignore it
The issue we have gotten into is whether it makes sense for the public to pay for the stadium.
You make the argument that the stadium is good because look at U of Phoenix Stadium and see how Westgate followed it there and that “that might not have been built had the stadium not been there.”
Let’s assume that’s true – Westgate is there because of the football stadium. That does not mean that the people of Arizona, rather than the Bidwell’s should have paid for the stadium. In fact, since Glendale is proving to be such a good location for growth, it actually is evidence that building the stadium would have been a good private investment.
You seem to be confusing the argument that the public should not pay for the stadium with the argument that the stadium should not be built. I’m all for a new Spring Training facility for the Cubs. I just think the Cubs should pay for it much like the Giants paid for Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T.
Furthermore, the notion that because development followed the football stadium in Glendale, that means development would follow a Spring Training facility in Mesa. The number of variables that kind of logic glosses over is truly staggering.
They are difference cities on opposite side of Phoenix. Glendale is a bit wealthier and is growing at a much faster rate. And, of course, the football stadium followed a professional hockey stadium whereas the Cubs spring training home follows nothing major.
Comparing the Cubs spring training facility to the University of Phoenix stadium is surely a tactic that the government and the Cubs will use to sell the issue to the public to get them to vote for it. It’s an argument that will probably work, but it’s also an argument that is deeply flawed.
Your points are taken.
However, I think this agreement is structured in such a way that both parties — the Cubs and the city of Mesa — will benefit financially.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I knew which Cardinals you meant.
I was TRYING to make a joke.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions
Our favorite word, intangibles
A “good deal” does not always have to be profitable in terms of exact dollars counted. The following events are, in my opinion, all attributable in some part to a spring training facility and would provide value to Mesa, but could not be accounted for with accuracy in an economist’s report:
1. The snowbird or retiree who chooses to reside Phoenix instead of elsewhere, in part, because of spring training.
2. The young professional who chooses Phoenix over another city (or Mesa over another part of Phoenix) because of the cool vibe around a newly developing area.
3. The baseball player who decides to relocate his family to Phoenix because, with so many teams holding spring training there, it give him an extra month with his family. His relocation contributes to rising house prices and year-round economic contribution.
4. A steady source of revenue for an extended period of time. You scoff at the 6-week bump in visitors, but don’t take into account that the 6 week bump is a given for the next 25 years. That near-certainty can make the difference in a hotel, bar, or retail owner from locating in one town or the next.
That is my “evidence” of intangible events that can cause this to be a good deal. In our mobile economy the difference in growing and dying cities is largely natural resources and the “hip” factor. Increasing the hip factor requires cities to make investments in things such as stadiums, even if those investments don’t make 100% profit on a spreadsheet.
No
1) How many people do you think, from today forward are going to make that decision because the Cubs stay in Mesa? You’re talking about relative pennies in the finances of all this.
2) Young professionals who choose Phoenix over another city because the Cubs are there 45 days a year? That’s not an intangible, that’s an imaginary group of people. Same goes for the people who will pick this part of Mesa over a different part of the area because the Cubs practice there for a month and play about 20 games there.
3) That’s a an argument to made for keeping the entire Cactus League in Arizona, not the Cubs in Mesa. And even then, one easily quantifiable and surely not particularly compelling.
4) This is just about the Cubs, not the whole cactus league.
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 10:46 AM CST up reply actions
Yes
1. Retirees/snowbirds—ST in AZ would certainly be a factor if I were lucky enough to be retired, and the purchase of a house and spending living expenses for an entire winter or all year is not pennies.
2. Relocation—You’re limiting your argument to only the park and the ST days. I assume this new area will be built up with restaurants and bars, and will have a nice vibe that will contribute to making the area enticing to many people.
3. Of course the decision on the Cubs is inter-related to the entire ST debate (though there could be Cubs-specific cases, I believe Ron Santo, Mark Grace, and others live in the area). And, given that you say it is easily quantifiable, I’d expect to see it in your peer-reviewed literature.
4. The certainty of the park being there for 25 years would apply to the cubs, not just Phoenix as a whole. Also, why is this just about the Cubs? Can’t Mesa take into account it’s role in the overall cactus league, and acknowledge that it’s a good thing?
The point is not that you are wrong, but that there are a whole host of intangible benefits (you use the word amorphous below) that should have a part in Mesa’ s evaluation of the deal.
I can't spend all day debating this
I really think you need to do some research into the issue of public financing. It will help you understand why the issues you’re raising are so insignificant in terms of the economic value of the deal. There are plenty of resources out there on the issue.
If academic journals are accessible to you, I’d recommend doing a Lexis search. I’d caution you to look only at peer-reviewed work as there is plenty of unsubstantiated propaganda on both sides out there. In case you are unfamiliar with the term peer-reviewed, it refers to academic journals that only publish articles that have been read by other academic professionals who can independently evaluate the soundness of the methodology employed by the author.
If you are not sufficiently well-versed in economics to understand the academic papers, then start by reading the works of Andrew ZImbalist. You also might might JC Bradbury’s blog interesting. He does a brilliant job analyzing the public financing arguments surrounding one of the Braves minor league teams.
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
Interesting debate here
Some other points:
1. Jobs will be created — construction to build the new facility and the surrounding area will add jobs immediately. Then jobs will be created after construction to keep the new facilities (the ballpark, restaurants, hotels) running.
2. It’s no secret that the Cubs run the Cactus League. No only do we fans travel to Mesa for ST to watch them at HoHoKam (for now), but we also do the “road” trips, adding to revenue for the entire area. The loss of the Cubs in Mesa is a loss to the entire Cactus League.
3. As Al pointed out elewhere, teams have been leaving Florida for Arizona where the weather is better and driving times between stadiums is shorter than in Florida.
4. This new facility would be used by the Cubs year -round. Maybe it’s just my observations, but it appears that the Fall League is ganing interest among baseball fans, though it still has a way to go. Having some type of baseball going on in Mesa pretty much year-round (this would also include players going to Mesa for rehab assignments in the summer) only adds to Mesa’s revenue.
I see this as a win-win for Mesa and the Cubs. The Cubs get a state-of-the-art facility they can use year-round and Mesa gets a long-term deal that will reap more rewards with more jobs and, ultimately, more revenue that will be generated by the business this will bring in.
"I'm a Cubs fan. I'm very, very patient." -- from a Shoe cartoon.
by No Southern Belle on Jan 26, 2010 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
I personally know
a number of people, all professionals, who choose to move to the Valley, at least partly because the Cubs train here.
By that, I mean they came out here for Spring Training and liked it so much they decided to move here.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is an argument supporting the benefits of the Cubs staying here, but don’t tell me these people are imaginary, there are thousands of them.
Well the tax credit
issue will be settled soon by the AZ Supreme Court and there is already a move afoot to end the photo radar debacle, so your buddy can relax.
It always amazes me that people get so bent about tax breaks for developers. All they are doing is saying to a developer…if you build here, we will forgive some of the tax burden you will assume when your project is built. That, of course, is opposed to the $0 tax income that is generated if the project doesn’t get built. In other words, we will settle for $50 instead of $100 to entice you to build, instead of the $0 we get if you don’t build.
I’ve never understood why people have a problem with that.
They bitch about it...
because they need something to bitch about…
- Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
- Germans?
- Forget it, he's rolling.
Well, at least up here in Chicago...
…the problem isn’t so much the tax break per se – I agree with the logic of your example. However, up here, it’s usually a well-connected developer that gets the tax break, i.e. relative of some government official, a big-time campaign donor, etc. etc.
And in some cases, there are other developers who would have been willing to pay full price, i.e. didn’t want/need a tax break.
That’s the kind of stuff that gets folks up in arms…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
We have that here, too
there’s no question that politics, and sometimes shady politics, are frequently involved.
The difference is that in the greater Chicago area, you are usually talking about re-development…a piece of property that has something built on it that would be torn down and something else built.
In Arizona, it is usually a vacant piece of land, land that has been always been vacant… and will remain so unless somebody cuts somebody a deal. That is a significant difference.
by azjazzman on Jan 26, 2010 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It's an issue because it's not $50 instead of $0
it’s quite often the connections that enable these deals and instead of politicians helping out their constituents, they’re lining their own pockets directly or indirectly.
On the photo radar – just like red light cameras – it’s been shown to be inefficient and/or revenue generation; not safety improvement. Then when a small portion of tickets are paid it honks off folks even more. I just hope to see those cameras come down on the 101-loop especially near Scottsdale.
On redevelopment, it really doesn’t matter. If the city/cty wants to grab land, they can do it…easily. Only once in the last 20 years did I see someone put up a fight (in McHenry Cty out by me) and end up getting a nice settlement.
It’s not a whole lot different there in the valley of the sun as it is here in ChiTown; just less often.
Just win the next game...!
The song last night was a hoot.
I listened to it as I posted in the other thread. The guy was pretty clever, albeit annoying. Not many city council meetings feature a guys own rendition of Go Cubs Go!
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
that since 2003, five teams have fled Florida spring training for Arizona, lured by better weather, easier logistics and state-of-the-art training facilities.
I think you got the sequence wrong. State-of-the-art training facilities – which is another way of saying money – was probably the biggest reason these five teams “fleeing” Florida.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Point taken.
I still think logistics (easier drives between ST ballparks) is a factor. Starting in 2011, all 15 teams in AZ will be within 45 miles of each other.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Which one will be the longest haul once the dust settles?
Cubs vs Royals/Rangers, i.e.New Mesa – Surprise? Or is there another trip that’s longer?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Yeah, that's probably it.
That drive and the one to the Reds/Indians park in Goodyear are both about 45 miles from the new location.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I could go into detail on why tourism taxes used for things like this
are a boondoggle but even if you don’t, what if the revenue source to fund the spring training complexes dries up? In this case an over 3% tax on rental car fees which pays for the stadiums.
From the Bond Buyer -
"After registering nearly 7.5% average annual gains from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2006, revenues declined more than 3% in fiscal 2007 and another 2.5% in fiscal 2008; fiscal 2009 witnessed a more dramatic 13.5% drop," Fitch Ratings noted recently. "This trend reduced annual revenues from a peak of nearly $6.5 million in fiscal 2006 to $5.3 million in fiscal 2009. At this level, annual revenues (plus investment earnings) roughly equal the annual debt service requirement of $5.4 million."
In noting that trend, Fitch shifted the outlook on the Maricopa Stadium District’s BBB-rated debt to negative from stable. The rating covers $41.2 million of outstanding revenue refunding bonds issued in 2002.
"Further declines in pledged revenues would result in less than 1.0-times coverage on a current basis, which would begin to erode the debt-service cushion in place and be inconsistent with the current rating category," analysts wrote.
But the impact of falling revenue will probably hit the district about 18 months from now, she said, because the district dedicates funds for debt service a year ahead of schedule.
"When we look at that next year, we will have to decide whether to go into our reserves to pay the bonds," Schweigert said.
"The reality is that the decline has been even more significant and is projected to grow over fiscal years 2010 and 2011 by 5% per year," AZSTA chief financial officer Charles M. Foley wrote in his annual report. "This backward slide of our primary revenue source continues to put additional pressure on our remaining revenues in order to meet our ongoing financial obligations and statutory distributions."
In a state that will be over $3.5 billion in debt as of July 1st, spending a cent of tax money to woo a private business with an annual six week impact on an area should be a hard sell. And this does have to go through the admittedly almost absurdly pro-business Arizona Legislature before Ricketts can pose with his shovel.
I don’t blame the Cubs at all for this. Seems like every time a Chicago team threatens a move to Florida, they end up with a new Stadium partially payed for by taxes that could have gone to far more urgently needed local projects.
Correct
Never in the history of public financing of stadiums has it been a good financial deal for the municipality. Every single study of the topic in a peer-reviewed academic journal has concluded that public financing is a bad idea.
This is a great deal for the Cubs. This is a bad deal for the people of Arizona.
Was the Naples
option also going to be publicly financed?
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Jan 26, 2010 9:53 AM CST up reply actions
The folks in Naples
kept hedging their bets on that. At first, they said no…later they said some public money would be used.
THe best guess here is that yes, a great deal of public money would be involved. Note that the Florida legislature is considering a bill to provide monies for ST facilities.
Yes-tax money alway is a part
There hasn’t been a stadium built in 50 years that was privately funded. It doesn’t even begin to pencil. Florida was never going to put together a privately funded deal and were just playing the game while slowly rolling out the tax deals.
by westerncubbie on Jan 27, 2010 12:31 AM CST up reply actions
False
One prominent example: San Francisco Giants
That's the only one.
And I think he was referring to spring training parks, not regular season parks.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Not true
A few other stadiums that were privately financed: Washington DC: Jack Kent Cooke Stadium; Boston: The Fleet Center; Minneapolis: Target Center; St. Louis: Scottrade Center; NY/NJ: Jets/Giants new stadium.
If much more expensive stadiums like those can be financed, there is no reason to think a smaller project like a Spring Training venue can’t be paid for by private investors.
None of those are baseball stadiums.
Splitting hairs, I know.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
never mind that
A huge reason AZ is in trouble is the bursting of the housing bubble, and that loss of tax revenue is what has created budget shortfalls and put the state in the red.
And how is it that your the only guy that sees the “reality” of all this and how any other economist, politician or financial expert that doesn’t agree with you is paid off or selling snake oil? And if your suxh an expert and have such inside knowledge why haven’t you gone public and written a book on this? I really don’t understand you….and why your railing about this….you don’t live in mesa or AZ, so what’s it to you?
by nmcubsfan on Jan 26, 2010 10:27 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
And
the biggest reason the ATSA had to adjust their income projections is that tourism is down…WAY down. If and when tourism returns to pre-2009 levels, then they will adjust their projections again…upwards.
The ATSA has managed to fulfill all of their obligations and remain amazingly solvent…given the complex nature of their charter and the unpredictable drop off in tourism in the Phoenix area.
"Some say that the altitude and thin air makes it more difficult to evaluate players"
Isn’t this more important than bus rides, facilities, fan amenities, shopping, good weather…
Most players don't get "evaluated" in spring training.
Perhaps a handful per team do; most are simply getting into shape and working on things to improve their game.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
This factor is overblown
and more in people’s minds than reality. The air density in the Phoenix area is not much different than it is in many major league cities and the effect it has on pitched baseballs is open to debate.
Batted Balls do carry in the dry air here…but the effect on curveballs, splitters, etc., is mostly urban myth. Funny that the air density here never seemed to have a detrimental effect on Randy Johnson’s slider or Brandon Webb’s sinker.
Yes, but
I would argue that the slight difference in evaluating a developing player is over-ridden by the slight difference in a free agent looking at the location and ease that ST in Phoenix brings
I follow the D'Backs more than the Cubs
and it has been amazing to me over the years how many FAs have been signed by the D’Backs, at least partly because the player “has a winter home in Arizona and liked the idea of being at home during Spring Training”. It’s a bigger factor than you might think.
Of course, I’m sure the same thing exists in Florida.
It's not just March
These complexes are used 11 months out of the year for rehab, medical treatment and other high tech monitoring. No hurricane season in Mesa.
by westerncubbie on Jan 27, 2010 12:32 AM CST up reply actions
JUST WANDER AROUND MESA
in March . Restaurants, Bars, Motels, Car rentals, Airlines, ect all profit by having the ball club there . Players spend, Fans spend , and vendors purchase more goods .
So the money moves around . I have to think the shot in the arm by Cubs is huge . Gotta think without the Cubs maybe Mesa dries up . Now if I was not a business owner in Mesa I might take a second look at the deal .
Notice anything familiar about this "it's a win win" vs "taxpayers getting screwed" debate?
After reading nth’s detailed bond analysis comment above, and thinking back to what Al and many other deal proponents have described, it struck me that this is almost another statheads vs intangibles debate. And I say that with no intent to boost or belittle either side.
I realize there are plenty of “stats” already out there that favor this deal, either in the MOU or as the result of economic studies. But you have to admit, some of those numbers (like the $52M one) are a bit hazy in foundation. Or the taxes that surely must count on some sort of expected tourist rate levels that may not be realistic. They sure do look good, just like high batting average and low ERAs do. But do they tell the whole story?
On the flip side, there are those who come up with black & white numbers (or in this case, mostly red) that show time and time again how these deals lose money and the local municipalities get stuck with the bill. It’s not always easy to follow, and the details tend to be such that only Finance guys and CPAs can understand, but they’re almost always provable. But have they taken into account the specifics of this particular deal?
Again, it’s not my intent to slam or support either side – I just think it’s an interesting dynamic and I hope the debate continues. And may it be a healthy, friendly & good-natured informative debate.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Not really similar
The stats v. intangibles sides look at different factors when evaluating players.
The question of whether this is a good financial deal is limited to the numbers. Economists can and do differ on which numbers are more important when evaluating any deal. But the fact remains that every economist who has published in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic has found that these type of deals are uniformly a bad investment. So unless there is something particularly unique about this deal from the other publicly financed stadium deals in this country, the result is going to be the same: Mesa will not get sufficient financial benefit out of the deal to justify what they pay.
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 10:23 AM CST up reply actions
Actually, let me amend that
In some cases, there is the amorphous civic pride argument which strikes me as similar to the intangibles argument. But that is more related to keeping the team in the city as if the lack of public financing would actually cause a team to leave, something many people, myself included, thinks would rarely happen.
Of course, the civic pride argument, if ever relevant, is even less so here where we are talking about the Cubs playing for about 45 days a year in Mesa, Arizona. There are a decent number of Cub fans in Arizona, but to equate it to, say, Chicago’s attachment to the Cubs would be silly.
by Holtzmaniac on Jan 26, 2010 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
Not sure I get the gist
if you are talking about sports franchises threatening to leave their cities, I partly agree with you…..but ask the fans of the Baltimore Colts, St. Louis Cardinals, Los Angeles Rams, Winnepeg Jets, Cleveland Browns, etc etc if you think it cannot happen.
But, this is Spring Training we are talking about, and teams move about all the time, with little or no consequences. There have been a dozen or so in just the last ten years.
Great observation
Generally speaking, those in favor of such civic deals have to cite things that are very difficult to measure as a part of their argument. No one doubts that there is intrinsic value to the citizens of Mesa having the Cubs play there. Also, there is definitely money brought into the city during ST that would not be there otherwise. It is hard to count and quantify these things, though, so you’re left with guesses and unverifiable claims, which muddles the decision for the citizens of Mesa.
If I had to pick a side, I would say that I doubt the civic pride and tourist dollars are significant enough to make up for the expense of building new facilities. As a Cubs fan, though, I suppose I’d rather Mesa picked up the tab than the organization, so this doesn’t make me unhappy. If I were a citizen of Mesa (specifically one that doesn’t benefit directly from the tourism), that would be a different story.
If you were on the Board of the Cubs
you would quickly realize that the Cubs are willing to pick up the tab for what is spelled out in the MOU for one reason…CONTROL. This ST deal has become a bit of a bonanza and the Cubs want to have control over their piece of it. You can’t blame them for that.
It is like what Walt Disney said after he built Disneyland and saw how shoddy the development around the park had become. He said his biggest regret was that he didn’t buy more land. He did not make that mistake in Orlando.
If both the AZ and FL deals
involve some public financing, maybe one more than the other, how does the question apply to those of us who live in neither place? If we agree that public financing is evil and harmful to the locals, do we try to figure out which deal is less evil? So to me, the financing of either deal might be interesting, if I could ever understand it, but my opinion on where the Cubs have ST can’t be based on the financing. It’s gotta be which intangibles are better.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
I'm curious to know more about...
…this “Wrigleyville West” thing. Will it be the Cubs that develop it? I always stay in Scottsdale during ST because of the hotels and nightlife and I know others stay outside of Mesa as well. Seems to me that Mesa has their work cut out for them if they’re hoping to keep the fans in Mesa after the games.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
Only time will tell
but the whole idea here is yes, to get you and the thousands of others like you to stay in Mesa after the ball games.
As far as who will do the developing, since the Cubs are not, as far as I know, in the land development business, I think it is safe to assume that they will select developers to do this for them. But, the thing is, they will have control over what kind of development occurs.
The expectation seems to be that there will be “Cubs themed” restaurants, hotels and other tourist oriented businesses. There are fancy “destination resort” type hotels already planned for the area. One would assume eventually there will be hotels and restaurants in all price categories to provide a good selection and mix.
Once the ballpark is built, it will become obvious to Cubs fans that it is enough further out from Scottsdale than Hohokam is that it will make staying in the vicinity of the ST complex that much more attractive.
Every year in the spring, there are folks on BCB who are making their plans to go to ST who will post requesting info on what “Cubs oriented” places they can frequent while in the area. Generally speaking, right now, the selection is rather meager. Hopefully, in 5 years, the answer will be quite different, and frankly, given the number of visitors from Chicago we host every year, it should be.
I don’t know if there will be a Cubs themed Motel 6 for Doggie Stalker, but who knows.
Sorry I am sticking with Motel6 in Scottsdale.
I need a truly urban location. I am sure you won’t mind driving another 10-20 miles. However I am the exception.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 11:12 AM CST up reply actions
What are you going to do
when the inevitable happens and that nice little Motel gets gobbled up by the shopping center? I suspect that will happen long before the Cubs move to East Mesa.
BTW, I know you don’t care, but the Barney’s is now open at Fashion Square.
Yes that Motel6 is not long for this world
It is like having one located in Soho. I guess I will just skip Spring Training and go on another road trip when they close.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
well, at least your afternoon naps won't be rudely interrupted by home run balls landing by you anymore... ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I'd quibble with that Motel 6 being "truly urban"...
… given that it’s on a four-lane major thoroughfare next to a huge shopping mall.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I thought that also
but in reality, that part of Scottsdale is about as close to “urban” as it gets around here.
I can WALK around three blocks
and get a New York Times and passable bagel with cream cheese. Makes it urban to me.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 2:35 PM CST up reply actions
That's probably two blocks longer than you have to walk at home, though.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Actually shorter
I have to go 8 blocks for a good bagel here.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 4:43 PM CST up reply actions
Huh.
So much for the urban atmosphere of New York.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Well actually there is one yuppie coffe place
4 blocks away that has Murray’s bagels but I rarely go there. Also blocks in New York are MUCH shorter than the ones I walk from Motel6 to the place with the bagel.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 27, 2010 1:51 AM CST up reply actions
Nothing like lying around in the sun with your head covered with newspaper
and have a home run go buzzing by. Really rude of those players not to lead me get some rest.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
Wasn't that
a Big Fly that DeRo hit off his good buddy Lilly? (And that Al claimed Lilly had grooved for him?)
Yes, I think that was the one.
And I still think Lilly did his old pal a favor.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No it wasn't DeRo
All I remember is that it was a team from the AL West, I think Angels or Rangers.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 4:44 PM CST up reply actions
As do I
but then I used to live in Scottsdale, then my in-laws moved there (from Chicago) and so feel more comfortable there than Mesa when I visit.
And the clubs, nightlife, restaurants? No comparison between Scottsdale & Mesa.
Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, Chandler, Apache Junction must be loving this deal.
Gilbert and Apache Junction??
If you think Mesa is lacking in nightlife….
As I posted above, when people begin to realize how much further of a trek this location is from Scottsdale, and there are Cubs themed places to go in the area, the guess here is that a lot of people will opt to stay in Mesa.
How much further is it from Scottsdale?
5 miles? 10 miles?
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
We don't know where the ballpark will be yet
but it will likely be minimum 7-10 and max 25 miles further from Scottsdale than Hohokam.
I will chip in for the gas
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Jan 26, 2010 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
The location as described to me..
… is about eight miles east of HoHoKam. And, azjazzman is correct. Many Cubs fans stay in Scottsdale because the shopping, nightlife, hotels, etc. are better there. If this new development causes them to stay in Mesa instead — well then, Mesa wins.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Not to worry - the Mesa and Cubs marketing teams are already on it
New promotion – “Free Cubs ankle monitor to first 10,000 fans”.
If you go more than 5 miles from the park during an 6 hour window after the game, the alarm goes off and the Mesa police show up to escort you back to the nearest Mesa bar, restaurant, hotel…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
AZ Location
Al, is that location set in stone? Although I’m glad it’s looking like they are staying, I am a little bummed that they are not going to be part over the development that will eventually make Mesa-Gateway Airport our “Midway”. This is at about Ellsworth and Ray Road where the GM proving Grounds were and the Gaylord Resort was going?
Either way, it’s a big “W” !!! Thanks for the info.
Not only not set in stone
to the best of my knowledge the Cubs have not even stated a preference in terms of location yet, and there have been several locations presented to them…including one by Phoenix-Mesa Gateway. The MOU even discusses the possibility that the Cubs will ultimately choose some other piece of land not even under discussion right now.
Tight lip
Thanks. You know, for as much as I’ve followed this story, there has been minimal talk about “where’, specifically.
Gotta love the Gateway location…….In 5 years, jump on a Southwest Flight (it’s inevitable) from Midway and land 5 minutes from Wrigleyville West and the largest resort/convention center in Arizona.
But then again, I head Gaylord is dragging thier feet now.
Would be nice to have Wrigleyville West in this photo:
”http://deansellsaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gaylordrednering1-300×223.jpg" target="_blank">http://deansellsaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gaylordrednering1-300×223.jpg
Section 6.9 of the MOU...
Reasonable Assistance Regarding HoHoKam and Fitch Park. Cubs will assist the
City, as reasonably requested but at no out-of-pocket cost to Cubs, in the City’s effort to
obtain another professional baseball team to use the HoHoKam Stadium and Fitch Park
for spring training, player development and other activities after Cubs move to the
Stadium.
Does this mean Mesa could host 2 teams for ST? If that’s the case, that sounds good for Mesa!
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
What a downer for whatever team
takes HoHoKam, if one does. “Not good enough for the Cubs, but good enough for us …”
One of Lee Elia's 15%
True
but then again, Hohokam, as it is today, is a better facility than 2/3rds of the ST parks in Florida, and arguably better than a couple of ST parks in AZ. It would be an upgrade for a lot of teams.
But, I still think attracting a 2nd team to Mesa is a longshot.
I note that Mesa is going to go ahead with the improvements at Fitch Park.
I've posted this before
HoHoKam is a zillion times better than PHX Muni, where the A’s play. They train in Papago Park which is farther from that ballpark than Fitch Park is from Ho Ho Kam.
(I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m off on my distances)
Phx Muni is outmoded, and is out of date with ZERO amenities. The A’s should relocate to Mesa. I believe the mayor of PHX was trying to see if Muni could be updated, but I’ve not heard much on that.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jan 26, 2010 2:17 PM CST reply actions
Yes, the A's should move, and...
… you’re correct about the distance to Papago Park.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It is 3/4 of a mile
from Hohokam to Fitch Park and about 1.4 miles from Phoenix Muni to the Papago Park fields. I doubt that would make much of a difference to the A’s.
Timing
The A’s at contract at Phoenix Muni is up in 2011.
Sometime before then, they will strike a deal to either upgrade Muni or get a new facility. Unfortunately, the soonest the Cubs would vacate Hohokam is 2013-2014 and there is no way the As will want to wait that long, especially given that it would be a minor upgrade, at best.
The Brewers will also get some upgrades at Maryvale soon.
What about teams...
…that share their facilities? Or the teams that train in Tuscon?
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
What updates could the Brewers POSSIBLY want at Maryvale?
They have all that they need there and the ball park is a perfect size for a team that doesn’t draw flies, except when the Cubs are there.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jan 26, 2010 5:55 PM CST up reply actions
What about them?
The Rockies and D’Backs will move into a new facility in Scottsdale in 2011.
All the other shared facilities are fairly new and the teams have long term commitments, if that is what you are asking.
That would be Peoria, Surprise, Goodyear and Glendale.
For all the folks wondering what/where the 2 pics are
The top is a pic of the McDowell Mtns, north of Mesa, near Fountain Hills. Just camped there in December, very nice. Also, one of the best places to mountain bike in the valley.
The 2nd pic is of Red Mountain, just off the Beeline Highway heading to Fountain Hills.
"WGN, Channel 9 Cubs Baseball, Excitingly, Importantly, Dramatically Yours." - Jack Brickhouse
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
