Mark80 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Interesting take on this issue by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight last night. Thought it may be relevant to post since we, undoubtedly, are going to be having these debates in the very near future. While I certainly appreciate all that Mr. Pegula and his family have done and are doing for our city, I think the real man is going to show when it comes to these negotiations. Is he going to expect us to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium when there are still many pressing issues in our city and region that could use that funding when he is one of the richest owners in the NFL or is he going to open up his pocketbook, once more, and truly be our knight in shining armor? Some of the owners in this video must have gone to the FIFA school of negotiating to get some of their deals done (I'm looking at you Miami and Phoenix). Edited July 13, 2015 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting take on this issue by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight last night. Thought it may be relevant to post since we, undoubtedly, are going to be having these debates in the very near future. While I certainly appreciate all that Mr. Pegula and his family have done and are doing for our city, I think the real man is going to show when it comes to these negotiations. Is he going to expect us to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium when there are still many pressing issues in our city and region that could use that funding when he is one of the richest owners in the NFL or is he going to open up his pocketbook, once more, and truly be our knight in shining armor? Some of the owners in this video must have gone to the FIFA school of negotiating to get some of their deals done (I'm looking at you Miami and Phoenix). I am betting that Pegula & the state already have a really good idea of who is paying what when it comes to the new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4BillsintheBurgh Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Here is a link with some articles/links regarding what Pittsburgh leaders did after voters said no to using public funds for subsidizing the team (steelers/pirates) stadiums, aka "Plan B". Spoiler alert, they used public funds, but it wasn't as much as first proposed and there were some "creative" funding ideas too. http://old.post-gazette.com/planb/ Unfortunately not all the links work, but from what I remember the state money given as part of the funding had incentives tied to it that encouraged the teams to develop the land in between the two stadiums to produce x amount of tax revenue through sales. If the tax base didn't increase by that amount over the agreed upon timeline the money went from a grant to a loan, so the teams were highly motivated. The original three rivers stadium had plans to develop the same property but since the government was managing it nothing ever happened. Not to mention the original principle on three rivers was still owed, they had been paying the interest only for the entire thirty years it was in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I could flip the argument around and ask what would Buffalo look like without Terry and Kim Pegula? It's true that arenas and stadiums, on their own, do not generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. But arenas and stadiums that are just a part of a larger development plan do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Here is a link with some articles/links regarding what Pittsburgh leaders did after voters said no to using public funds for subsidizing the team (steelers/pirates) stadiums, aka "Plan B". Spoiler alert, they used public funds, but it wasn't as much as first proposed and there were some "creative" funding ideas too. http://old.post-gazette.com/planb/ Unfortunately not all the links work, but from what I remember the state money given as part of the funding had incentives tied to it that encouraged the teams to develop the land in between the two stadiums to produce x amount of tax revenue through sales. If the tax base didn't increase by that amount over the agreed upon timeline the money went from a grant to a loan, so the teams were highly motivated. The original three rivers stadium had plans to develop the same property but since the government was managing it nothing ever happened. Not to mention the original principle on three rivers was still owed, they had been paying the interest only for the entire thirty years it was in existence. Yes, this is key. In this day and age it is exceptionally rare for no public funds to be used. The question is how much are we willing to give and what assurance do we have that we are going to see benefit out of those funds. This can be in the form of some sort of revenue sharing with the venue / concessions / parking or what Pittsburgh did with guarantees regarding increased tax collection in the areas surrounding the stadium. I don't see Mr. Pegula as having any chance of "holding the team hostage" and threatening re-location if he doesn't get a vastly one-sided deal, but you really never know. We just need to make sure that we are not putting ourselves into a situation where we are ignoring the real issues of the city in order to have a top of the line stadium. The city of Miami got completely owned in the Marlins stadium deal and they still have basically no attendance at their games at all. I mean, some of the perks that went into that stadium (that hideous statue in center field for example) are just completely laughable. I would be infuriated if something like that went down here. I could flip the argument around and ask what would Buffalo look like without Terry and Kim Pegula? It's true that arenas and stadiums, on their own, do not generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. But arenas and stadiums that are just a part of a larger development plan do. By no means am I trying to say anything negative about what they have done up to this point. They are city saviors. I'm just saying what they do concerning a new stadium will either further that legacy or put a significant dent in it. I'm expecting and hoping its the former. Edited July 13, 2015 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4BillsintheBurgh Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) In my eyes, the NFL should take the money for stadiums off the top of the TV contacts and create a $1 billion a year fund. The owners/players pot is smaller but over thirty or so every team will get a new or upgraded stadium. And you could actually help the surrounding communities by being a positive tax entity instead of drain or at best close to sum zero. Edited July 13, 2015 by 4BillsintheBurgh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting take on this issue by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight last night. Thought it may be relevant to post since we, undoubtedly, are going to be having these debates in the very near future. While I certainly appreciate all that Mr. Pegula and his family have done and are doing for our city, I think the real man is going to show when it comes to these negotiations. Is he going to expect us to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium when there are still many pressing issues in our city and region that could use that funding when he is one of the richest owners in the NFL or is he going to open up his pocketbook, once more, and truly be our knight in shining armor? Some of the owners in this video must have gone to the FIFA school of negotiating to get some of their deals done (I'm looking at you Miami and Phoenix). Great piece by JO. Was that a Bledsoe jersey I saw at the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Yes, this is key. In this day and age it is exceptionally rare for no public funds to be used. The question is how much are we willing to give and what assurance do we have that we are going to see benefit out of those funds. This can be in the form of some sort of revenue sharing with the venue / concessions / parking or what Pittsburgh did with guarantees regarding increased tax collection in the areas surrounding the stadium. I don't see Mr. Pegula as having any chance of "holding the team hostage" and threatening re-location if he doesn't get a vastly one-sided deal, but you really never know. We just need to make sure that we are not putting ourselves into a situation where we are ignoring the real issues of the city in order to have a top of the line stadium. The city of Miami got completely owned in the Marlins stadium deal and they still have basically no attendance at their games at all. I mean, some of the perks that went into that stadium (that hideous statue in center field for example) are just completely laughable. I would be infuriated if something like that went down here. By no means am I trying to say anything negative about what they have done up to this point. They are city saviors. I'm just saying what they do concerning a new stadium will either further that legacy or put a significant dent in it. I'm expecting and hoping its he former. I fully expect TP, and maybe Jeremy Jacobs, to foot the bill for a new stadium downtown. But the state/city/county will have to pony up something, be it infrastructure, land or something else. Buffalo gave the Pegulas a deal on the parking lot that is now Harborcenter. It's now a centerpiece, drawing events and visitors and generating tax revenue. Great piece by JO. Was that a Bledsoe jersey I saw at the end? A clearance item from a dollar store. Edited July 13, 2015 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRex Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Having the state (NY in the Bills case) does make sense in one case: IF YOU ARE NOT THE STATE OF NEW YORK! Buffalo, while it is clearly part of NYS, the key to realize is that even though we are easily the second largest city in NYS (sounds like San Diego vis a vis CA in the John Oliver video) we are well behind NYC in population and in income due to the huge salaries on Wall Street. Having NYS pay for the stadium makes some economic sense for WNY IF NYS sets up a sports authority and the simply stupid aggreements NFL owners can force their "partners" in state government to agree to are spread across taxpayers in all o0f NYS. This actually makes perfect sense for WNY and Bills fans because there is simply no way for us WNYers to get the larger capitol pool of NYC to send $ consistently in large amounts in virtual perpetuity except through getting politicians to agree to take on this massive debt for the ONLY NFL team which plays in NYS. Pouring these NYS $ into othr public benefit projects like childhood lead poisoning prevention or road and bridge infrastructure makes far more sense for NYS and WNY as investments in WNY, but these investments are quite unlikely to happen. Funding a new Bills stadium makes no sense for WNY, but using OPM (other peopl's money) makes good sense for WNY and Bills fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) I could flip the argument around and ask what would Buffalo look like without Terry and Kim Pegula? It's true that arenas and stadiums, on their own, do not generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. But arenas and stadiums that are just a part of a larger development plan do. Link? The mixed use approach is merely a newly formulated neoliberal approach to using taxpayer dollars to make it more palatable for the general public when it's being jammed down their throats. Basically, the argument is "See it's being used more than 10 times a year so it's better use of public money." A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy. The issue really is that self-interested people become blindly emotional and irrational when it's something they use or like, such as Canalside, a colossal waste of public money that only benefits a small portion of the population than can and is willing to engage in conspicuous consumption. The Bills fans are the same people, many hate subsidies for the Paladinos and Terminis (this joker makes millions off the city from subsidies and has the balls to complain about a food truck on private property taking from his brick and mortar business? Talk about entitled and tone deaf) of the city but will gladly approve one for the Bills. I'm a season ticket holder, and I think it's a joke if we give a billionaire a penny for a new stadium. That's a blasphemy and a minority opinion but I'm against all these so-called economic development incentives that benefit a few while saddling the rest with more taxes without fixing the underlying problems in this state that lead to politicians saying we need subsidies in the first place. And I'll be priced out my season tickets even in a partially taxpayer funded stadium. So not only do we all get to pay for it, it'll be only for those who can afford much higher prices. PSLs, even very minimal, a few thousands a seat, are likely coming. We'll be told by the powers that be that they'd be much higher if we didn't hand them the boatload of money, but no one will ever show us the balance sheet or prove that it's necessity. The NFL has grown so big and powerful and wealthy and we're a city of poverty, horrible school, rampant crime, crumbling public infrastructure, vacancy and abandonment, polluted brownfields, and high taxes and we're expected to shun those issues to support the NFL? Take a look at your pay stubs NYers and ask how all these subsidies are helping you, personally? And one more thing. What would Buffalo look like without the Pegulas? Really? They've built one building, taken ownership of another, and rent a third. Should we anoint them King and Queen and rename all the streets and monuments after them? They've done squat to change this city. Change is holistic, not site specific. Sadly, too many WNYers are drinking the "resurgence" Kool Aid because they keep telling you to believe that. Not true, new bricks and mortar does not fix a city. All the indicators that matter are still trending the wrong way. The constant refrain is part of the narrative push by power brokers to make the people believe it's true to continue to push forth these types of public giveaways. Edited July 14, 2015 by zonabb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I could flip the argument around and ask what would Buffalo look like without Terry and Kim Pegula? It's true that arenas and stadiums, on their own, do not generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. But arenas and stadiums that are just a part of a larger development plan do. There's not research I'm aware of that the Stadium contributes to it where a larger development plan does not. I'm in favor of stadiums and while I think the team/owner should bear most of the costs, I'm not against the public contributing. However, it's not an investment that has a positive financial return for taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Funding a new Bills stadium makes no sense for WNY, but using OPM (other peopl's money) makes good sense for WNY and Bills fans! I think you could have left out the rest if you were making this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I could see it being just good-faith negotiations and everyone coming up with a mutual-beneficial framework Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Link? The mixed use approach is merely a newly formulated neoliberal approach to using taxpayer dollars to make it more palatable for the general public when it's being jammed down their throats. Basically, the argument is "See it's being used more than 10 times a year so it's better use of public money." A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy. The issue really is that self-interested people become blindly emotional and irrational when it's something they use or like, such as Canalside, a colossal waste of public money that only benefits a small portion of the population than can and is willing to engage in conspicuous consumption. The Bills fans are the same people, many hate subsidies for the Paladinos and Terminis (this joker makes millions off the city from subsidies and has the balls to complain about a food truck on private property taking from his brick and mortar business? Talk about entitled and tone deaf) of the city but will gladly approve one for the Bills. I'm a season ticket holder, and I think it's a joke if we give a billionaire a penny for a new stadium. That's a blasphemy and a minority opinion but I'm against all these so-called economic development incentives that benefit a few while saddling the rest with more taxes without fixing the underlying problems in this state that lead to politicians saying we need subsidies in the first place. And I'll be priced out my season tickets even in a partially taxpayer funded stadium. So not only do we all get to pay for it, it'll be only for those who can afford much higher prices. PSLs, even very minimal, a few thousands a seat, are likely coming. We'll be told by the powers that be that they'd be much higher if we didn't hand them the boatload of money, but no one will ever show us the balance sheet or prove that it's necessity. The NFL has grown so big and powerful and wealthy and we're a city of poverty, horrible school, rampant crime, crumbling public infrastructure, vacancy and abandonment, polluted brownfields, and high taxes and we're expected to shun those issues to support the NFL? Take a look at your pay stubs NYers and ask how all these subsidies are helping you, personally? And one more thing. What would Buffalo look like without the Pegulas? Really? They've built one building, taken ownership of another, and rent a third. Should we anoint them King and Queen and rename all the streets and monuments after them? They've done squat to change this city. Change is holistic, not site specific. Sadly, too many WNYers are drinking the "resurgence" Kool Aid because they keep telling you to believe that. Not true, new bricks and mortar does not fix a city. All the indicators that matter are still trending the wrong way. The constant refrain is part of the narrative push by power brokers to make the people believe it's true to continue to push forth these types of public giveaways. All of this blabble and you don't even provide one of these "indicators" to prove your point. Funny. You ask for a link from another poster and provide no link to support any of your claims. Funny. Edited July 14, 2015 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 All of this blabble and you don't even provide one of these "indicators" to prove your point. Funny. You ask for a link from another poster and provide no link to support any of your claims. Funny. Yes, but he got "neoliberal" in there, and that's the most important thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) All of this blabble and you don't even provide one of these "indicators" to prove your point. Funny. You ask for a link from another poster and provide no link to support any of your claims. Funny. Ha. I was going to say the same. If what is happening in Buffalo today the result of "kool aid" then why wasn't Buffalo a boom town for decades before? The fact is that a city requires one or more patrons. Detroit had Ford. Pittsburgh had Carnegie. Cleveland had Rockefeller, and so on. Buffalo may now have one in the Pegulas. Their investment in a downtrodden city makes other get on board. Maybe that is kool aid, but the result is progress. If you think Harborplace is "just a building" then you have no idea about the value of development. Edited July 14, 2015 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Yes, but he got "neoliberal" in there, and that's the most important thing. Neoliberal, neoconservative, neonazi are same things - buzz words to attack what you do not like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Neoliberal, neoconservative, neonazi are same things - buzz words to attack what you do not like. What are you, some kind of neocommunist fascist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (I'm looking at you Miami and Phoenix). And they recently made cuts to education funding here. We really have our priorities straight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 All of this blabble and you don't even provide one of these "indicators" to prove your point. Funny. You ask for a link from another poster and provide no link to support any of your claims. Funny. Tis how the Internet works... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts