Cubs Spring Training Complex Update: Interview With Mesa Mayor Scott Smith

He states right there in his first comments that the rental car tax AND the ticket surcharge will be added to the general fund for all spring training teams, not just to the Cubs.

As currently proposed, money raised from a $1.00 per contract rental car fee and about a $1.00 per ticket charge on Cactus League tickets would go into a fund set aside to pay for spring training facilities in any Cactus League city. Mesa would use this fund to help pay for a portion of a new Cubs facilitiy, but other cities could also apply to AZSTA to use this fund for facilities in their cities, too.

I still don’t see where The 4 teams mentioned have much to complain about. The tax is being added for the benefit of ALL facilities in the Cactus League. It just happens that the Cubs will most likely be the first team to draw from the funds added from this tax plan.

I realize that the Cubs are probably the biggest draw in Arizona but the Reds didn’t leave Florida due to attendance problems. They left Florida because Good Year gave them a free stadium, the Reds actually would have preferred to pay 50% of the costs to Renovate Ed Smith Stadium in Sarasota, FL rather than move to Arizona. Arizona essentially gave the Reds an offer they couldn’t refuse.

I’m sorry that the same financial situation doesn’t exist this year, but why should other teams, and Arizona car renters be punished for that?

She just made sure the taxes were included. :)

I am working behind the scenes with my hero Jerry Reinsdorf.

1) none of the $200M Scott refers to went to the Cubs.
2) The new development (Wrigleyville West) would be handled by the Cubs and would not use STA money.
3) No conspiracy theories, please. There is no evidence of any relationship between Ricketts and state politicians.

Did you also find the 5-county sales tax for Miller Park objectionable?

As a resident of Racine County, I get zero benefit above and beyond what Kenosha, Walworth or Rock Counties get for the Brewers remaining in the state. The state income tax portion benefits Clark, Brown, etc. Counties just as much. The only county that benefits more than other counties is Milwaukee (and possibly Waukesha / Ozaukee with players making homes there). No one is going to visit for Brewers games and stay in Racine County instead of close to the park.

I’m a Cubs fan. I live in Wisconsin, but not Milwaukee. Yet, I had to subsidize Miller Park.

Those people who rent the cars also subsidize other things through the taxes they pay – are you protesting that, also?

There has been such a tax on rental cars for almost 10 years — it has helped pay for the complexes in Surprise and Glendale. You know, the one that Jerry Reinsdorf happily accepted.

in the Cactus League opposes the plan.

See, that would just be hurting ME, because I want to see those games. However, I could avoid buying anything there other than the game ticket.

is one of 14 teams opposing the plan has nothing to do with the of the debate.

They used the funds as it was intended to be used. The Cubs aren’t willing to wait for their turn to come up in the funds, so they want to start a new tax to jump the queue.

I’ll have more on this soon.

… forcing those 3 other teams to follow suit.

Can you imagine the squealing here IF the situation were reversed, and the Sox ST complex were being paid for by a surcharge on Cubbie ST tickets?

No one should have boycotted the breakfast. It was a Cactus League event, not a Mesa event, even though the Cubs stepped in and hosted it after the Brewers backed out.

both in ST and in their home cities. Do Cub fans get a refund for the public funds used to build and maintain the CWS stadium?

and lets also remember the fee charged to baseball fans in AZ will be able to be used by other teams, not the Cubs alone.

I found this interesting

Over the years, AZSTA has doled out $183 million for spring training stadiums in Surprise, Goodyear and Glendale, and to renovate ballparks in Scottsdale, Phoenix and Tempe. The Cubs financing deal is raising questions about AZSTA’s allocations.


The city of Glendale, for example, has concerns about how Prop. 302 funds might be allocated to the Camelback Ranch ballpark, versus money earmarked for the Cubs stadium.

AZSTA chipped in $60 million toward the $158 million Glendale facility, which opened last year to house the Chicago White Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers.

Glendale Deputy City Manager Julie Frisoni said the city isn’t opposed to the Cubs financing proposal, but wants to know how future funding, such as debt service, might impact Camelback Ranch and other Cactus League parks.

Cactus League President Robert Brinton expects the Legislature to consider various approaches for the new Cubs stadium, as well as long-term priorities and structures related to funding sources and AZSTA’s framework.

"I think there are going to be a whole lot of things that are looked at," he said.

Earlier this month, AZSTA awarded the concessions contract to Cardinals offshoot Rojo over two food-service companies: Centerplate and Aramark Corp. That move has drawn the ire of the Fiesta Bowl, UOP Stadium’s other major tenant, and resulted in two state bills that would require an audit of the sports authority and that contract. Those bills, which are making their way through the Legislature, would instruct the Arizona Auditor General’s Office to conduct an audit of AZSTA by the end of the year.

well for starters

Under the memorandum of understanding between the Cubs and Mesa, the team will buy the land for a new spring-training facility and then transfer ownership to the city. Thereafter, Mesa will build and own the new stadium, in essence gifting the Cubs a new stadium. However this decision is not sitting well with much of Major League Baseball and many throughout the metropolitan Phoenix legal community.

but this is quite interesting from the same article

Building this facility and gifting it to the Cubs could also contravene Arizona law. Under a recent Arizona court decision, a beneficiary of a governmental gift must provide back to that entity some sort of comparable benefit. Thus, under the current arrangement between the Cubs and Mesa, a comparable tangible benefit must be present for this transaction to be constitutional.

It is quite possible that the Goldwater Institute, a local conservative constitutional litigation institution, may challenge the constitutionality of the Cubs-Mesa deal. In an opinion piece published in a Phoenix newspaper, Goldwater Institute Director Clint Bolick suggested that while a city may construct and own a sports stadium, the recently approved tax scheme might be an improper delegation of legislative authority.

As Bolick suggests, under this agreement, the Cubs need to do little more than "show up" in order to receive this tax windfall. Labeling this deal as such makes it very likely that litigation is not too far off the horizon. Such a lawsuit could be extremely costly, potentially soiling any benefit both the Cubs and Mesa hoped to derive from this agreement. Defending such a lawsuit would probably be long in duration and cost the defendants hundreds of thousands in attorneys’ fees and costs. With so many against building a new stadium through tax money, it is only a matter of time before the decision is challenged.

for cnn.com.

… I’d be glad to interview him. I’d actually be REALLY interested in hearing his explanation.

I doubt I’d get a straight one, though.

Rec’d.

With the humidity and the long drives between the parks. There’s a reason the only team in recent memory to go to Florida (the Indians) came back as fast as they could.

The Cubs need Arizona much more than Arizona needs the Cubs. The two new teams which arrived in Arizona last year combined to bring more fans to the park than you guys. So if you leave tomorrow, you’d be sending Cactus League attendance all the way back to the dark ages of…2008. I think the state and the league can survive.

screw the rest of these punk teams

Way to stay classy, Chicago. And I thought Al Capone and his thugs were dead.

Kansas City is not closer to AZ than FL. Arlington Texas is about the same distance…Florida/Arizona.

Of the 5 teams you listed as having no compelling reason to train in AZ – two of them have owners who live part time in Scottsdale and that is a pretty compelling reason why they train here.

The compelling reason the Cubs have for staying in AZ is a 40+ year history of training here, being consistently treated well, always having a nice facility to train in and the clear preference of their fan base.

You seriously overstate the leverage the Cubs have. The only viable alternative they have is a relatively small city in Florida, and it would be interesting to see just how viable that is, given the fact that their financing issues are just as challenging, maybe even moreso, than they ones that Mesa is facing.

you don’t need to live in Phoenix to be outraged.

Too bad St. Louis doesn’t want a new stadium. You’d dot your check with hearts.

Since I follow the posts on this topic on both BCB and AZ Snakepit, I get to see the extreme sides of opinion on this topic. I find it interesting that both seem to be equally prone to distort facts and use straw man arguments to support their positions.

I just wish there was a good source, beyond the limited and repetitive info we get in the local papers, for factual information. The local proponents of the “Cubs tax” have already done a couple of reversals under the guise of “clarifications”. And they are prone to some “smoke and mirrors” posturing. And as you have pointed out, at least some of the opposition may have ulterior motives.

One thing I am sure of…Mesa is committed to pulling out all the stops to make this work, the Cubs are committed to giving them a chance to succeed, and the opposition to the current plan under discussion is real and will have to be addressed.