Cubs New Spring Training Complex Update: BCB Interview With Diamondbacks President Derrick Hall
Over the last several months, I've written a number of posts about the effort to bring a new spring training complex for the Cubs to Mesa, Arizona. During this series of posts I have made no secret of my own feelings about this issue -- I believe the Cubs should stay in Mesa -- and have made several posts on this topic, including two interviews with the mayor of Mesa, Scott Smith.
In the comments to these posts many of you asked whether I would post a different view of this issue if I could get it -- to which I said I would. Thanks to Jim McLennan of our SBN Diamondbacks site, AZ Snakepit, I had the opportunity to pose questions to Derrick Hall, the president of the Diamondbacks. You'll see his responses after the jump.
First, here's a clarification I received from Mayor Smith regarding the so-called "Cubs tax" on Cactus League tickets:
I understand there have questions regarding the amount of money that would be available for teams in the Cactus League other than the Cubs under the current funding proposal. First of all, contrary to reports, funds will be available to all Cactus League teams from the first day monies are collected. Under the rental car/ticket surcharge proposal currently on the table, an estimated $82 million would be collected in the first twenty-five years and would be available for use by teams in the Cactus League other than the Cubs. The Cubs debt will be paid off in twenty-five years. After that, all monies collected will go to teams other than the Cubs. This will provide tens of millions of dollars in additional funds for cities and teams. It is unclear right now what revenue sources and amounts will ultimately be included in the legislation, and these numbers will most certainly change. It all depends on what is finally negotiated at the Legislature.
And, here's an introductory statement that Derrick Hall sent in his return email to me:
Let me begin by saying we want the Cubs to stay here. We would like to collectively identify solutions for them and want to work with them. This is also not a battle between the 14 other teams, Commissioner, and municipalities versus the Cubs. We are all opposed to parts of the legislation - specifically the ticket surcharge, not the Cubs. We believe the legislators hearts are in the right place, but their funding is not the solution.
Follow me past the jump for the rest of the interview. Many thanks to Derrick Hall for his time and his responses.
BCB: Can you state clearly and in detail why you are opposed to one of the proposed funding methods, the ticket surcharge?
DH: We are all opposed to the ticket surcharge because it involves taxing the fans of all clubs and creates a terrible precedent in this bad economy. Our state was hit harder than any other in baseball in this economic downturn, other than perhaps Detroit and Michigan. We have a clear understanding of the statewide budgetary hurdles, and do not want to put any more pressure on our public. We did our due diligence through our RFP process to determine the best possible candidates with the fewest, if any, public funding. Additionally, what do we about teams such as the Angels, who recently put millions of their own dollars into their facility? Or the A's, who asked for $14-16 million in upgrades before extending? They were denied due to the budget constraints of Phoenix, yet still extended. These are just a few examples of monies that would likely need to be reimbursed if we travel down this path. If the taxpayers voted and approved the surcharge, we would be fine with it. We do not agree with legislative fiats, and would rather it go to a referendum. But with that being said, my counterparts at the other 13 Clubs may disagree, because their fans are the ones traveling, yet our residents would be speaking for them with a ballot.BCB: Please give your reaction to this statement by Mesa Mayor Scott Smith: "First of all, contrary to reports, funds will be available to all Cactus League teams from the first day monies are collected. Under the rental car/ticket surcharge proposal currently on the table, an estimated $82 million dollars would be collected in the first twenty-five years and would be available for use by teams in the Cactus League other than the Cubs. The Cubs debt will be paid off in twenty-five years. After that, all monies collected will go to teams other than the Cubs."
DH: I respect Mayor Smith and consider him a good friend. I know he wants to do all he can to keep the Cubs and I admire that. I have seen the numbers and do not see how they add up. We did the math ourselves, and based on what we consider the average ticket price, minus comps, with the proposed 8% number, we would raise less than $1.5 million per year. The legislators' numbers show over $2 million from there to begin with, and begins to escalate to a point well over $7 million per year. I do not understand how such an escalation can be predicted - it is simply not realistic. Additionally, there are other teams that will experience expired agreements in the very near future, such as the Brewers in just two years. Yet, they do not have access to any of the supposed funds until the Cubs have paid off their new complex. We will risk losing teams like Milwaukee, Texas, San Diego, etc. in just a few years from now. My colleagues suggested a hotel bed tax to go along with the rental car tax instead of a ticket surcharge. Who truly benefits from spring training visitors?
BCB: It's my understanding that the new complex the Diamondbacks and Rockies will begin play at next spring will not be subject to the surcharge because it is on native American land. That being the case, why are you opposed to this surcharge?
DH: That is correct in our opinion, which should show that this is not a selfish move on any of our parts. We want what is fair and equitable to all Cactus League Clubs. In years past, we were in recruiting mode. Now, we are in retention mode and need to keep the needs of ALL Cactus League teams in mind. But our fans will be affected - even though they may not receive a ticket increase at our complex, they will when they go to see our Club on the road.
BCB: What are the advantages of building on native American land? What incentives were the Diamondbacks and Rockies given, if any?
DH: The main advantage was the capital capacity. The Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community made it clear that no public funding would be necessary.
BCB: What do you foresee happening to the the Cactus League if it loses the Cubs?
DH: I really could not predict. Again, we do not want to lose them and believe we will keep them here. They are extremely important to the Cactus League and continue to draw the best attendance wise. The Cactus League is strong and will always attract teams due to the weather and travel distances.
BCB: Assume that some public money will be needed to build the new Cubs complex. If you could come up with your own funding mechanism for such a complex, what would it be?
DH: We have given the legislators a few suggestions. The top priority and choice for MLB right now is to propose a bill to the Arizona House of Representatives that would permit municipalities in Arizona to create Local Revenue Allocation Districts ("LRADs") to finance economic development projects within voter-approved districts through the application of incremental property taxes approved by the affected taxpayers. We hope that all parties can come to agree that this will benefit every party.
97 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good stuff
let the snakepit cubs bashing soon begin again
Insightful
And relevant to the post. Kudos for actually addressing the topic at hand, and not indulging in some sort of martyr complex.
"Now we can just call you Kishi Laptop, Esquire."
I have never been a big "raise taxes" guy
So I can see where they are coming from. On the other hand, the Cubs are the main ticket in Arizona, they deserve to be treated as such. I am not a city planner so I have really no input on how to generate the coin. I do believe the Cubs should be forking over coin to get this done. Raising taxes in this economy is not a great idea.
Hot Dog Tax
Mr. Hall’s last comment regarding financing by “incremental property taxes approved by the affected taxpayers” is a notion that would never fly. It is extremely unlikely that local property owners would impose a tax on themselves for the benefit of (mostly) tourists. The money will most certainly need to be raised by some type of special “tourist tax” on hotel rooms, rental cars or hot dogs sold at the stadiums.
Ya gotta love a team with a shortstop named TheRiot ...
Every state in the nation
with the exception of Arizona has enacted LRADs. California has had them since 1952. It is long past time that Arizona needs to get on board with this commonly used method of financing economic development projects.
You're talking about....
.. what’s known in other states as Tax Increment Financing, right? (TIF for short)
In most other states sales taxes are used for this purpose, not property taxes. Isn’t this what they are proposing to do in the first place?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yes
The fundamental advantage of traditional LRAD financing is that the municipality can finance development projects through the issuance of bonds, the debt service on which is paid solely by the increase in revenue realized from the development. Additionally, when the bonds have been paid off, the municipality will hopefully have a significant increase in tax revenue due to the broader tax base created by the economic revitalization of previously underutilized areas.
Every state in the union has the ability to use this form of issuing bond for economic development projects…except Arizona. There are now proposals before the state legislature to change this, and if passed, it could have a major impact on Mesa and the Cubs project.
What, in your opinion...
… is the reason such financing has not worked in Arizona?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It is not that it hasn't worked
it is not legal to do it. A law has to be passed to allow it. If you are asking why Arizona is the only state that does not allow LRADs, the reason is that Arizona is so conservative, especially conservative fiscally, and always has been.
Basically, what you are doing is borrowing against the future increase in tax revenue that a project will generate. Not just sales taxes, but all taxes (property, rental, etc) . It is a well acceptable method for financing economic development. But, it is betting on the “come” and our Arizona governmental forefathers were fundamentally opposed to such “risky” behavior. Today is a different day. It is 2010, not 1910 and time to get with the program, imo.
Rio Nuevo
The closest thing to one has been a miserable failure.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:55 PM CST up reply actions
Plethora of info
Because it’s been around for so long, there is lots and lots of info. Here’s a few quick links I could find. It’s been a taxpayer sinkhole and has left a bad taste in lots of people mouths.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/related/112690
http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2008/08/08/news/doc489c88c010546071013116.txt
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions
Rio Nuevo
A fairly complicated story of economic redevelopment for downtown Tucson that was to be financed by incremental taxes approved by the voters of Pima County. A problematic scenario under the best of circumstances.
It really isn’t all that useful as a “case study” for LRADs because of it’s many unique and challenging aspects, which are too complex to recount here. Bit it you are interested in reading more about it, here is a good summary: http://tinyurl.com/y9a5pnq
Taxes absolutely will have to be raised to produce revenue
to repair the 50-75 year old infrastructure of Arizona and every other state in the union. Arizona is even closing a majority of its highway rest stops due to the state budget crisis. As the country literally crumbles it is hard to watch a tax of any kind levied anywhere and on anyone that benefits a baseball team – even if it is my favorite team. The Ricketts have simply picked a bad time to launch their Wrigleyville West plan.
Why not Indian land?
Why have the Cubs rejected the Indian reservation proposals out of hand? Loyalty to Mesa? Or was it posturing, knowing Mesa wouldn’t be able to come up with the money to keep them? Once Mesa drops the ball, they would be free to go to Florida or Arizona Indian land.
Maybe they didn't like the proposals that the tribe came up with.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Tribes offer
The Cubs are looking for business opportunities. These opportunities were not available on the reservation. I don’t blame them. When you do business on a reservation, you are doing business in a foreign country. Too much risk.
The Indians have money issues just like the rest of us because gambling revenues are way down and they are just coming off some major hotel and business park expansions.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 11:18 AM CST up reply actions
Well, I'm glad to hear
you finally admit that the reason the Gila River proposal was rejected was because of the “Wrigleyville West” concept the Cubs want to pursue, which is what I have been saying all along. The Gilas just spent $215M on the new Wild Horse Pass Casino and $85M on Lone Butte Casino. They spend millions of dollars advertising on D’Backs TV and radio broadcasts.
I hardly think money is an issue for them. Yes, gaming revenue is down about 9%, but that is hardly a disaster and that is down from record levels. And it is already showing signs of bouncing back in 2010.
Before, you claimed that the Gilas were not interested, which we both knew to be false.
Their proposal was subpar
Every account I have heard-including from someone involved on the hotel project, was that the proposal for entire facility, including the retail aspect wasn’t good enough.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
In any event
what you are saying now is a 180 degree reversal of your previous claim that it was the Gilas who were not interested. It was, in fact, the Cubs who rejected the Gilas proposal and it was because they couldn’t control the surrounding development, which is what I said all along. You can’t say the entire facility was sub par…it never got to that stage. No design work…not even preliminary, was ever done. It was the Wrigleyville issue, and you have now confirmed it.
What??
How are putting words in my mouth? The Gila’s met with the Cubs and the Cubs obviously didn’t like their offer. I don’t proclaim to know why it wasn’t good enough but there’s only a few things to choose from.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions
Unfortunately.....
The Ricketts have picked a horrible time to look build a new complex.
IMHO there is little to no chance the “Cubs Tax” will get approved. I also believe that Florida is unlikely to raise the necessary funds to lure the Cubs.
The Cubs will have to wait this out unless they want to spend their own money.
Not a big deal. Hohokam is not the reason the team has failed. The park can wait.
by timeforachange2009 on Mar 8, 2010 10:00 AM CST reply actions
"The Cubs will have to wait this out unless they want to spend their own money."
Indeed. He had the $900 million to buy the Cubs. Is he broke now?
by salparadise23 on Mar 8, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
Not broke.....
just on a tight budget.
by timeforachange2009 on Mar 8, 2010 12:16 PM CST up reply actions
The did not spend $900 of their own money
The deal includes financing & borrowing, they probably don’t hae an extra 80 million around
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Mar 8, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions
I stand...
…by the self-financing idea. Clan Ricketts can wait a few years, then pay for a new complex themselves.
"With Chance on first, and Evers on third,
Great things from the Cubs will soon be heard."
That is correct in our opinion, which should show that this is not a selfish move on any of our parts. We want what is fair and equitable to all Cactus League Clubs.
These two sentences are somewhat contradictory.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
Not at all
the fact that fans who attend games at the new D’Backs stadium next year will not have to pay the ticket surcharge proves that this is not a selfish issue. What contradicts that?
Huh?
“The Cubs debt will be paid off in twenty-five years. After that, all monies collected will go to teams other than the Cubs.”
So the other teams get to use it after 25 years? What a deal. I can’t believe they’re not behind this.
No, read the rest of the quote.
It says money will be available to all teams from day one. AFTER the 25 years, ALL the money goes to the other teams.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And just like I have been doing
D. Hall totally contradicts that and do so with real numbers. Until Mayor Smith and/or supporters provide some financial projections, I am afraid the contention that money will be available for all teams from day one will fall on deaf ears around these parts, because the numbers don’t add up. And the thing that bothers me the most is that Mayor Smith knows that and continues to try to “smoke screen” this issue. It won’t fly, Scott…people can see through this ruse.
This isn't a Mesa Bill
Mesa didn’t introduce this bill. This is the Majority Leader’s bill and he’s the one that crafted it. I’m sure if you asked him, he would show you the numbers that they used to come up with the figures.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:16 PM CST up reply actions
And I'm equally sure
that he won’t, because he can’t.
And if you are trying now to separate Scott Smith from this bill, good luck. Scott had been the face of this proposed bill from Day One and he is attached to it for good, whether he now wants to be or not.
Nevertheless, westerncubbie's point is taken.
I’d like to hear an explanation from Rep. McComish.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Don't put words in my mouth
You’re getting comfy putting words in my mouth. The fact is that it is not his bill whether he is the face of it or not. He didn’t craft it and doesn’t control it.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
The words are your own
I’m sorry if you are uncomfortable with them now that more facts are available, but that is the price of spouting off.
Say what you will
The facts are the facts. The Mayor isn’t the one who crafted the legislation.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 1:09 PM CST up reply actions
If you are now saying
that the Mayor did not have considerable input on the crafting of the legistation, I say phffft.
I think the House Bill that was introduced and the way it was handled from a P.R. standpoint has been an interesting case study on the legislative inexperience and political naivete of the Mayor of Mesa.
If Scott didn't want to be connected to this bill
He should have thought twice about scheduling all the new conferences and media interviews touting it, then defending it against critics. John Q. Public perceives this as his baby, and if he is not comfortable with that, then he mishandled the P.R. aspect of this horribly.
confusion
You are confusing the two. No one said he was distancing himself. You said he should talk about details. I pointed out it’s not him that handles the details since it’s not his, or the city’s bill. It’s a Cactus League bill.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 2:58 PM CST up reply actions
Well, since Scott
has no problem conducting media sessions when he feels the details of the bill have been misrepresented by opponents, or even emailing Al when he feels Derrick Hall misspoke (and it turns out Derrick did not), it is only fair that Scott also respond to specific questions about how much money is to be generated and where it goes.
He has appointed himself point man on this topic. He can’t lead the fight when he feels misinformation is being spread and then retreat when legitimate questions are being asked. He has said repeatedly that there will be money available for all Cactus League teams. I have run the numbers and it just isn’t possible. Now, Derrick Hall has said the same thing.
Scott needs to respond to this or else amend his previous claims. He can’t have it both ways.
BTW
it is not a Cactus League bill either. The teams that make up the Cactus League as well as the office of the Commissioner, have come out against it. To the best of my knowledge, the President of the Cactus League has not takes a position on it, but it is sort of a moot point since all the member teams are against it.
The bill was sponsored by the majority leader and crafted by him with the City of Mesa. That part is not in dispute.
Until they read the bill
The teams came out before they even read the bill. The commissioner had no clue it wasn’t a Cubs only bill. The opposition has little to do with real opposition and more to do with hired lobbyists etc.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 3:13 PM CST up reply actions
Everyone has read the bill now
it is on the Internet. And it clearly states that the first team to enter into a new extension agreement after January 1, 2010 will receive first priority for funds.
Since that is the Cubs, that means the Cubs get first dibs.
CUBS ONLY
How do you confuse first with only?
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 3:21 PM CST up reply actions
My point
is, and has been, that the Cubs project will take 20 years or more to be paid off with the existing funding mechanisms that have been proposed.
So, the Cubs and the Cubs only get money for at least 20 years.
I am still waiting for someone to refute that. 20 years is so far out that I contend it is pointless to discuss or even consider what might or might not happen after that.
Not 20
I have been told you don’t have to wait for one to be paid off to start the other. It’s bonding, not hard cash.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 3:29 PM CST up reply actions
The Bill definitely
does not say that. The Bonds have to be paid off in regular, consistent scheduled payments.
What is clear is that the funding mechanisms…ticket and rental car surcharge will not generate enough money to do anything but retire the bond obligations for the Cubs project and that will take more than 20 years…given about $1.3M per year on the ticket side and another $1.2M on the rental car side.
If you have specific info that refutes this, please be post. The general statement that “there will be money for others” is getting tired, without any specifics to back it up.
Sorry, Al, but that's absurd
After 25 years, the Cubs promise they won’t ask for more money? That’s the premise here? Because they’ve been pretty good about sticking with Spring Training facilities so far.
"Now we can just call you Kishi Laptop, Esquire."
Based on history
the Cubs should be in line for the 3rd new stadium in 25 years, since they have deemed Hohokam/Fitch inadequate after 13 years.
Snark all you want.
But that’s what the legislation calls for.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Snark??
Is that what you call asking for an accounting? And, for the record, the legistlation calls for no such thing. In fact, just the opposite, it makes it clear that the Cubs stadium gets paid for first.
An article in the Mesa Tribune this weekend stated that it is estimated that the ticket surcharge will generate something like $7,000 per Cactus League game. Do me a favor and calculate how many games it takes to generate $58M at a rate of $7,000 per game.
Answer
= 8300 games. If you figure about 200 ST games a year in the Cactus League (it is probably less than that, since you have to take out Rockies and Diamondbacks home games…which is about 25 games), then it will take over 40 years to generate $58M.
At $1 surcharge per rental, the car rental part of it won’t generate that much, either. And since the car rental lobby is determined to fight this, it is likely this part of the bill will get dropped.
Let's look at the numbers.
Perhaps 3% of the voters in Arizona are Cubs fans. Perhaps 25% are baseball fans. No more than 10% of the people will ever get a dollar of the money the Cubs bring in.
Arizona has been hit hard by the recession. When peoples’ needs aren’t being met, what incentive is there to raise taxes to benefit a bunch of multi millionaires?
The Ricketts family didn’t get where they are through naivete. They know these numbers, and realize Mesa’s bid to keep the Cubs is pie in the sky. But by giving the city first dibs on retaining the Cubs, they come off as the good guys. Once that bid fails (and it will) they will be free to move on to the Indian land, or to Florida.
I don’t like it, but that’s reality.
Real offers
The indians are not an option. It’s Florida or bust. They can go to Florida but will find equal problems there in getting it approved and financed since they need public funds also. In the long run, they’ll never make close to the amount of money in Florida as they would in Mesa.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
I find some of these arguments odd,
and a bit perplexing. How does he advocate not wanting to put more pressure on the Arizona residents with a surcharge that hits only a portion of the locals, in favor of specialized tax zones, paid for with property tax increases, where the impacted would be 100% Arizona residents? And even if they did, are all the area in Arizona that maintain Cactus League teams able to sufficiently fund projects from local area property tax increases only? I’d suspect not.
You are missing the main point
The primary thing that Derrick is advocating is that the people who will pay for this thing get a chance to vote on it. Read what he said again. His opposition is to “legislative fiats” used to benefit one Cactus League team only. Yes, of course an increase in property tax could be used to finance all of the Cactus League needs, but given that there are school funding issues in AZ, the legislature knows this would not fly with the public. That is why it was not considered when the STA was formed and why it is not being considered now. Derrick says he has given legislators a few suggestions and several have been discussed publicly.
Indian Vote
So is Hall jumping up and down about the Reservation residents getting to vote?
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions
You know as well as I do
that the tribal government set up for the Pima Indians is completely different from the rest of Maricopa County. They have powers that go far beyond what the state legislature has. Therefore, this is a moot point.
No it's not
The reservation just had an election last year. It’s not a moot point. I’m not saying they should have one, but Hall should be careful what he says and asks for.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
I understand the points just fine,
That solution neither sounds reasonable for addressing this specific facility, nor the long-term needs of Cactus League teams.
by Damen Jackson on Mar 8, 2010 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
With all due respect, Damen
you don’t have the first clue as to what you are talking about.
In the first place, as discussed above, LRADs are nothing new, they are used all the time, and the proposal is not Derrick’s. In fact, the proposal for the use of LRADs that is now being considered by the legislature is not even connected to the Cactus League…it is by the state universities to pay for things like necessary improvements for “public” facilities such as Sun Devil Stadium on the campus of Arizona State University.
But, if passed, it could open the door for an alternative way to pay for Cactus League stadiums.
It isn’t so much asking Mesa to pay for the project as it is asking the project to pay for itself. It is done all the time and is even more relevant in this bad economy where Mesa wouldn’t have the funds to pay for it anyway.
The only reason we aren’t having a serious exchange is because you are in over your head.
And we're done..
To be perfectly candid with you jazzman, I wasn’t really looking for your opinion specifically, and honestly, I’d rather not have it in the future. You’re well beyond the point of being able to reasonably discuss this topic, and have been for weeks now. So really, thank you for the reply, and let’s try to make this the last exchange that you and I have.
by Damen Jackson on Mar 8, 2010 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
The skinny
First, while times are tough now this is about keeping the Cactus League as strong as it is now and making it stronger in the future. If the Cubs leave, the Grapefruit immediately becomes the more powerful of the two and sets a very bad precedence.
This isn’t the Angels or the A’s. This is the Cubs. No offense to them, they didn’t have multiple opportunities to go to Florida and don’t bring in the people the Cubs do.
More importantly, THIS is the only opportunity they currently have to get renovations for their facilities. They should be the biggest proponents of this bill, not going against it.
Is Derrick Hall proposing the Indian Tribe vote on the expenditures there? I’m sure there’s a few residents that have some strong feelings one way or another on the money spent on their complex.
Hall says over and over again he’s opposed to using taxpayer funds and then only suggests methods using taxpayers funds…
And what about the effect the Cubs fans feel when the DBacks jack up ticket prices when they play at Chase Field? Where is the concern there?
Hall forgets that the residents of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community are taxpayers too. It’s somewhat insulting. He also forgets the tax free loan backed by stimulus money the tribe is using. Argue all you want about it being a long-it is backed by the US Government using US Taxpayer money. If the Tribe defaults, it’s our money. The loan has to come from somewhere.
MLB and Hall clearly have no political understanding of Arizona or our tax system. First, Mesa and really the state have no property tax. In other words, if this "LRAD" were to go through, it would have to be funded by adjusting the local school district property tax. In Arizona, any adjustment to the school property tax is paid for out of the State’s General Fund. In other words, what they propose is basically having the State of AZ fund it. By the way, we’re broke.
OH Yeah!
I forgot about the fact that when Hall decided to leave Tucson he actually caused a grave effect on taxpayers.
First, Tucson taxpayers are left holding the bag on a $24 Million balance with no team in an empty stadium.
Then, to rub salt in everyone’s wounds-they go to an indian reservation were NO taxes will be paid or collected by a city or the State of Arizona.
Thanks again for the Double Whammy Derrick. But hey, you’re looking out for the taxpayers.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
It wasn't Derrick's idea
or fault that Pima County decided to let the White Sox walk out of Tucson. That was the action that led to the decision for the D’Backs and Rockies to leave as well. With only two teams left, staying in Tucson was no longer viable…everybody knew that. The D’Backs made it clear all along that their first choice was to stay in Tucson. Unfortunately, they really had no other option other than to join the teams in Phoenix.
Oscar goes to
The acting job is horrible by Hall. Everyone knows what the situation is so why does Hall need to fake like he’s looking out for the taxpayer.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:17 PM CST up reply actions
And you get the award
for false and unproven (and unsupportable) innuendo. If you are going to spout off about this, you need to stick to facts, not innuendo. I have personally spoken to Ken Kendrick about this, and I can tell you for a fact that the D’Backs did not want to leave Tucson…they had no other choice.
I don't doubt they didn't
I never said they didn’t want to leave. The fact remains they left. The fact remains the taxpayers in Tucson are left holding a $24 million bag of debt and an empty stadium. The fact remains the taxpayers of Arizona now will have to make up for lots and lots of lost tax revenue because the DBacks decided to go to an indian reservation.
Those are the facts. That isn’t innuendo. I look at the facts and when I hear Hall say he’s looking out for the taxpayer I want to vomit sometimes.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 12:53 PM CST up reply actions
To be fair...
… I think it was the Rockies who initiated the move to the Indian land. The D’backs didn’t, obviously, want to be the only team training in Tucson, so they made a deal to come north along with Colorado.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And I want to vomit
when I hear it repeated over and over that all teams in the Cactus League will benefit from the ticket surcharge. That has become a bad joke.
The officials in Pima County knew the ramifications of their decision to take the few million dollars from the White Sox and let them leave. Not that they had much of a choice, but it would have been interesting if they had decided to take them to court. The Rockies and the D’Backs decision to leave was a fait accompli at that point.
And, as far as I know, the D’Backs are the only club that made any sincere effort to find a replacement team for the White Sox before they decided to leave.
E for Effort
This isn’t about the effort. I applaud the DBacks for doing all they could do. I don’t even fault them for leaving.
I fault them for thumping their chests for “looking out for the taxpayer” while doing it.
by westerncubbie on Mar 8, 2010 1:14 PM CST up reply actions
Just as I fault
McComish and Smith for saying their proposal benefits all teams in the Cactus League. Hey, politics is about posturing…that is how the game works. The real truth often gets buried.
Oh and BTW
while we are weeping for the poor taxpayers of Pima County, let’s not forget that it was the lack of fan support that caused them to lose the PRIMARY tenant of Tucson Electric Park..the Sidewinders. A new stadium for the Sidewinders was the main reason behind the push for Tucson Electric, and then they put it in a terrible location almost insuring it’s failure. So, Pima County shares a good deal of the blame for the albatross that is Tucson Electric Park….which is a really nice stadium, by the way.
Why is TEP in such a terrible location?
I thought having it right near I-10 made it convenient.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Not convenient to anything
when the Tucson Toros played at Hi Corbett Field, the attendance was excellent. When the team became the Sidewinders and moved to TEP, the attendance fell dramatically and never recovered.
Also, it is not a great part of town to be in at night, and during the hot summer, it is almost exclusively night games.
That makes sense.
Have never been to TEP. However, I found Hi Corbett difficult to get to driving from the Phoenix area on I-10.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It's not difficult
to get to Hi Corbett if you live in Tucson. It’s right in the middle of town, close to UofA.
I suppose.
Kind of convoluted if you’re coming off I-10, though.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
TEP is more direct off the I-10
But from my trips down there, the traffic is awful.
"Now we can just call you Kishi Laptop, Esquire."
Not so bad now
since they finished the massive I-10 widening project. But, it doesn’t matter…take it from someone who lived in Tucson for 15 years…Hi Corbett is in a WAY better location than TEP, and the fact the attendance for the AAA team in Tucson went down the tubes immediately when they relocated to TEP just proves the point.
I know that there is a chance...
… that the Triple-A team in Portland may relocate, either temporarily or permanently, to Tucson.
Would they play in TEP or Hi Corbett?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
My problem wasn't on I-10
It was on the surface streets near the stadium. It was pretty terrible around game-time.
"Now we can just call you Kishi Laptop, Esquire."
I liked the widening.
TEP is the better park than Hi Corbett but Hi Corbett is more conveniently located.
I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot dog.
-Some crazy Cubs fan
by Reynolds rapper on Mar 10, 2010 9:01 PM CST up reply actions
But as far as "more powerful of the two leagues" go.
That is just bragging rights, since revenues aren’t shared, there wouldn’t be much impact to the member teams. They’d lose the money from the home date and possibly the away date (if the gate is shared). Most teams would lose more money out of the “Cubbie tax”.
I've never heard of a famous Phoenix hot dog.
-Some crazy Cubs fan
by Reynolds rapper on Mar 10, 2010 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
I received an email from Mayor Smith today.
He wanted to make this correction to one of Derrick Hall’s points.
Over the past month or so, I have often heard those who oppose the stadium financing proposal argue that helping to finance the Cubs stadium is grossly unfair because LA Angels owner Arte Moreno paid all the costs to recently improve Tempe Diablo Stadium where the Angels train. There’s one big problem with this argument: it’s not true. The truth is that taxpayers contributed $20 million toward the renovation of Tempe Diablo. I have confirmed this fact with Tempe city officials. The Angels may have paid for improvements on top of what taxpayers funded, but you can’t completely ignore the $20 million. I don’t know how this urban legend got started, but it has been used repeatedly in discussions about the legislation. It’s also interesting to note that the Angels were threatening to leave Tempe for the new stadium in Goodyear when Tempe and the AZSTA stepped up and committed the monies that helped keep them in Tempe. One other item of interest is that when the Tempe facilities were renovated, the Angels moved their minor league training out of Gene Autry park in Mesa, which the city had built for the team. This whole thing is a very tangled web!
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Scott is correct
about the AZSTA paying for $20M in upgrades at Diablo and the Angels considering moving to Goodyear (he left out the fact that Arte Moreno owns land in Goodyear and there was some consideration that he might act as developer for the surrounding land, much as the Cubs want to do in east Mesa). But, if we are going to be accurate, Derrick did not say that Moreno “paid all the costs to recently improve Tempe Diablo Stadium”, as Smith states.
What Derrick said is “teams such as the Angels, who recently put millions of their own dollars into their facilities”, and it is an important point. The reason it is important is that many people are asking what exactly are the Cubs contributing to the east Mesa project? So far, all I am hearing is, they are buying the land (which they will be developing anyway) and any cost overruns that go beyond $84M.
I think a lot of people think the Cubs, given the fact that they insist on having a one team complex and on developing the land surrounding the stadium, should be required to kick in some cash to the stadium itself.
"The truth is that taxpayers contributed $20 million toward the renovation of Tempe Diablo."
Well, gosh, that’s makes it OK then.
It’s really to try and find sympathy for these multimillionaire and billionaire owners who keep coming back time and time again to the taxpayers to subsidize their businesses.
I see the Cubs losing this battle
There is simply too much outrage that has been generated for this proposal to ever fly. But especially in these challenging economic times and where the American public’s nerves are raw when it comes to politicians and taxes.
Let Ricketts find a more suitable funding means that doesn’t place burden on the taxpayer.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Eventually, a deal will be made.
Regardless of your opinion.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al.....
Is it possible “the deal” will be the Cubs agreeing to wait a couple of years until the economy rebounds (hopefully) for a sweetheart deal?
I do not believe Florida is an option. I think it may be in the Rickett’s best interest to wait…..
by timeforachange2009 on Mar 8, 2010 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
Is there ever a battle
you have seen the Cubs winning?
"For the charming if somewhat curius branch of mankind known as Cub fans, spring is a sanguine time.. Every spring holds the blithe hope that perhaps this is the season in which Satan will grow weary and ease up on the headlock in which he has diabolically held Chicago's mightly struggling National League baseball team since 1908..." Lonnie Wheeler- "Bleachers"
by tommy veryzer on Mar 8, 2010 5:58 PM CST up reply actions

by 



















