"Cubs Tax" For Spring Training Park? Separating Truth From Fiction
by Al Yellon on Feb 18, 2010 1:14 PM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print
So where does the Cubs' spring training proposal stand today, a day after an Arizona House commmittee approved a bill that would raise rental-car taxes and put a surcharge on Cactus League tickets?
There's a tremendous amount of misinformation being passed around, including the almost ludicrous statement that this might cause the Cubs to start looking toward Florida again. To be fair, that Ballpark Digest article goes on to say, correctly, that Bud Selig's newfound antipathy to these fees is disingenuous and ridiculous:
Enter the front offices of the Diamondbacks, Rangers, A's, Brewers (ironically) and other Cactus League teams, who argue a surcharge on their fans would be unfair, even though they're mostly suckling at the same public teat (car-rental taxes) as the Cubs when it comes to financing improved spring-training facilities. Why should a Rangers fan pay for a new Cubs facility?
This is a load of crap, of course. The Chicago Cubs are the only reliable draw in the Cactus League these days; Cubs fans will descend in the Valley of the Sun and see as many games as they can, even on a day when the Cubs aren't playing. The Cubs annually draw the best in the Cactus League, and any away game involving the Cubs is sure to have at least a couple of thousand extra fans in the house. Go to Maryvale Baseball Park on a day when the Cubs are in town, and the Cubs fans will outnumber the Brewers fans. Only the San Francisco Giants are as reliable a draw as the Cubs, and Giants fans in recent years have shown less enthusiasm for following the team on the road, unless San Fran is playing at Phoenix Muni or (ironically) Mesa.
Several months ago, Selig told the Cubs he was fine with the ticket surcharge, which is one of the primary reasons the Cubs and the city of Mesa added this to the proposal. It should be no surprise to anyone who has followed Bud during his baseball career that he's talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.
The current brouhaha, apparently, comes from a lobbyist hired by the Diamondbacks -- who, for some reason, seem to have it in for the Cubs deal, even though they aren't subject to the surcharge, don't have any fans that come in from out of town to rent cars, and have no problem having the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community, who they don't consider taxpayers, pay for their own brand spanking new complex that's opening in 2011. Other lobbyists hired by MLB and the 14 other Cactus League teams have been spreading the lie that these taxes and surcharges would only benefit the Cubs.
The truth can be found, somewhat buried, in this East Valley Tribune article:
Despite the opposition, the House Commerce Committee approved a bill Wednesday that includes an 8 percent surcharge and adding $1 to the existing Maricopa County rental car tax of $2.50.
The cost to a spring training fan would be about $2.50 per admission with the ticket surcharge and if the person rented a car, said bill sponsor Rep. John McComish, R-Ahwatukee Foothills. Fans probably won't even notice the additional amount of money they'll pay, he said.
"You can't get a Coke, I don't think, for $2.50," McComish said.
The bill would raise about $81 million over 25 years, and $58 million of that would go to the Cubs' Wrigleyville West complex proposed in east Mesa. McComish characterized the bill as something all 15 Cactus League teams would benefit from because the Cubs are the top spring-training draw. Also, other teams could tap into the funds when they need to upgrade or build new complexes, he said.
This has been the case with the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority since it was created by vote of the Arizona legislature in 2000. Note from this quote that the recession has hit the ASTA just as hard as many other businesses and state agencies:
Tourism taxes have been used in the past to help finance pro sports venues in the region. Maricopa County voters narrowly approved Proposition 302 in 2000, imposing an extra 1 percent hotel bed-tax and 3.23 percent car rental charge to finance construction of University of Phoenix Stadium and Cactus League stadiums. The recession has hurt tourism, resulting in a $10 million shortfall for the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority, which manages Prop. 302 money. That means the cupboard is bare for a new Cubs venue.
Sean Noble, president of political consulting firm Noble Associates, said there is general support for keeping the Cubs in Arizona, and rental car taxes are viewed as charges on tourists.
"Voters will likely view it as taxing somebody else to get something they want: the Cubs staying in Mesa," he said.
Further, there is already a "surcharge" of sorts being imposed by several Cactus League teams when the Cubs are the visitors. At Camelback Ranch -- home of the Dodgers and White Sox, the latter of which has an owner who first voiced opposition to the surcharge -- tickets to games against the Cubs (and only the Cubs) cost anywhere from $2 to $5 more than tickets to games against all other teams. The Giants also have a $3 to $6 surcharge on "feature" games; among those is a game against the Cubs on March 30.
The fact is: the Cubs do drive the Cactus League engine. Cubs fans consistently provide revenue to virtually every team in the league by showing up at Cactus League road games (at Maryvale, for example, when the Cubs are the visitors, crowds typically are about twice what the Brewers draw for other visiting teams). This fact sheet from the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (link opens .pdf) specifically states that the ASTA's funding priorities and responsibilities include:
Awarding monies to renovate existing or construct new Cactus League spring training baseball facilities in Maricopa County
Which is exactly what will happen with any additional funds raised by the new rental-car tax and ticket surcharge. Here's a list of Cactus League projects the ASTA has helped in the past -- interestingly, absolutely zero of them have benefitted the Cubs, and nine Cactus League teams have reaped stadium benefits from the ASTA, including many that are now complaining about the Cubs being helped. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
Reiterating, with emphasis, a quote from the East Valley Tribune article above:
The bill would raise about $81 million over 25 years, and $58 million of that would go to the Cubs' Wrigleyville West complex proposed in east Mesa. McComish characterized the bill as something all 15 Cactus League teams would benefit from because the Cubs are the top spring-training draw. Also, other teams could tap into the funds when they need to upgrade or build new complexes, he said.
"All 15 Cactus League teams would benefit". Not just the Cubs, and not all the money would go to the Cubs ("other teams could tap into the funds when they need to upgrade or build new complexes"). I'm sure the exact figures in this legislation will change before it comes to a final vote. But it's clear to me that the entire Cactus League, and all of Maricopa County, would benefit from it. Economic times may be difficult now, but there's no doubt that eventually, the economy will improve, and when it does, I believe the voters of the city of Mesa, Maricopa County, and the state of Arizona will be happy they approved this legislation in 2010.
416 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't get it
What is in it for these other teams to be hiring lobbyists to protest the bill? How does it benefit them in any way to prevent this type of financing? If nothing else, it sets a precedent that some other team may be able to use in the future as well. I just don’t understand the point of mounting a public campaign against a proposal they will likely all benefit from in the long run.
It's just shortsighted and silly. It's just like the golfers who
complain about Tiger Woods getting too much coverage on TV. The purses on the PGA tour are much bigger because of Tiger and the smart golfers realize that. The popularity of the Cubs in the Greater Phoenix area raises the tide for all of teams that play there. The smart executives can see that. Petty jealousy has no place in the business world. You make your money where you can and put all of that other crap on the side.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Feb 18, 2010 2:11 PM CST up reply actions
I would bet the ranch (if I had one)...
…that Reinsdorf is responsible for the lobbyist and is probably paying for them behind the scenes.
He is a magician when it comes to getting other people to go his way, but making it look like he isn’t the driving force.
By the way, great job on this Al – very informative.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Well, the lobbyist
was part of the group, along with Reinsdorf, that tried to buy the Phoenix Coyotes out of bankruptcy. Reinsdorf pulled out when he didn’t get his terms.
So, there clearly is a historical relationship.
But, that still doesn’t explain why the other teams in the Cactus League came out against this.
On the surface...
…I can understand why some would be against it, but when you have someone with the manipulative skills of Reinsdorf, it helps to get people onboard to help him along.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
It's nice to have Al to get the straight facts
To get the facts straight is beneficial so when I hear a Cubs hater complain about this new project in the near future, I can tell them off and make them look like an idiot with actual facts to go against their Cubs stereotypical/hypocritical “analysis” of the situation.
Then I can just tell them “don’t worry, when your favorite team sucks let our fans fill your ballpark’s seats when the Cubs visit.”
But of course the idiot I’ll be trying to per sway is not going to want to sit and listen; they’ll just interrupt me and change the topic and keep changing the topic because they know they are going to lose the dispute until they inevitably throw the “100 year” thing at me which we’ve all been reminded about too much to even care about anymore and probably whisper in our sleep as well.
I’ll probably end up telling them “just base it all on history and you’ve got nothing to worry about.” My best advice to myself: just don’t even argue with the idiot, I’ll know what’s fiction and non-fiction and live happily ever after.
Jack Brickhouse: "Hey! Hey!"
Harry Caray: "Holy Cow!"
Vince Lloyd: "The Chicago Cubs are on the Air!"
Len Casper: "Oh Baby!"
Bob Brenly: "Give it to a Kid!"
Ron Santo: "YES!", "All Right!, let's do it!", "Oh No!", "Oh jeez come on!" AND...
"This Is The Year!"
by #1 iowan cubs fan on Feb 19, 2010 2:09 AM CST up reply actions
Distinction worth correcting
“cubs do drive the cactus league engine”
No, Cubs FANS drive the cactus league engine. Teams are so stupid when they make these proposals. The current pitch for the Cubs is “We need a new facility to be like the other guys.” Instead, it should be “We need a new facility to foster the competitiveness that our fans expect, and we want a facility that rewards them for being the best spring training fan base year in and year out.”
Other teams are saying that the Cubs will have an unfair advantage. Instead, they should be arguing that their fans don’t want to pay hard earned money to support a club that they aren’t seeing on the field that day.
Actually, the Cubs have said that.
Clearly, the other teams are doing this:
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I categorically reject
the notion that somehow having the latest and greatest Spring Training facility makes you more competitive. Most of the playoff teams in the last 10 years have trained in facilities older than Hohokam. You can look it up.
it's not my argument
I really don’t care one way or another. My only point was that these clubs have either (again) lost sight of the fan being the priority, or failed to communicate that.
Well, I really didn't intend my post
to be directed specifically at you. It just triggered something I have been wanting to post for some time.
I have seen this argument put forth many times (including by my baseball buddy, Doggie Stalker) and I think it is silly. If anyone thinks that having a new ST facility will make the Cubs more competitive…well as I say, history does not support that theory.
I don't know about more competitive
but I just don’t think an organization like the Cubs is going to settle for not having top notch facilities all in one place.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 18, 2010 8:36 PM CST up reply actions
Well
Even if it’s doesn’t help, it can’t hurt their chances.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Feb 19, 2010 12:05 PM CST up reply actions
Al, you keep telling us
that you are going to give us the “truth” about the Spring Training situation, but your posts perpetuate a lot of misinformation.
John Kaites, the lobbyist you refer to, was not “hired by the Diamondbacks” as you state. In fact, his client is the Gila River Indian Tribe, and has been all along. Kaites was also a candidate for Arizona Attorney General, and was part of a group that included Jerry Reinsdorf, that attempted to buy the Phoenix Coyotes out of bankruptcy.
Kaites has been asked by, not just the Diamondbacks, but the other 13 Cactus League teams to represent their interests in the legislature. Other than the already stated opposition to the ticket surcharge, it remains to be seen what those interests are. The continued implication here on BCB that the White Sox and D’Backs are “lone cowboys” on this has been proven false. The president of the Texas Rangers and spokesmen for at least two other teams have now publicly stated their opposition.
And it’s not just the other Cactus League teams, either. As you might imagine, the car rental industry is not exactly thrilled with this deal either. Already, Phoenix ranks No. 2 in the nation in central-city single day car rental rates, making the Valley less attractive to tourists and conventions, says Kevin DeMenna, spokesman for Hertz, Avis and Budget.
DeMenna points out that someone who rents a car at Sky Harbor already pays: a 15.3 percent local tax; an 11.1 percent tax to pay for the car rental facility; a 3.25 percent tax or $2.50, whichever is greater, to pay for the Cardinals and Cactus League stadiums; a $6/day car facility charge and a $6.02 fee for operations and energy maintenance.
Oh, and by the way, just to clear up the misinformation about who is paying the bill, DeMenna states that 50% of all car rentals in Maricopa County are by locals, a fair number of which are no doubt Arizona Diamondbacks fans.
The statement that all Cactus League teams will benefit from these new revenue streams, as I have pointed out before, is just plain bogus. The 8% ticket surcharge (which is a tax by another name) will struggle to generate $1.5M per year. The existing car rental surcharge of $2.50 generates about $5M per year, and at $1, this proposal will figure to generate an additional $2.0M, at best. That means, combined, a total of $3.5M per year to retire $59M in bonds. There simply will be nothing left for anyone else.
But, that is what the original charter of the ATSA was about – financing the entire Cactus League, not just one team. And that is the real issue here. The ATSA was formed to pay for, amongst other things, Cactus League facilities. All of the newer stadiums (save the D’Backs and Rockies), and renovations of older stadiums have been paid for by the ATSA. Let’s look at that:
Here’s what has been done and what it cost the ATSA:
Surprise Stadium – New (Rangers/Royals) $32M
Phoenix Muni – Renovation (Athletics) $4.3M
Tempe Diablo – Renovation (Angels) $12.0M
Scottsdale Stadium – Renovation (Giants) $20.0M
Goodyear Stadium – New (Indians/Reds) $37.4M
Glendale Stadium – New (Dodgers/White Sox) $60M
Projects Planned (and budgeted):
Maryvale (Renovation) 2012 Brewers $7.0M
Peoria (Renovation) 2014 Mariners/Padres $11.5M
Phoenix Muni (Renovation) 2014 Athletics $3.8M
Hohokam (Renovation) 2016 Cubs $8.7M
Surprise (Renovation) 2022 Rangers/Royals $16.5M
There you have the real problem. The Cubs (and Mesa) want to play by different rules than every other team in the Cactus League. First off, they want to be the first team in the last 18 years in the Cactus League to receive a new facility that is not shared with another team. Secondly, they want to have a new facility that is the only one built with ATSA funds in the last 18 years that did not involve a team relocating from Florida. Thirdly, they want to control the development around the stadium, something no other team does. Fourthly, they want a separate revenue stream to pay for this, outside of the vehicle set up specifically for this purpose by the State of Arizona. And finally, unlike the D’Backs and Rockies, who, when they decided they needed a new facility and the economy and ATSA could not financially support it, the Cubs have refused to consider private financing options that are available to them.
50% of all car rentals in Maricopa County are by locals?
I have a real hard time believing that.
Finally, what private financing options are available? I haven’t heard of any.
And remember, I finished the article by saying, in fact, that the bill provides that this new money would go for the entire Cactus League, not just the Cubs. I don’t see where the Cubs are playing by different rules. The Cubs want to control the development, yes — but isn’t that the part that they are paying for? It’s not the Wrigleyville West development that’s being financed by these proposals, it’s the stadium.
Incidentally, who paid for Maryvale Baseball Park? That’s the only new park in the last 18 years for a team not relocating.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Answers
I have to believe the spokesman for the 3 largest car rentals companies at Sky Harbor know from what he speaks. The 50% figure is from him, not me.
The Gila River Indian tribe is one private financing option available to the Cubs. Private developers in Scottsdale have also expressed interest, but were rebuffed, as were the Gilas.
The Bill does not, even with some of the fuzzy math involved, provide enough funding for anything but the Cubs. In fact, there are now some doubts as to whether it would even provide enough funding for them, and having Mesa kick in more is being discussed.
Re: Maryvale: First of all, it needs to be understood that Maryvale was designed and built to accommodate TWO teams. There was a verbal agreement for a 2nd team that was coming from Florida that was not honored. The land was donated by a local developer, John F. Long. The stadium itself was built and paid for by the City of Phoenix, as this was before the formation of the ATSA. Just as Hohokam was paid for by Mesa.
Stop with the Gilas
The Gilas are not an option. They had their shot and couldn’t provide a viable option to the Cubs.
The car tax is a dollar not ($2.50). $1 is not going to change a thing and will not reduce demand.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
Not true
Get your facts straight. The Gilas did not get their shot, it was the CUBS that rejected that idea before it got off the ground. If the Gilas are not interested, then why is THEIR lobbyist still working against the proposal?
The $1 rental car surcharge is ON TOP of the $2.50 that is already being charged. The point being made by the rental car industry spokesman is that with all the various taxes and surcharges, eventually it will impact tourism by making Phoenix less attractive to tourists and conventions. Again, that is his contention, not mine.
Do yourself and everyone else on BCB a favor, don’t respond to any more of my posts. You clearly don’t know the first thing about this, and you are just wasting bandwidth.
On the last paragraph of your post, I will respectfully tell you...
… that you are 100% incorrect. Check your email.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Let me put it a different way
I will no longer be responding to westerncubbie’s posts, as it is a waste of bandwidth.
Somebody has to respond to westerncubbie
He/she joined this site in December and the Diamonback’s SB Nation site last week. 100% of his posts have been devoted to pushing the Cubs deal in Mesa.
He/she is either the most passionate singularly focused Cubs fan in history or an involved party cloaked in the anonymity of the internet.
azjazzman, you have established yourself as, far and away, the most credible voice on this site when it comes to knowing the facts of the situation so please continue to correct westerncubbie’s misiniformation campaign.
Well, I appreciate the comment
I hate to sound like the guy who is always disagreeing with everyone, and I’m not even sure I agree about being the most credible.
But, I think it is important to note that you never know who is reading this stuff. I know that westerncubbie introduced some interesting information into the conversation, including about the lobbyist who is working behind the scenes. It’s interesting to me that after westerncubbie brought that up here, some local newspaper columnists started pursuing that angle and writing about it.
Coincidence? Maybe. And maybe not.
♫ ♪ I always feel like... somebody's watching me... ♬ ♩
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I was turned on to the site by a reporter
Reporters get 90% of their news by reading with other people write and say. They are lazy by nature.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:22 PM CST up reply actions
Glad to hear it
For I won’t read any of your posts since you’re obviously not a cub fan.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Feb 19, 2010 12:09 PM CST up reply actions
Mmmmmm
The point is exactly what I said it was-the Gilas are NOT an option.
I clarified the $1 because people are saying it’s $2.50
Tell me-which will have a greater impact on rental cars. The extra buck or The 100,000 people that will no longer come to Arizona and go to Florida instead?
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:16 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting
I’d never heard that about Maryvale- it does explain why they’ve got a fair number of practice fields out there. Was there a particular team that was supposed to move, or was it just a general “We’ll get someone” attitude?
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
Well, I was going to avoid
identifying the team, because it will increase the noise level on BCB, but it was the WHITE SOX. It was another Jerry Reinsdorf flim-flam. He told Phoenix officials that he wanted to move from Florida to the Cactus League and they designed Maryvale with the White Sox in mind. Then, he negotiated a deal on the sly with Tucson to move into TEP with the D’Backs.
Then he ran out on Tucson…Don’t turn your back on this guy.
Right.
Which is why I think Reinsdorf has little standing to complain about someone getting what he thinks is a sweetheart deal, since the people of Arizona have given him TWO.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If Jerry were the only one complaining
I would agree with you 100%. This does not even take into account the shoddy deal he tried to pull off with the Coyotes.
But, he is not the only one. All of the other Cactus League teams and Major League Baseaball are also opposed.
And this, as I noted...
… after Selig told the Cubs months ago he was OK with it.
Why the about-face?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Perhaps
because as the commissioner of baseball he is supposed to represent ALL of the interests of baseball and now that it has become clear that all of the other teams in the Cactus League are opposed to this, he felt it necessary to support those teams as commissioner?
Partially true...
…but the commish is supposed to put the best interest of baseball first and foremost, even if the majority of the owners disagree with him.
Now, I am not saying him backing the tax is in the best interest of baseball, just that Bud is a shill for the owners and not an independent thinker.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Agreed
he is a shill for the owners, no question. And I suspect that is why he seemingly flip-flopped on this.
Which, in my opinion, is reprehensible.
If he told the Cubs months ago he was OK with this — and I have it on good authority that he did — and the Cubs went ahead with the plan assuming they had the support of the commissioner, then they have every right to be pissed about this flip-flop.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No argument there
to me, it is no different than Reinsdorf telling Phoenix he would move to Maryvale and then reneging.
I suspect this is why Bud had his attorney make the statement, to try to distance himself.
However, having said that, if the opposition expressed by the other Cactus League teams results in a more acceptable plan eventually, then it is all good.
I am probably one of the few people in AZ that actually likes the plan proposed by Derrick Hall. A sales tax paid for by everybody, much like the one that paid for Chase Field. It would raise more money faster, and would provide enough money for all Cactus League teams.
But, I know it would never pass here. There are too many people who don’t like sports and oppose public funding of stadiums. And they changed the rules after the Chase Field fiasco and they can no longer levy such a tax without a public vote.
It’s funny that people are so vocal in opposition to public funding, but I never hear them offer to return the money that comes in from the tourists that come here for Spring Training.
The Maryvale complex seems too small
by ’today’s’ standards for two teams. Perhaps 12 years ago, it wasn’t. It seems perfect for one team. Perhaps if the ChiSox did share the facility with Milwaukee, by now, they’d be wanting a new one.
Oh, that’s right — they have a new one now after fleecing the citizens of Tuscon.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Feb 18, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
Two team complexes
are designed with separate clubhouses, separate offices, everything. Maryvale was designed that way. The stadium capacity is 10,000 which makes it larger than almost any ST stadium in Florida. Another team could move in there next week, with almost no alterations to the facility.
Let's not forget
that he wanted to bolt on CHICAGO if they didn’t get him a new ballpark on the Southside. I’m losing a lot of respect for Reinsdorf with this.
"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth
The last person I would believe is an industry spokesperson,
I used to be an industry spokesperson (different industry), and am glad not to be doing it anymore. It makes one feel a bit creepy all over. The goal is to spin in your boss’s favor. No industry wants to have to raise prices if they don’t get the money themselves, and will tailor their information to fit their needs.
Ask for the hard numbers from a disinterested source.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Feb 18, 2010 6:37 PM CST up reply actions
Well, unlike a lot of the numbers
that have been thrown around regarding economic impact and this and that, this one is easily verified. Now that the quote has been printed in the media, let’s see if anybody bothers to challenge it.
I agree about the spin factor, but to flat out lie about a number that is so easy to check up on would tend to make one’s lifespan as a spokesman pretty short.
Not true.
50% or any other number can be arrived at in a million different ways. And if it’s an “industry spokesperson” they find a way to get to the number they need.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Feb 18, 2010 9:16 PM CST up reply actions
This article says differently...
Shelby Donley, owner of Camelback Odyssey Travel in Phoenix, said she gets more complaints about bed taxes than about car rental fees. She added that increasing fees would hit business travelers, who comprise a substantial percentage of rental company business.
Hmmm
who has more credibility…an owner of a Travel Agency (keeping in mind that companies and most frequent travelers almost NEVER book travel through a travel agency anymore) or a person who represents the very industry that is being affected? Pretty obvious, I think.
kinda true
since a person who represents the industry can and will skew numbers to fit their purpose.
dont believe me, here is a prime example
Second Hand Smoking Death Totals
how do they get them? and how are they not accurate? easy. if a person lives with a smoker and dies of anything that can be remotely linked to a cigarette, the hospital has to legally state the death is from second hand smoking, even it they know that it is not correct. then these numbers are used as the death toll from second hand smoke, when in fact second hand smoke cannot be proven, and their lawsuit based on it against the tobacco industry was thrown out of the Supreme Court.,
I am not saying you are wreong, but i am saying consider all sources to get the accurate answer, especially when using stats and numbers provided by them.
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
I'm totally on board with what you say
I am bombarded daily with information that is based on some study done by some group about this or that. Most of the time the data is bogus and the group behind the study has some vested interest that provides motivation to “massage” the data.
But, you have to ask yourself: What motivation would there be for a rental car industry spokesman to provide false information about the % of rental cars that are by locals? That info is pretty cut and dried…you have to provide a driver’s license that goes directly into a database and can be easily accessed.
depends on a few things
1. What is their feeling of a local. Is it local as in city resident, or local how the Angels play in Los Angeles
2. The person renting, is that the same person driving? It is not uncommon for a company or a family member to rent the car for an out of towner, especially with reward miles, etc.
3. would the person stating 50% allow for someone to actually review these numbers to prove or disprove it?
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
No
a local would be defined as a person with an Arizona driver’s license who is renting the car. And since they are also the person paying for it, that is all that matters.
Also, you have to identify anyone else who would be driving the car, besides the person renting it. That is a part of all rental car agreements.
Just because
somebody has a state issued license doesn’t make them a local. It may not be legal but others drive the car without being identified.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
Further...
… Maricopa County isn’t the entire state of Arizona. There may be people from Tucson, Flagstaff, etc. renting cars in Phoenix.
I have a hard time believing it’s 50%; further, there’s no way it’s 50% at Sky Harbor Airport, where this tax would be levied.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Well, he didn't identify
what his definition of “local” was. It could well be that he meant local to Maricopa County. It was my assumption that he meant the state of Arizona. But, even if it was the state, the VAST majority of the rentals would be Maricopa County, since the vast majority of the population lives here and most people that travel here from Tucson do so in there own car.
The tax is being levied in Maricopa county.
Thus, I would assume “local” means a resident of the county. I still find that 50% figure hard to believe.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Feb 18, 2010 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
rec'd
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
Logic fail
Oh, i’m sure there are tons of people from out of state renting cars with their Arizona Driver’s Licenses. Give me a break.
its more common than you might know
or want to believe. Not to mention people will keep their cars registered in a prior state of residence due to lesser cost of registration, etc. You are incorrect with the fail of the logic there.
Lets not forget as well, those who are lucky enough to own a home in two states, and can keep their mailing address, and license in one or the other.
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
your NO here in reply about what a local is
you agree it is not identified below, so I will respectfully pretend you did not say NO when you are admitting to not knowing as well
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
Well, I assumed the 50% figure
was derived by checking the database for Arizona driver’s licenses. After thinking about it further, I realized that they just as easily could check for zip codes that are in Maricopa County.
In any event, this whole discussion is idiotic. The man is not going to make that statement unless he knows what he is talking about. This is just another example of BCBers speculating about someone providing false information when they don’t like the info provided. Just like they did when they cast doubt about Derrick Hall’s statement that all the teams on the Cactus League were against the surcharge. That turned out to be true, and I’m sure the local % of car rentals is true also.
Oh, you're right
Lobbyists don’t make statements unless they know what they are talking about…I forgot…
asking how he gets his numbers
is not trying to make it a conspiracy theory. it is asking a legit question.
it is obvious you are passionate about this, and have no problem trying to tell everyone they are wrong no matter what about it, which is unfortunate. instead of making this BCBers vs you/AZ, why not try providine links to what you state are fact, instead of telling us that we must accept everything at face value to be 100% correct and accurate.
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
I don't doubt
that the local percentage given is true. 50% of Arizona is different that 50% of Maricopa County. The definition of local used is the thing in question. Depending on the definition that 50% means a whole lot of different things.
by Rhymenoceros on Feb 18, 2010 6:53 PM CST up reply actions
Where??
Point me in the direction of your findings, please.
your math doesn't work
That means, combined, a total of $3.5M per year to retire $59M in bonds. There simply will be nothing left for anyone else.
$3.5m a year to retire $59m in bonds is 16.85 years. That leaves 8 years of “extra” money. Where will that money go? Why, into the ATSA pot, of course.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Feb 18, 2010 4:23 PM CST up reply actions
Uh, you forgot interest
and saying that it will be 20 years (by the time you add interest payments) before any money is available for anybody else besides the Cubs, is the same as saying this is a Cubs only fund.
It's all about future revenue
Bonds can be sold based on current and future revenue. The money doesn’t have to be paid in full to start using it. The money will be available within a few years, even more so if the economy recovers to previous levels.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:26 PM CST up reply actions
show me the math of the interest payments.
and no. There will be plenty of money for other teams. the math doesn’t lie.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Feb 19, 2010 4:11 PM CST up reply actions
Florida will provide it. If I were the Cubs, I would just
give the notice they are leaving and be done with it.
Florida will provide it?
I have seen no such evidence.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Florida has just as many hurdles
They have just as many political barriers, if not more. They are using public funds just like here.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:29 PM CST up reply actions
my own personal logic
Selig is against it. The Brewer fans are against it. Reinsdorf is against it.
Therefore, I am for it.
Yes, it’s petty. Oh well.
by rgonzale on Feb 18, 2010 2:48 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
This is a pretty stupid thing to say...
The cost to a spring training fan would be about $2.50 per admission with the ticket surcharge and if the person rented a car, said bill sponsor Rep. John McComish, R-Ahwatukee Foothills. Fans probably won’t even notice the additional amount of money they’ll pay, he said.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
A lot of fans who have the $$$ to fly to AZ, rent a car, rent a hotel room, and go to games
won’t notice $2.50. The trip itself is a luxury to most people; to the ones who can afford it, I don’t think $2.50 is a noticeable amount.
by Orval Overall on Feb 18, 2010 3:18 PM CST up reply actions
Whether or not they will notice the $2.50, it's still a stupid thing to say
It demonstrates a decided lack of sensitivity to current economic conditions and certainly does not help his position.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
In my case
I have attended ST in Mesa for the last 8 years. And I do not like the extra cost of a rental car. In fact this year I am renting a car off the airport site to save on (some) of the fees/taxes for using the airport rental car facility. However, I note that with each new year when prices are raised (for example my tix to Cubs Dodgers/Sox games at Glendale) I try to make it up somewhere else. It works out great for me in a way since the misses and I can skip a sit down dinner somewhere and eat In-N-Out all week.
Win Win.
"Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make something up"
Mmm... In-N-Out...
If Bernanke decides the hell with a 2nd term, I nominate you to take over as Fed Chief. We need creative solutions like this to get the economy moving again…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
$2.50 is an interesting number
Since that’s $1 for the car rental, and then $1.50 on $18.50 worth of tickets. Do people really fly down and rent a car just to go see one game?
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
Even if they see five or six games...
… how much is that, $15? When you’re likely spending $1500 on the trip?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If they are coming from out of town
what about if they are a local who just wants to take in a ball game? I have never seen an estimate of what % of ST tickets are sold to locals, but I am confident it is significant. Even at Hohokam.
Probably so, since...
… there are so many former Chicagoans who live in the Valley.
But what percentage of total Cactus League attendance is locals?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I have no idea
and I doubt anybody does with any certainty. Supposedly all the Cactus League teams survey fans to this effect, but I have never seen any numbers. Many of the studies I have seen start with the assumption that the vast majority of fans at Cactus League games come from out of town, and I know that isn’t the case.
The Survey Says
Survey data says about 100,000 of the 200K visitors fly in from out of town. The number that visit other away games is probably about the same.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:32 PM CST up reply actions
If I was the D-Backs
I would hire azjazzman as my lobbyist.
I keed, I keed.
"Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make something up"
Jealousy
is an evil thing. I am tired of it being thrown at the Cubs and their fans by other fans, owners and media. It is a shame when talking bad about the Cubs gets more attention on the internet and newspapers than talking about what your team is preparing to do this spring and upcoming season.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:14 PM CST reply actions
Jealousy is awful
Like being jealous of other team’s spring training facilities, am I right? =)
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
LOL!
I have to laugh whenever somebody brings up jealousy, because that is the ONLY reason the Cubs want a new ST facility, by their own admission. Not need… want.
Arizona will feel the impact if the Cubs leave!
IMO
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:34 PM CST up reply actions
Horsecrap
The Cubs have a perfectly fine spring training complex already. The fact is they want a brand new faclility because it will provide them with a financial windfall. Which is perfectly fine for a private enterprise wanting to maximize it’s earning potential, but quite another thing to look to the taxpayer to subsidize your strategic initiative.
It’s too bad this is impacting the Cubs and not, for example, the Dodgers or the White Sox a few years ago when they built their new digs. But I have no problem with the Arizona taxpayers saying enough is enough. Sad that it impacts the Cubs however.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
If you have actually seen the Cubs' spring training "complex"...
… which isn’t a “complex”, but a stadium separated by 3/4 of a mile from four practice fields, and compared it to some of the newer complexes, you wouldn’t be saying that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al, I have seen Ho Ho Kam
You are trying to cloud the argument. This isn’t about the Cubs needing a new facility, but rather asking the taxpayer to subsidize the construction of one. Which particularly in this economy and an environment of extreme distrust of politicians and subsidizing private enterprise, is just plain wrong.
The taxpayers have a right to say NO if they want to.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Sure they do...
…and they do that by flooding their representatives office with phone calls emails etc and telling them how they feel. Very similar to what happened with the healthcare issue in the US the last couple of months.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Not sure where you are going with the circular argument
Seems self-evident that the people of Arizona are in revolt on this issue.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Yes
And we’re being told by Cubs fans that we’re fools for it.
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
When
the hotels rooms aren’t being used and the beer & restaurant sells go down drastically I hope something else can prop up the economy for the area.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
And
the round of golf or two I play while there.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:56 PM CST up reply actions
Let's be realistic here
Arizona had $18.5 billion in tourism in 2008- those are the most recent numbers I can find in a brief search. The Cactus League’s estimated financial impact that year was $335 million. So, that works out to about 1.8%- and that’s all the teams, not just the Cubs. Factor in 2 teams moving over from Florida since then, and three teams moving from Tucson to the Phoenix area by next season, and do you really feel like the Cubs leaving town is an economic body blow that the Phoenix area will never recover from?
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
Excellent point
some of these comments are definitely in need of a reality/perspective check. If the Cubs leave, it won’t even seriously damage the Cactus League. The league as a whole would still be a lot healthier than it was 10 years ago.
I'm not saying it will die
you just can’t take away the biggest draw and say there isn’t going to be a big impact on the $335 million. I have not really looked deeply into what all is included in the estimated $335 million. I just know I like to do other things there besides go to baseball games and I wonder how well that can be included. I play golf, go to the casino, even been to a Suns game, eat at In-N-Out, and buy lottery tickets. Am I the norm or an outlier, I have no idea.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 4:11 PM CST up reply actions
The truth is
you are probably pretty typical of a certain type of Cubs fan.
But Cubs Spring Training fans come in multiple flavors.
1) There is the Cubs fan who was originally from Chicago, but moved here and now lives in the valley. He goes to Cubs ST games, but never stays in a hotel or rents a car.
2) There is the Cubs fan who flies in for Spring Training games, but has friends or extended family who lives here and they stay with. They also do not stay in a hotel or rent a car. (This one is VERY prevalent. They show up on surveys as out of town visitors, but their economic impact is minimal).
3) Then there is the Cubs fans who winters here. This one is especially hard to track, as they sort of fall somewhere between #1 and #2.
4) Then, there are the Cubs fans like you, who come for a week, stay in a hotel, eat in restaurants, play golf, go to Suns game, etc etc. You are the ones we love, and frankly, wish there were more of.
Hmm you got a spare room right?
Why should I waste money on Motel6 and its 12% tax.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 18, 2010 8:44 PM CST up reply actions
I am glad you find a player your own size
AUGIE! AUGIE!
Is he likely to make the team this year?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 18, 2010 10:01 PM CST up reply actions
I was waiting for someone to make the crack
that a 5 foot poster of Augie and me is bigger than life-size.
He should make the team if he isn’t traded…which unfortunately looks like a real possibility. I would assume he is out of options. There has got to be a job somewhere for a diminutive utility man who does nothing but produce in clutch situations.
Me & 3 buds are in #2
but what we don’t spend on a rental, we spend at the Tilted Kilt…!
Just win the next game...!
To be fair,
that is all of Arizona, not the area, though I don’t know the difference that it would make.
by Rhymenoceros on Feb 18, 2010 7:01 PM CST up reply actions
Maricopa County
has 11.7 B (of that 18.5B) in revenue if I read this properly:
http://www.azot.gov/documents/Arizona%202008%20Tourism%20Facts.pdf
I don’t know where you got the $335 from so I can’t do any comparing.
The over all point, I think, is that it may impact the immediate areas, such as Mesa, though it might not affect the whole county, or even state for that matter.
I will put this out there: I don’t know much about the situation, this is just the thought that I was having while reading these comments.
by Rhymenoceros on Feb 18, 2010 7:15 PM CST up reply actions
These things usually workout...
…on their own.
If the AZ representatives do something that pisses off enough people, they will pay for it eventually.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
No they won't
Take a look at the Arizona Budget situation. 97% of those running this year will get elected again.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think that is true at all
Some folks are in favor of this, and some are opposed.
Nobody is in revolt, so far as I can see.
If the election in Mesa were held tomorrow, my guess is it would pass, as most people look at this as needed economic development that is largely being paid for by interests outside of Mesa.
Guard: ‘Sire, the peasants are revolting.’
Groucho: ‘They certainly are.’
from "Duck Soup (1933)
I was in belief that
it was the other owners of MLB that call AZ their spring training home that were in revolt. I think the people of Arizona know that Cubs fans are suckers. Why do you think we’re going to play in Las Vegas forever and ever (it seems)? It’s because they KNOW Cubs fans will follow. Naples wouldn’t have been aggressive if they didn’t know this fact either.
"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth
Only a few teams
in the Cactus League have gone so far as to publicly voice their opposition. And even those will let it go and move on if the state legislature passes the bill.
I don’t think any of them are invested enough in their opposition to make a stink over it.
And, for the record, I do think Reinsdorf, in particular, has a hidden agenda.
Exactly correct.
His agenda is to snark against anything that might help the Cubs. That franchise goes around with a chip on its shoulder, from the top down. You’d think that winning the WS in 2005 might have helped them get rid of it. Nope, they’re still angry. Very unseemly.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
They'll get the chance
Mesa residents will have the chance to vote on the measure. In my opinion, they’ll see the benefits outweigh the costs.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:34 PM CST up reply actions
The Cubs have every right to ask for it.
I see new stadiums being built all over the country for sports teams, if Arizona decides not to it will be their loss in the end.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:43 PM CST up reply actions
Well....
There have been numerous studies conducted on the return on investment of taxpayers subsidizing construction of sports facilities. Nearly every study out there says the taxpayer gets a raw deal in the end.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
I'm sure that is the case
many times. I honestly don’t feel the tax payers are getting cheated here (not just because it is the Cubs).
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 18, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions
This isn't dollar for dollar
Those studies look at a dollar for dollar payback. You must look at both direct and indirect benefits.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:36 PM CST up reply actions
There's a difference between asking and demanding
And I really think that’s part of the problem here. To most people outside the Cubs organization and fanbase, this looks like the Cubs are, in a time of economic disaster in Arizona, demanding that they get a new stadium, when their current on isn’t that old. There’s a perceived attitude like the citizenry of Arizona owes them this, and it’s backed up by absurd claims like the Cubs provide over 40% of the economic benefit of Spring Training, and that without them the Cactus League will crumble and collapse into nothing.
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
I don't see it that way.
Perspective is, as usual, everything.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You don’t really see any hint of blackmail in “Give us a new stadium or we’re moving to Florida”?
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
blackmail, no
bold business demand, yes
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
None of this should be surprising
Fact is the American public is sick and tired of a couple things.
A. A terrible economy the likes of which we have not seen in any of our lifetimes.
B. Politicians and bureaucrats
C. Poliitcians and bureaucrats forever looking for ways to have taxpayer dollars pay for pet projects and things that can best be classified as “non-essential”
D. Subsidizing professional sports teams via sweetheart deals to build new stadiums, etc.
I got to be honest here….I have a problem with the proposed Cub deal too. Why should the Arizona taxpayers foot the bill for the Cubs (or any other baseball team) to build a palatial spring training palace that will make them money by the bushel basket. It’s a bummer this impacts the Cubs and not some other baseball team, but I have no problem with the good people of Arizona taking a stand on this one.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
These things sort themselves out...
…and if the people are that pissed about paying for these things, they should vote the dudes out who voted for it.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I'd probably like
to hear of a bit more grassroots conversation on this from the local residents, and less wrangling amongst millionaires, and the politicians that support them, before I’d agree with that statement.
That said, I’m still not hearing a reasonable answer to a simple question. In a situation where practically all parties – if not all – agree that this particular business offers sizable economic advantage to the region at large, and that business has other viable location alternatives, is the community willing to let them leave in lieu of taxpayer funding? I hear a great deal of posturing, but no one seems to dispute the Cubs economic impact, no one wants them to leave, and yet I don’t recall hearing any reasonable alternatives.
by Damen Jackson on Feb 18, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
Normally I would suggest
reading the comments sections attached to the various articles about this on azcentral.com and the East Valley Tribune site, but they are mostly coming from people who are more interested in getting attention for themselves than in an intelligent discussion…so I don’t know that you will get much out of them.
Also
If I can plug Jim’s SB Nation azsnakepit site, I think Jim has done an outstanding job of laying out the issues from the standpoint of a local (AZ) baseball fan, and Jim also has a remarkable ability to cut through the B.S. and get to the heart of the matter. From my discussions with friends, business associates, etc., I think Jim’s concerns, as expressed in his writings about this, pretty accurately reflect the concerns of most locals on this issue.
With a biased DBacks Spin
You have to at least admit that some of his points have no relevance or effect to him or his team since the DBacks aren’t subject to the surcharge and they are sitting pretty in their new stadium using federal stimulus money and indian taxpayer money.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:38 PM CST up reply actions
Yep
that is why I think it is safe to say that Hall’s objections are based on fairness issues and not because it impacts the D’Backs in any way.
And I would quibble with your portrayal of who is paying for the D’Backs/Rockies complex. The reality is that it is being paid for by people who gamble at the Salt River/Pima casinos. They are not really using any stimulus money (they are simply getting favorable loan terms as part of the stimulus plan) and they certainly are not taxing the reservation residents.
Smoke that peace pipe
I’m sure the residents of the far eastern part of the reservation would disagree. That’s $120 Million or more that they won’t see as residents. Don’t say gamblers are paying for it either-if there wasn’t a stadium, there would be more money left over to go to the residents or to improve life on the reservation. It’s insulting to pretend that somehow the reservation is some corporation.
Derrick Hall can pretend we are all idiots but I’m sorry-if you get a tax and interest free loan from the United States Government-that is taxpayer money. If you want to hold on to that dream, who pays for it when the tribe defaults on the loan?
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:54 PM CST up reply actions
You can't have it both ways
the Indian tribe decided that an investment in a Spring Training facility right next to their largest casino makes sense as it will attract more gamblers to the casino, during a down economy.
If you argue that investing in a new Cubs stadium makes sense due to the boost to the tourism business, they you can’t turn around and complain the the poor Indian tribe is stealing money from their people when they are spending money for the very same reason.
I didn't complain
I’m not complaining at all. I’m also not the one that sanctimoniously is saying we aren’t effecting the taxpayers!
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
Since Hall is so Democratic
He has no issues saying lets put it to a countywide tax-why not let the residents of the the reservation vote on it? He’s so worried about “taxpayers”.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions
As you well know
the Indian Reservation government does not operate the same way the state government does. They have powers and authority well beyond that of the state.
And again, you are complaining that the Salt River/Pima tribe is taking advantage of Federal loan guarantees and terms, and then saying that they are somehow taking advantage of their residents at the same time. Isn’t economic development to the benefit of the tribe as a whole? If not, then your whole argument for the Cubs in Mesa goes down in flames.
Again, you misunderstand
All the power to them. Support it whole heartedly. I’m not out saying that “taxpayers” aren’t paying a dime or that this is all a private matter and therefore everyone should follow our lead.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
I think you are taking that comment
too literally. What they are saying, and they are correct, is that no new taxes were levied to pay for their ST complex, and that is something that they are justifiably proud of. They got a new complex and nobody had to dig further into already empty pockets to pay for it.
No.
He has said over and over again that no taxpayer funds were used. This is a private funding method.
He has been clear about that time and time again.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 6:23 PM CST up reply actions
It's nitpicking
he is, in fact, correct. The Indians are paying for the complex. How the Indians get funding, who guarantees their loans, etc, is not really that relevant. The point is that no state/county/city money is being uses and you know and I know that is what he meant.
Dude come on
No. There are 50 written comments in newspapers etc that contradict what you are saying. The fact is, the Indians are taxpayers too and federal stimulus is us.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 6:30 PM CST up reply actions
I'll give the opponents this point.
They know how to phrase it for maximum emotional weight – and successfully drive out any hopes of rational discussion.
Calling anything a “tax” now is the closest thing to calling it “dog-killing, baby-vaporizing, kitten-mulching poison”, and thanks to the antigovernmental hysterics being as loud as they are, it gets heard.
Whether it ought to be considered or not is another discussion. As is the fact that governments do very real beneficial things for their citizens, even when some (quite vocally) don’t want any others to benefit by those same things.
by MN exile on Feb 18, 2010 4:07 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
In the meantime
Can we just quote you as saying “We don’t need to be spending scarce state resources improving a billionaire’s business”?
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
YOU can not quote me at all.
You are clearly uninterested in the distinction between an NFL team that plays eight games a year (plus two preseason) and a spring training schedule that brings far more people to an area, or the distinction between dedicated funds drawn from user fees and general-fund monies.
So no, you may not quote me for your grandstanding, because I know what I’m talking about and you clearly do not.
Let's think about that
westerncubbie just told us that surveys show that 100,000 people come from out of town to go to Cubs games. That sounds about right to me.
We know that a lot of Arizona Cardinals games draw anywhere from 10 to 30,000 fans from out of town (higher for teams like the Packers, Cowboys, etc play here). I went to the NFC Championship game last year and the place was teeming with Philadelphia Eagles fans. So, even if you take an average of 15,000 per game, that means that in 7 games you draw more out of town fans than the Cubs do for all of Spring Training.
It's all about the room nights
Cubs fans rent more hotel room nights a year though then those events. That’s where the money is. Cubs fans stay longer and spend more money then the average fan too.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:45 PM CST up reply actions
Not by the time
you factor in the Fiesta Bowl, BCS Championship Games, a Super Bowl here and there, various conventions that are held at UOP (last year’s women’s expo had 25,000 attendees), etc et
Each are individual
Individual events split up don’t amount to as much as the Cubs. Not saying anything was wrong with the Cards stadium (except that it’s in Glendale). Collectively though, the Cubs are a major cog in the hospitality wheel in AZ.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 6:12 PM CST up reply actions
All those events together
amount to a much larger economic impact than the Cubs, and since this conversation was originally about public funding of stadiums, then that is how you have to look at it.
Agreed
I would never argue against it. The Cactus League as a whole is basically a Super Bowl every year. I was commenting on just the Cardinals games that were mentioned in the post.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 6:18 PM CST up reply actions
So
You would estimate that the financial impact of 8 games at an average of 63 thousand attendees apiece is greater than 15 games at 10 thousand apiece?
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
See Westerncubbie's reply to azjazzman above.
And use real numbers if you can. 63,000 attendees might be possible in the Deflato-Dome, but it’s not likely, especially if the Fire Marshall has anything to say about it, and most of those are local. (Read: No hotel rooms or car rentals, for starters.)
So even using your unrealistically overblown projections, if the percentage is down around 25%, which seems high from what I’ve seen on the Vikings’ televised games, you’re at best breaking even on the out-of-towners.
Amazing. Azjazzman just conjectures about who’s coming from where for what, and you just make numbers up out of whole cloth.
And by the way, if the Cubs wanted to write a check for this I’d be OK with that too. I’ve never been to a spring training game and probably won’t in any case, and I’ve been to three Vikings games in my life. Only one I bought a ticket for. And the NFL is so incredibly dull in person I doubt I’d ever go again on my own accord.
To me it’s an abstraction at a comfortable distance in a state I don’t care about ever setting foot in again.
Those are the official attendance figures
Source gives it as 63,775 per home game.
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
Not made up at all
I have been to lots of games at UoP stadium and my estimates are conservative. The Cardinals players even complain that when the Packers/Cowboys/49ers etc play here, it seems like a road game
By the way, UoP has sold out every game played there…63,000. For the Fiesta Bowl, Super Bowl, BCS Championship and NFL Playoff games, the capacity is increased to 72,000.
Your personal opinions are fascinating (not!), but let’s try to stick to facts here.
Just to be clear, the football stadium and team originally referenced here is the Vikings, not the Cardinals.
"I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot-dog"
So, by rational discussion,
you mean labeling people who want government at any level to abide by its Constitutionally-mandated limits as “antigovernmental hysterics”? That kind of rational discussion?
"There's more to life than profits...like, you know, slurpees and stuff." ~Randy Marsh
how about the Cubs pay 100% for their new ST Site
right after the owners who are against this repay 100% of the funds they got from the ASTA and other tax dollars.
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
That would have to include the Cubs
who have trained for the last 40+ years in various taxpayer funded facilities, including the current version of Hohokam, to the tune of $20+ Million.
The "tune of $20+ million" shrinks in comparison to..
Camelback Stadium…“The AzSTA has agreed to reimburse the City $60,000,000 (plus certain interest costs) for costs of the spring training facilities. No AzSTA funds have been pledged to payment of the 2008 Bonds. The anticipated funding requirements for the facilities are approximately $110,000,000. In addition, approximately $40,000,000 for various infrastructure improvements will be funded from 2008B Bond proceeds.”
This is why
this whole topic starts to smack of “stadium envy”. When I heard Cubs supporters using Camelback Ranch as justification for their need to upgrade in Mesa, it makes it clear what this is all about. The truth is, the justification for building Camelback Ranch was two fold – one was to attract the Dodgers from Florida, as well as the White Sox from Tucson…and the other was to continue a strategy for economic development that the City of Glendale had already implemented with Jobing.com arena and University of Phoenix Stadium.
The fact that Camelback Ranch was built for TWO teams and hosts twice as many games every year means that when you look at costs vs benefit, you have to divide everything on the cost side by 2.
There really is nothing comparable in that scenario to the Cubs situation in Mesa, other than the fact that they involve spring training baseball.
In comparison
The City of Mesa is being asked to float $25M in bond debt for this $119M project. You would argue this 21% is oppressive. I see it as a smoking good deal that will handcuff the Cubs to Mesa for a generation or two.
I never argued
that this wasn’t a good deal for Mesa. What is in question is how fair it is for the people who would be paying the bulk of the cost, and what kind of a precedent it sets for the future when other teams decide they have “stadium envy”.
This whole fairness thing
seem disingenuous to me. The impact to rental car fees is trivial and only appears oppressive when viewed in the aggregate with the other add-ins. I think your buddy’s estimate of 50% of rental cars being procured by local residents is a bunch of steaming horse do-do. The vast majority of car rentals will always be vacationers and business travelers. I am asked to travel frequently for business and my company has never once questioned a rental car invoice and never will. I hate spending $$$ on car rentals during my annual Cub vacations but at least now a portion of the fees are going toward something I wish to support.
As for complaints from rival Cactus League owners, I believe this is more about perception than principle. These owners know their home attendance and associated revenue will not be impacted by the puny $1 surcharge. They also know they stand to lose huge revenue if the Cubs leave Arizona. That said no smart owner wants to be percieved as endorsing a plan that even remotely penalizes their fanbase.
In closing I would argue this issue has less to do with ‘stadium envy’ and everything to do with ‘cash envy.’ The Ricketts’ family stands to make a fortune through partnership deals associated with Wrigleyville West. The Cubs brand is gold and they wish to exploit it. If the City of Mesa is smart they will come along for the ride.
You are right on the money (pun intended)
this is all about the “Wrigleyville West” part of the deal, imo. That is why Hohokam suddenly became inadequate, why the Gila Indian site was not acceptable, etc etc.
Fitch Park has 4 1/2 practice fields, which is right in line with other teams and guess what: the MOU states the new complex will have the same. What else do they need to get up to speed? A fancy new clubhouse with flat screen TVs. That is about it.
They talk about outmoded batting practice equipment…well, they are getting their new video equipment and batting cages. They talk about diagnostic equipment….that is something that can be purchased.
Sorry, they will never have as much on site diagnostic equipment as the Giants have – being next door to a hospital and all.
Jazz, we agree on a lot of stuff
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Hohokam in terms of stadium infrastructure, ammenities, fan proximity to the action, etc. I first fell in love with Mesa through my connection to the Cubs and Hohokam. Given the choice I’d vote to keep the Cubs in Hohokam forever. Unfortunately we are adults who live in the real world. I disagree with Al’s sources in that the Cubs WILL relocate to whatever city gives ownership the opportunity to develop and exploit deals. The Cubs choose to purchase the land for a reason.
Jazz, you are an eloquent and worthy adversary. I feel a little bit like Abraham Lincoln trying to woo Robert E. Lee into leading the union army. I wish you were on our side!!!
But the thing is
and I guess this gets lost in all the mumbo-jumbo, but I am on your side! I think it would be awesome if the Cubs could have a ST complex in Mesa that is the equal or better than the one in Glendale. Heck, I am a baseball fan and a resident of Mesa and that would be like a kid living next door to Disneyland.
But, from the get-go I was concerned about the timing…given the economy, and how this gets paid for. One thing westerncubbie mentioned in passing which I think is crucial…if the economy bounces back to normal around here in the next couple of years, then I think this whole thing becomes a piece of cake. But a lot of people who are smarter than me are nervous about whether that is going to happen or not.
Remember that....
… the White Sox had a beautiful taxpayer financed facility in Pima County that they ran out on to move to a much nicer place in Glendale, only ten years after they moved from Florida to Arizona.
For Reinsdorf to complain about the Cubs wanting the same thing is: pot, meet kettle.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You're greatly skewing the real facts here
The Dodgers and White Sox didn’t get anywhere near the taxpayer-funded dollars that the Cub deal represents. Not even remotely close.
This Cub deal on the table breaks the mold in terms of Arizona’s taxpayer assistance for a new spring training site. Not one of the teams in Arizona have a deal approaching on any scale what the taxpayers are being asked to fund for the Cubs. Not a single one. Not the Dodgers, White Sox, Brewers, Indians, Angels, Padres, D-Backs, Mariners.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Wrong
You are categorically wrong. ASTA funds paid for 66% of the stadium construction costs for the west side stadiums.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 9:53 PM CST up reply actions
No, you are wrong
Look at the financial cost to the taxpayer of all the deals. The deal on the table for the Cubs would cost the taxpayer as much as all of the other spring training facility deals done in Arizona over the last 8 years COMBINED. The deal on the table is a windfall for the Cubs, and the Arizona taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill. Therefore they damned sure do have a right to voice their opinion.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Lou, your uniformed comments are embarrassing the staunchest critics of the Cubs deal. You are not only wrong, you are wrong in galactic proportions.
Nope
Not according to Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute of Constitutional Litigation. Who by the way is slated to meet direclty with the Governor of Arizona on this general topic next Tuesday according to published reports.
Bolick and the Goldwater Institute have done extensive analysis on these Arizona stadium deals. Their research has been done in concert with a research unit of Arizona State University in Tempe. And that research concluded that the deal on the table for the Cubs would surpass the taxpayer investment made in ALL spring training complex deals over the last 8 years.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
This is also a man
and an organization that are against pretty much all taxes for anything.
by Josh Timmers on Feb 18, 2010 10:15 PM CST up reply actions
And there is a distinct possibility
that if the legislature passes this bill, the Goldwater Institute will sue to get an injunction against it and with the previous ruling from the AZ Supreme Court, they will probably get it.
Not even in the same league
Goldwater doesn’t have any basis on this. The Cubs don’t own anything and are not getting something for “free”. Under that argument, the ice capades at USAirways and every concert would be illegal. And the DBacks and Cardinals certainly would be too.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 10:31 PM CST up reply actions
As you can see here
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4445
the issues go a little deeper than that. Not just the possibility of illegal subsidies, but a possible unconstitutional use of legislative authority.
The Goldwater Institute has an impressive track record in court.
I welcome this...
The Cubs value is significant and measurable and when independently quantified these facts will thwart any legal or constitutional challenges. I say bring it.
Uh no.
No they don’t. They have lost way more then they have won. Even the CityNorth case was a loss.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 10:55 PM CST up reply actions
How so?
The appeals court struck down the CityNorth subsidy, saying it was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
They won several cases that involved the disclosure of public records and summary judgements and injuctions in cases where public subsidies were in dispute. It looks like most of the rest of their cases were settled out of court. The only case I can find that they lost was one against the Corporation Commission, and they may yet appeal that one.
Not so
The court punted. They didn’t strike down the subsidy-just applied a test that all future agreements must pass. They haven’t won one subsidy injunction when it applies to a municipality.
On top of that, they are a bunch of hypocrites. They’re fine using tax dollars when it enriches private charter school owners but find religion on everything else.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 11:46 PM CST up reply actions
Okay, I'll bite
What numbers was Mr. Bolick using? The latest numbers I’ve seen was $119M of which 50% was financed by rental car fees & ticket surcharges, 30% was land financed by the Cubs, and 25% was bond debt issued by the City of Mesa. Unless he substitutes his own numbers the Cubs proposal is not even in “the ball park” of Cameback Stadium. Only a politician would argue that AzSTA funds are not public financing.
Bolick and the Arizona State University led research refute your claim
Take your argument up with them.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
I didn't look too hard
but I didn’t find evidence that the White Sox or Dodgers invested a dime in Camelback. Please ask Mr. Bolick where the entire $100M+ cash came from?
I think the difference is
the stadiums in question were funded by the ATSA, thru a mechanism that was approved by the voters of Maricopa County. How well those of us that live here remember that election. Cardinals football players going door to door. The money was going to the New Cardinals stadium, Cactus League stadiums, and, oh yeah, youth sports fields. We were treated to commercials with laughing, happy children cavorting on soccer fields.
Now, in this instance, no vote, no real public input. A bill has been proposed in the legislature that creates a special funding mechanism that in reality benefits only one team, despite any intellectually dishonest rhetoric to the contrary.
The Goldwater Institute is now questioning the rather lopsided benefit to one specific private business, and secondarily, the constitutionality of the bill itself.
Different proposals
Same structure-different funding. One is a sales tax paid by all. The other is a user tax, only paid for by those that use them.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 11:48 PM CST up reply actions
NO
both were user taxes. Arizona Prop 302 in 2002 levied a surcharge of $2.50 on vehicles rented in Maricopa County and a 1% tax on hotel rooms. It is also worth noting that as far as the Cardinals stadium is concerned, the Cardinals kicked in $85M towards the cost of construction.
You are correct
Was confused with others.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 12:13 AM CST up reply actions
and other tax dollars
would include US Cellular for a perfect example. They should return ALL FUNDS that were from taxes, etc.
Then they can talk, since they no longer would be the pot calling the kettle black
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
K, let's do some math
The most recent reports say that Arizona made 335 million in one year from Spring Training. It’s pretty normal that the Cubs attendance is 150% to 200% above the average team.
So, I’ll go conservative here for all the doubters and say 150%.
335 million / 15 teams = 22,333,333 * 150% = $33,500,000
That’s the dollars, per year, that the Cubs account for. Now, let’s say that some fans would go to other spring training games, so it wouldn’t hurt that much. However, let’s also say that many Cubs fans that wouldn’t go to any games (including other teams’) because the Cubs wouldn’t be there. So, let’s drop the Cubs impact dollars by 25% to account for fans that would just go to other games. (If you disagree, please don’t attack, just say so and why, this is a very rough estimate.)
33,500,000 * .75 = $25,125,000
K, now to the bill. It says that the bill will be in effect for 25 years and raise 81 million for the teams. Meaning that the public, local and foreign would spend 81 million.
Well, let’s multiply the 25 mil times 25 years.
25,125,000 * 25 = $628,125,000
Also, please understand that I’m not even adding interest into this, which I’m gonna guess that the Arizona government did for their 81 million estimate.
So, $81,000,000 will be spent to retain what I believe to be a VERY conservative $628,125,000.
So, the citizen’s and foreign car renters of Arizona are going to pay a small tax on car rentals. AZ Spring Training attendants will pay a small amount more on their tickets. And total, the state of Arizona will make 775% back in revenue on their investments. If you consider this bad, fine. I consider it a good thing.
If there are any numbers that you dispute, let me know. Thanks!
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Also, another note as to how conservative that 628 mil is. I also didn’t take into account that total tickets sold increase often, meaning total visitors increase often. So that 628 mil is (in my opinion) the ABSOLUTE lowest that the fans would bring AZ in revenue.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
I think Ricketts has an alternate plan.
I think he knew all along the Cubs tax won’t fly. But by giving Mesa first crack, he still comes off as the good guy. If they can’t deliver, he is free to negotiate with that Indian tribe. Or Florida.
It's Florida or Arizona
The Tribe is out. That part is certain.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 5:40 PM CST up reply actions
There You Go Again
It isn’t the “Cubs Tax.”
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Feb 18, 2010 5:40 PM CST reply actions
No, it's not.
It’s been made eminently clear that any monies raised by this tax would go to the ASTA and be available for all teams in the Cactus League.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
ONLY after
the Cubs complex gets paid for, which will take about 20 years under the current proposal. People who aren’t even born yet will wind up paying for this thing.
Made eminently clear? Nothing is clear as there have been no financial projections. But, it doesn’t take an accountant (which I am not) to figure out that this proposal is dedicated to financing the Cubs and the Cubs only for longer than can be realistically projected.
this is neither here nor there
but the skier julia mancuso looks and talks exactly like jeff samardzjida. it’s kind of scary. i think they were separated at birth.
I've stayed out of this
because there are economic and tax issues that I really don’t understand going on here.
But let’s be clear. We are not talking about just 15 Spring Training games here. We’re talking about a baseball complex that will house and train players pretty much 11 months a year. The Cubs have their extended spring training at the complex, their rookie league team as well as hosting Arizona Fall League games. Trainers and a medical staff are there year round. It’s the Cubs minor league HQ.
From what I understand, that’s the real problem with Ho Ho Kam now. The complex where the minor leaguers play is inadequate.
It's true
but the question becomes, why is it necessary to build a whole new stadium and minor league complex for $100M or so, when you could build just the training complex part of it for 1/8th of that or less? I haven’t heard anyone put forth the argument that Hohokam itself is inadequate (although I am sure the clubhouse and team offices are not up to other stadiums).
Fitch Field, despite what others have claimed, CAN be expanded. The only thing I hear put forth is that Fitch is 3/4s of a mile away from Hohokam. Well, to me, that is just absurd. That is not a reason to scrap the whole facility.
To you, it's absurd. To Cubs leadership, it's not.
Simple as that.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Then Cub leadership should identify private funding source and leave the taxpayer out of it
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Having been to Fitch...
… and knowing where it is located in relation to HoHoKam, and knowing what other teams have as a complex — I don’t see how you can say improving Fitch is an option.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
100% agree
The Cubs shouldn’t rest until they have a facility at least at par with what the White Sox and Dodgers have right now. HoHoKam and Fitch Park are not even close whether it be location, space or facilities. The Cubs must move.
Well, I guess this is the bottom line then
Not about having a facility that works for them, but having one equal to the best in baseball.
And that is what worries me…this keeping up with the Jones’ and arms race in ST complexes has to stop somewhere and maybe here is the place where it stops.
I can tell you this…if I were the mayor of Mesa and it was presented to me the way you just presented it, I would wish you the best of luck in Florida.
No you wouldn't
As mayor your job is to protect economic development and the Cubs are a major economic engine in Mesa.
The difference us other teams are not the Cubs. The power of the Cubs is the only reason this is on the table.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 10:36 PM CST up reply actions
I understand that
but they keep saying that having the Cubs is good for the entire Cactus League, which I get, but caving in to rather outrageous demands and setting a precedent like this is bad for the entire Cactus League.
I am confident that if the Cubs had only the option of Florida left, they would find out pretty quickly that Florida can’t or won’t give them everything they desire…and then Mesa could deal with them without having a gun held to their head.
Why do you think Florida wouldn't empty the bank?
The Grapefruit League is bordering on desperate – they’ve lost an awful lot of teams in a relatively short amount of time. Clearly, they need a counterstrike in the worst possible way.
And if the window should open again for them, I’m pretty sure they would give the Cubs everything they desire – and more. In a sense, they’d construct a deal in the worst possible way. But that’s what desperation will do to you – you end up overpaying.
There are way too many good reasons for Mesa/Arizona not to work out for the Cubs, but don’t think for a minute that Florida is going away. They will wait by the phone 24/7 until the last brick is laid and the first pitch is thrown in the new park. And the Cubs know it. Mesa/Arizona better not forget it.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
From what I understand
Florida is just as bad off as Arizona financially and the anti-public funding of stadiums sentiment is even stronger there. Look at the protracted battle the Marlins had over getting their new, badly needed, stadium built.
Plus, there is one aspect of the Florida plan that always troubled me. They were looking for private developers to foot a lot of the bill for the stadium. Well, in exchange for that, the developers would clearly want most of the action of the “Wrigleyville South” development…which would necessarily be on a much smaller scale than the one in Mesa would be. Since the Cubs have made it clear they want to control that part of the deal, how was that going to work? Clearly there were some major hurdles that would have to be cleared, and some that I believe, would ultimately be deal breakers.
I don't doubt Florida is in dire straits financially as well - economy pretty much sucks all over.
But never underestimate the power of desperation.
Ever buy something on eBay? Not just placing a bid and coming back later to see if you won; but placing a bid and constantly hitting refresh, and if someone outbids you, you quickly place a higher bid, and hit refresh again and again. And you watch the clock tick down. And then you get worried because maybe the other guy will snipe you at the last second, so you go back and submit an even higher bid. And so on until the auction is over, and you won the item. But then you take a deep breath, you realize how much you (over)paid and you say to yourself WTF was I thinking???
As for the developers footing the bill for the stadium – that may be, but I think the Ricketts have made it pretty clear that Wrigleyville West/South is the lynchpin to any deal so I don’t see them giving up control of that for anything. Maybe they let the developers wet their beak a bit, but nothing significant.
If this came about, I think it would be up to the state to cut a sweetheart deal with the developers – give them breaks somewhere else in exchange for the private funding. And yes, this would just be another example of putting a deal together in the worst possible way, but isn’t that how government usually works? ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Also...
… we have discussed here, the logistical problems of having spring training in Florida, not to mention that land acquisition costs are much higher in the area proposed there, than they are in Arizona.
The costs would be significantly higher in Florida.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Florida doesn't need a deal
They can promise the world and settle on something down the road. Mesa on the other hand has to be honest in its proposals. Once they decide to leave AZ though, they are not coming back.
Same thing happened with the Indians and DBacks. They announced based on a handshake.
by westerncubbie on Feb 18, 2010 11:51 PM CST up reply actions
Funny you should mention the Indians
The Baseball Indians, that is. They bolted for Florida when they didn’t get what they wanted in Tucson, and lo and behold, now they back in the Cactus League. Never say never.
The Cubs may indeed return to AZ
just not in our lifetime. Once Wrigleyville SE begins construction the Cubs ain’t leaving Florida. Mayor Scott Smith has already said there is no ‘plan B.’ Barring any unforeseen developments this is ‘the’ defining moment for the City of Mesa.
I’m in a great position. If the stadium is built I keep my annual AZ Cub vacations. If the Cubs are jilted and bolt for Florida I get to say “I told you so” for the next 25+ years.
Earlier you said
that the only thing of real importance is hotel room-nights. And we know from earlier studies that the majority of Cubs fans do not stay in Mesa…they stay in Scottsdale, and elsewhere. So, it would seem to follow that if the Cubs left for Florida, Scottsdale would feel the loss more than Mesa.
depending on what
local is according to those throwing around the 50% of rentals uses, then Scottsdale would be part of the Mesa numbers as well for this. Cannot include it in one set of numbers and leave it out of another set, to be fair.
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
This was a reply to westerncubbie
in reference to specifically what Mesa would be losing if the Cubs were to bolt to Florida. I was just pointing out that Scottsdale would likely feel it more than Mesa.
gotcha
so many replies all over, sometimes easy to mix them
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
We all lose
Mesa would lose around 40,000 room nights in March. If they go to Florida, there is evidence that other visits from Chicago residents would naturally shift to Florida. Mesa also loses on the potential room nights that would be had by building a hotel in and around Wrigleyville West.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 10:52 AM CST up reply actions
plus, would AZ lose some local sales
for any Cub fan who happens to leave AZ to visit FL for Cubs ST
newest member of the Austin Variety Show www.austinvarietyshow.com/
I'm claiming ignorance here
but wouldn’t the Mesa Cubs play some games there?
Wouldn’t the AZL team (Solar Sox?) play some games there?
That has to add some dates, right? Also, I’m sure this Wrigleyville West thing will offer lots of tax revenue that isn’t being factored in here.
"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth
The total attendance
at all the Arizona Fall League, Instructional League and Golden Baseball League games combined at Hohokam wouldn’t add up to one ST game.
No matter how you slice it this is a TAX
And the public pays the TAX. Therefore the public has a say in whether this is something they want to support or not. By the looks of things the uproar of this deal is very loud…and growing. So that leaves Tom Ricketts to look at other optiions. One of those options may be to look like a hero and pay for the whole damned construction himself. There is no question this new facility is going to be a big moneymaker, so the return on investment is going to be there. Paying for this thing via Ricketts’ money will make the Ricketts and the Cubs come out smelling like a rose. SO what if it takes a little bit longer to see the return on investment.
If that option is not palatable, then RIcketts can stay put in the current facility in Mesa. Which is a perfectly acceptable facility. Either that or he can try to hold the taxpayers of Florida hostage next. Which is his right to do. But it is also the right of the Florida taxpayers to say hell no.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
For the record
I’m more angry with the baseball franchises that have already benefitted from publicly financed stadia than the people of Arizona. Quite frankly, if they don’t want it, then fine. I’m ok with that. That’s democracy.
"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth
K, here's the only problem with your argument
Yes, the public pays the tax, and if this tax affected everyone, yes, the public would have a right to strike it down.
However, this is a specific kind of tax, called an excise, that rarely ever gets a vote. Excise taxes are specific amounts added to specific things. Do you remember voting for the excise’s on gasoline, blank media, tobacco, pornography, or gambling?
We aren’t adding a flat tax to everything, we’re adding an excise tax to car rentals, and adding an excise tax to spring training ticket sales. Since you can choose not to do both of those things, and therefore not pay the tax, votes rarely happen for them.
The taxpayers can say hell no, but their voices might not be heard because they can completely avoid the tax if they choose to.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
I'm not trying to say that what they're doing is right or wrong (I believe right, you believe wrong, oh well)
All I’m trying to say is that while the public can voice their concerns, I have a lot of doubts that the public will be able to do anything more due to the kind of tax it is.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Well, here in AZ
voters were given a chance to vote on just such a tax in November of 2000. That precedent would no doubt be part of any litigation that might be undertaken to strike down HB2736 as unconstitutional.
Didn’t realize that we were making the jump to unconstitutional to describe it now.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
That is from the Goldwater Institute
not me. And incidentally, they are referring to the Arizona Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of AZ, if you will, were pretty stodgy about state government and the potential abuses of same.
It doesn't seem to me that the Goldwater Institute has much standing here.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The fact that the Governor of AZ is meeting with them
on this issue and Mayor Smith has said he would also like to meet with them is an indicator that their concerns are being taken seriously.
Or, they are just giving them a courtesy visit.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
this is political
and the Mayor is playing the role IMHO by going there and hearing them out
newest member of the Austin Variety Show www.austinvarietyshow.com/
True.
I just wanted to note here, that I realize it’s impossible to discuss this issue without at least peripherally mentioning politics, which I usually don’t permit here.
I’d like to thank everyone for being able to discuss this issue without getting contentious or polarized.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You guys have no way of knowing this
but the Goldwater Institute has become a major force in Maricopa County. It is the first time in 50+ years that someone has stood their ground and successfully opposed the “growth at any cost” mentality and fought against the handouts to developers that has been the hallmark or economic development here in Arizona.
You are just going to have to trust me on this, the Governor is not meeting with Goldwater people just to go through the motions. There are real issues being discussed and the Goldwater Institute is helping to shape the agenda for the future of this area, for better or worse.
It may be for worse.
Granted that the economy has tanked and things don’t look so good right now. But what happens in 5 years when the economy improves? This “institute” may set Arizona development back decades.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I don't know if I can trust the Goldwater Institute...
when I read their front page post on the Cubs story, and in one specific line it says
The potential deal between Mesa, which will own the facility, and the Cubs also raises serious issues. Under the proposed deal, the Cubs reap all of the financial benefits and have to do little more than show up.
Really? So the state of Arizona doesn’t get corporate taxes off of all the money that’s spent in the park or out? Local businesses don’t see any income either? And of course, no jobs are created in all of this? According to these guys, the Cubs make every dollar off of this. Crazy.
There’s an incredibly large difference between arguing a side and making one up. At the rate these guys are going on this issue, I can’t see important people taking them seriously.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Sorry jazzman, this was meant to be a reply to your previous post.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Well, I think the Goldwater Institute is looking at this
from a regional perspective, not from a Mesa perspective. And so, in that context, no, there really isn’t any real benefit to the region. The taxes collected would not change that much. Jobs? No increase there, except in the construction jobs…and that industry is so depressed, there would be no need to hire anybody new, just bring back people who have been furloughed. As far as local businesses are concerned, you are just shifting the business from one location to another.
That is why it is a whole different proposition when you are building a stadium for a team that is already here, versus one for a team coming in from Florida. You are basically spending money just to maintain the status quo.
Goldwater Institiute seems to be cherry picking parts
that fit their story, and that is not uncommon, as all parties on both sides will do so.
Wait for it....POUND SAND Without me this board is Al Yellon talking to himself.....................by BLou
You and the Goldwater Institute are only looking at this in one of two ways.
Building a new stadium or not.
There’s a third option that you aren’t even acknowledging, leaving for Florida.
I find it easy to believe that if the Cubs didn’t get a deal they’d like, they’d move. Then, yes, all of those taxes would be lost, jobs lost working in Mesa, and revenue lost in the area. I provided an incredibly conservative post as to the monetary value of the Cubs to Mesa and Arizona a little earlier up the page.
That’s also why it’s funny that you keep saying that those deals were made to get teams to here. It could easily be argued that it’s more important (and therefore, worth more money to the area) to keep a team with an established fanbase in the area than drawing a team who could draw large attendance and could not.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Gahhh, reply is beating the crud outta me
Sorry it’s late.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Late to this party, but...
The claim in the Ballpark Digest article, “This is a load of crap, of course. The Chicago Cubs are the only reliable draw in the Cactus League these days… Only the San Francisco Giants are as reliable a draw as the Cubs” is BS. The Dodgers averaged 9,130 per game last year, more than the Giants and not all that far short of the Cubs (10,690).
The Cubs, while important, are far from irreplaceable. The two new teams that arrived in Arizona last year combined to provide more attendance to the league than the Cubs brought – and there’s another new arrival in town this spring. I’ll continue to describe it as a “Cubs tax” until the team gets back in its proper place in line for cash – behind all the teams whose facilities are more than 13 years old…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
Yes
I’ve been trying to say this, albeit more diplomatically. The idea that the Cactus League is dependent on the Cubs, or indeed that the City of Mesa is dependent on the Cubs for survival is more than a bit overblown.
If the Cubs bolt for Florida, it will leave a hole, but would not be a death blow. In fact, it is the overall health and vitality of the Cactus League that has turned this into an arms race as to who can get the newest and shiniest facilities. Spring Training is becoming a victim of it’s own success, to a degree.
K, so is it unacceptable
for people who use rental cars in Arizona and people who come to Spring Training to contribute 81 million over the next 25 years to see revenue of at least 628 million stay in Arizona?
Noone’s trying to say that the league would explode without the Cubs, but many would say that this investment makes sense for many parties involved.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
I have to fight ya on one thing here...
While it’s true that there are teams that will draw towards the Cubs, using the “2 new teams” fact isn’t a deciding factor.
Any team that’s new to an area will see increased support from it’s fans for a little while. To believe that those fans will continue to come year after year is a guessing game since they’re only in their first year. The Cubs however, have become a very reliable draw. I’m not trying to say that any team can’t bring in more fans, but I’d assume that the team that’s been bringing in fans for years is a bit more dependable than teams that can’t even beat them in their first year in town.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Actually just the opposite
what we know from experience over the years is that teams tend to slowly build a Spring Training following over the years, with many of the same people returning annually. I can’t think of a single example of a team that had strong attendance for the first year or two and then dropped off from that point going forward.
As another poster noted, most ST fans who come in from out of town don’t just come for the games. They come here to enjoy the weather, enjoy local amenities like golf, hiking, etc. For many it is their annual vacation and they have been coming here for years, have made friends here, and so forth.
As another poster noted, most ST fans who come in from out of town don’t just come for the games. They come here to enjoy the weather, enjoy local amenities like golf, hiking, etc. For many it is their annual vacation and they have been coming here for years, have made friends here, and so forth.
Right, which is why taking all the Cubs fans out of AZ and sending them to FL would have a ripple effect far beyond just buying baseball game tickets.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Or alternatively
which is why taking all the Cubs fans out of AZ and sending them to FL would have a ripple effect far beyond just buying baseball game tickets.
It could just as well have less effect than imagined, as the fans still decide to come here anyway, for all the other reasons cited.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Feb 19, 2010 10:17 AM CST up reply actions
No. These are Cubs fans
They come for the Cubs. They will go to Florida. There is little question to that.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
Some might
Others will not – especially those who come to visit relatives or friends here, which is a boatload.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Feb 19, 2010 11:02 AM CST up reply actions
And 10 years from now????
This is about the next 25 years. There will be a huge shift which will surely be felt.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
some Cub fans
will travel to FL i bet to have a family gathering there for the Cubs ST.
which would be a double whammy, tourist money being lost from out of state, plus exporting some locals to FL for ST is a possability
newest member of the Austin Variety Show www.austinvarietyshow.com/
I'd like to see a link on that.
I can for example, point to www.baseball-almanac.com to tell me that any team that’s joined the MLB since 1990 (and I’m including the Nationals) has seen the largest amount of fans in the first and second year. This is especially telling considering that 3 of those teams made the World Series, and yet they couldn’t even eclipse their first year in the league in terms of attendance. I can also point to other sports in my area to notice that new additions have higher attendance (Arena Football being the biggest one).
I’m not stating it’s impossible, but every regular season baseball stat for new teams in the last 20 years is definitely conflicting with your claim.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Apples and Oranges
You can’t draw conclusions about Spring Training attendance patterns by looking at a new team’s attendance curve during the regular season in their home ballpark. You. just. can’t. There are many factors that make these two entirely different scenarios.
Then give me a link, please
You said from experience, but I’ve searched and haven’t seen a thing related to it. So, I’m gonna look at sports as a whole (not just baseball). If you say it’s something you’ve heard or seen or believe, fine, but you keep sounding like this is a fact, and I’ve searched for this fact and haven’t seen it. So I did research on other sports instead of making random observations.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Unfortunately
the Cactus League reports on attendance are .pdf files and not linkable. If you go to their website, you can view them.
They will give you a reasonable picture of what I am talking about. For instance, the Royals and Rangers relocated to Surprise, AZ in 2003. Both teams started slowly with light attendance in 2003, and steadily increased every year 2004-2008, to the point where in 2008 the per game average for the Royals was almost double what it was in 2003. Throw out the figures for 2009…as mentioned before, there were 25% more games played in 2009, which impacted the per game average, and the economy was bad.
You simply cannot use the data in your links to support your point, for too many reasons to cite here. They simply are not relevant.
Thank you for giving me the site
I’m not saying the pdf’s don’t exist, but I am saying they’re hidden somewhere, cause I checked all the main banners and they were nowhere to be found.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Here are the .pdfs
this has the data for 2006-2009
http://cactusleague.com/downloads/2009_Cactus_League_Stats.pdf
And here you can look at the trend from 2003 to 2007
http://www.cactusleague.com/downloads/2007_Cactus_League_Report.pdf
Thank you for the info
I’ll take a look at this when I get home from work.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
9,130 is "not all that far short" of 10,690?
Do your math, please. That’s 15% fewer fans per game.
Also, the 2009 spring training figures have to be discounted to some extent because of the extended spring training season and larger number of games, which may have depressed average figures for both teams.
Let’s see how they draw this year.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Someone questioned the 22% figure
that has been bandied about as the total contribution of Cubs fans to total Cactus League attendance, so I went back and crunched the numbers. I logged the attendance at all 15 of the Cactus League “away” games involving the Cubs in 2009 and then compared those attendance number against the home team’s average attendance for the entire Cactus League Season.
Here’s what I found regarding the “Cubs Effect” on Cactus League attendance: it is all over the map. It varied depending on day of the week (weekend games being much higher) and opponent (White Sox, Brewers being much higher). There was even one instance, against the A’s at Phoenix Muni where the attendance at a Cubs game was actually lower than the A’s average.
But, after throwing out the outliers, and trying to find a median number, I think it is fair to say that hosting the Cubs in Spring Training nets you an extra 2-3,000 fans during the week and 4-6,000 for a weekend game. And the Cubs fans do seem to travel well, as games in Tucson against the Rockies and D’Backs got a nice boost (the 11,455 for a D’Backs game was a 5700 fan boost over the D’Backs 5700 average). The largest? A 7200 increase for a March 21st against the White Sox at Camelback Ranch.
The total: There really are only 15 "away" Cactus League dates, as the Cubs played 2 games against the White Sox in Las Vegas and 2 against the Yankees in new Yankee Stadium. The total for the 15 games is about 70,000.
If you add the 70,000 "Cubs Effect" fans to the Hohokam total of 203,000, that is 273,000. Divide 273,000 by the Cactus League total of 1,579,000 and you get 17%…not the 22% that supporters have been throwing around.
Of course, this also calls into question the 30% Cubs economic impact figure that was made a part of the introduction of HB2736 in the Arizona Legislature, as it was no doubt derived with the 22% attendance number as a basis.
And I'm gonna assume that this 22% number was looking at more than last year's numbers with 2 new teams that were getting larger than normal draws.
You looked at a Cactus League total that had new teams, an argument which we’re having up above, but I believe it has a large impact on their total fans. By this I mean that we can expect their attendance to drop until it hits it’s average in a few years, while the Cubs are already at theirs. So, decrease two of the top drawing teams by 25% to 33% and yes, I absolutely believe that the 17% figure will head quite a bit closer to 22%.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Again you are wrong
Attendance for teams in the Cactus League increase over time, it does not drop. Look at the Cactus League attendance figures.
But, that is beside the point in any event. What you want is a snapshot of what the Cubs contribute to the Cactus League today. What it was in 1997 doesn’t have any relevance to the situation today. Today there are 15 teams in the Cactus League, not 8. 2009 is the most recent year we have attendance figures for, so that is what is relevant to look at. And in 2009, the figure was 17%, not 22%.
Further, there is NO WAY the Giants and Dodgers (the two drop drawing teams after the Cubs) will decrease by 25% to 33%. In fact, the odds are overwhelming that they will not drop at all, the Dodgers in particular will see an increase. Same thing for the Indians, who are the other team that was new in 2009.
Your assertions are ridiculous and have absolutely no basis in reality.
Sigh
In an argument above, you said that I can’t look at one year’s numbers for the Royals. In this argument you say you have to for the Cubs. How about this, answer this without being condescending, which is more important, 5 years worth of data, putting more weight at the closer than the latter but still considering all? Or 1 years worth putting all weight into one year?
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Two different points
I told you where you can look at historical cactus league attendance data which refutes your point about declining attendance. It is entirely up to you whether you bother to look at it or not.
But, as I have said, that has no bearing on the discussion about what the impact of the Cubs on ST today is. And that is the only thing that is relevant. If you can’t see this, then I don’t know what to tell you.
You can’t be bothered to research the data that disproves your point, so I’m sorry if I come off as condescending. But when you use ignorance as a debating point when the data has already been provided, then I really don’t need to waste any more time on this.
I tried researching for around 10 minutes. I apologize for not finding it.
You apparently had already found the data, and had no problem spouting out information from it, but had a lot of problems telling me where you actually found it so that I could review it. The time that we’ve spent typing about this speculative data could have been saved if you would have just given me the link to the page that has the pdf links on it. But no, you’d rather tell me that I don’t want to waste time researching. So yes, you come off as condescending. I can’t find the data, you have, you’re holding it back. I’ve tried explaining to you that I can’t find the data, and then you attack my “ignorance”. For how much you’re trying to treat this entire post like a courtroom battle, you aren’t following the rules on evidence sharing at all. Don’t attack me for not being able to find data, when you could have just provided a link or a set of instructions instead.
And as to the 22% figure. If you look at the actual information, it says…
Overall Cactus League attendance could dip by as much as 22 percent if the team leaves. The league attracted 1.57 million fans in 2009.
So this argument is kind of irrelevant. They didn’t say that 22% WILL be lost, it says “as much as”. The other point that the Business Journal says is that…
The Cubs have an annual economic impact of $138 million in Arizona.
That is a very large chunk of change and seems to be a number that they’re pretty sure on.
Here’s the link so that you don’t have to search for it.
http://feeds.bizjournals.com/~r/bizj_phoenix/~3/g6ao8ElEyYk/daily58.html
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Finally, I found a site that has data from 1975 to 2005 for all MLB teams spring training attendance.
Here’s the site so that you don’t have to search for it, I’ll do some analysis when I get home from work in about 3-4 hours.
http://www.springtrainingmagazine.com/history7.html
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
I can save you the trouble
this chart shows that the Rangers and Royals, which were new teams in the Cactus League in 2003, increased their per game attendance every year from 2003-2005. This combined with the other data I linked you to proves my point.
Factors not considered
First, Cubs games aren’t the only games Cubs fans attend. Surveys show they on average attend other non-Cubs games as much if not more than other Cactus League teams.
The 30% figure is very easy. When Cubs travel to away games every team in the Cactus League raises their ticket prices and add a significant “Cubs Surcharge” to their tickets.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
Great points.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Sorry
but you are again propagating false information.
There is only ONE venue in the Cactus League that charges extra only for Cubs games, and that is Camelback Ranch. They have premium games at Scottsdale, but that is not just the Cubs, it is for other teams like the A’s and weekend games.
I have been going to Spring Training games for 35+ years, and it has never been noticeable to me that there are Cubs fans attending non-Cubs games. The comprehensive survey done by the Cactus League supports this. The median number of games attended by a fan at Hohokam is about 2.4 games. If you are telling me that a significant number of these games are non-Cubs games, I would have to see the survey data before I would believe it.
Ask anyone in the League
The Cubs away games ALL charge premium prices when the Cubs come to play. The highest DBacks tickets this year both in Spring and Home are when the Cubs come to town.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 10:55 AM CST up reply actions
You are misinformed
I checked each and every Cactus team’s Spring Training ticket site when this topic came up last week. The D’Backs do not charge extra for Cubs games, nor does anybody else outside of Camelback Ranch (and like I said, Scottsdale, which is not a Cubs only situation).
It really is getting tiresome acting as your fact checker. Why don’t you do some fact checking yourself before making false statements.
I know from experience
I go to lots of spring training games and I know what I pay to go to those games.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
You may know what you pay
but you clearly don’t know what the ticket pricing policies of the various teams in the Cactus League are. You are wrong and you persist in being wrong. Give it up.
No problem
I have no problem admitting I’m wrong on the Spring Training issue. Like I said, I follow the Cubs. The Cubs though in regular season have the premium pricing tag placed on them on almost every away game.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 11:18 AM CST up reply actions
The topic came up because of this
The 30% figure is very easy. When Cubs travel to away games every team in the Cactus League raises their ticket prices and add a significant "Cubs Surcharge" to their tickets.
As we’ve disproven that, do you also admit the 30% figure is exaggerated?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Feb 19, 2010 11:28 AM CST up reply actions
Nope
I didn’t say that was the sole reason. It just made the argument easier.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 11:34 AM CST up reply actions
I checked too.
Only three teams — the Giants, White Sox and Dodgers — charge more for Cubs games.
However, I believe there is an ancillary point. There may not be a “Cubs surcharge” by other teams. There is, though, no doubt in my mind that every other team in the Cactus League makes money by having the Cubs as a visitor rather than any other Cactus League team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
True
But enough to justify an 8% surcharge on every home game?
That, I seriously doubt.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Feb 19, 2010 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
Who does it effect?
It doesn’t effect the teams at all and in fact, without this mechanism there is no way they’ll be getting any improvements anytime soon.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
They could always – and I’m just throwing this out there – pay for the improvements they want themselves, if they;re not willing to wait for the existing revenue streams to replenish? Or seek private funding?
Why should I, as an Arizona fan, living in Arizona, be made to contribute towards the construction of palatial new facilities for a league rival?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Feb 19, 2010 1:17 PM CST up reply actions
Sigh
Because your state will benefit from it as well. I get the idea of Public funding being evil, but don’t act like Arizona doesn’t get a single thing out of this.
Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field? - Jim Bouton
Choice
You have the choice not to go to a game. You benefit from them being here.
The private option isn’t an option by itself and they aren’t paying for it by themselves so why talk about it.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
In fact
the Angels did just that. They paid for improvements themselves, and were willing to get in line for ATSA funds at a later date to reimburse them.
Cubs $$
And the Cubs will spend substantial money to build the new facility.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 1:29 PM CST up reply actions
I wish the media
would report that, because other than buying the land, which they will later sell at a profit, I have seen nothing that says that.
Won't sell
They have to buy the land for the stadium and give it for free to the City. They won’t be selling it ever. They are fully responsible for the development of Wrigleyville West including all of the infrastructure.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 1:35 PM CST up reply actions
Wait.
They’re not selling the land at a profit. From what I heard, they are donating it to the city of Mesa.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm talking about ALL the land
most of which will be sold off to developers of the “Wrigleyville West” project.
No, the city of Mesa will own that land, to my understanding.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That was not my understanding
read this from the Tribune and tell me how you interpret it:
“First, a little background. The facility – dubbed “Wrigleyville West” – will include a stadium with up to 15,000 seats, practice fields and surrounding clubhouse/weight room/facilities that are operated by the Cubs (not the city, as has been the case in the past). There will also be a public portion that includes a community park and four-plex of baseball fields. Beyond all that is private land that the Cubs will purchase and develop to create a “Wrigleyville” shopping area that features Cubs-related and Chicago-related restaurants, bars, shops, etc."
Cubs
The Cubs will buy the land for the stadium and give it to the city. They will work with private landowners who will develop the Wrigleyville West. Part of those requirements include parking and other stadium linked amenities that the Cubs will have to provide.
On top of that, the Cubs must pay for all maintenance and upkeep of the stadium and practice fields. This move alone will save the City an enormous amount of money a year.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 1:59 PM CST up reply actions
Doesn't sound like the Cubs are selling that land.
Sounds like they are buying it and developing it themselves.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Well, if that is the case
and the Cubs are going into the retail development business in Mesa, then you can expect the Goldwater Institute to really go after this deal.
Why?
Why would they have an issue with a private corporation buying land to develop it themselves? They aren’t getting any sales tax incentives so I don’t see the correlation.
by westerncubbie on Feb 19, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
Obviously
the value of that land increases dramatically by the mere fact that it is adjacent to a brand spanking new state of the art spring training complex that is heavily subsidized.
Not to mention the fact that the development potential is pretty much tied to the existence of the stadium, since it is to be “Cubs themed”.
This is exactly the kind of scenario Goldwater is so up in arms about. A private company financially benefiting from a public subsidy that it didn’t even get to vote on.
Jeez, if the Cubs/Mesa wanted to create a scenario to be a poster child for everything the GI is opposed to, this would be it.