Bidding (Part 1)

Other than today (and a damn good post by bbwilrk), there has been little activity here at IDB. All apologies since every once in a while, life smacks us with a a ton of bricks... or keeps us occupied.
Actually, the reason for my disappearance goes to several writings I've been working on, including this post. This post has been in the works for a couple of weeks, mainly because in order to get it right, I wanted to have a ton of resources for you all to check out. Yet, it's just sitting here. So I've decided to make this a series of posts called "Bidding". You may see that I am speaking about something that is stirring in New York, yet has been a debate around the world: stadium politics. Part one will explain the NYC dilemma, as well as paint the picture of profiled stadiums such as Camden Yards in Baltimore. This will explain the issues of public funding an outdoor stadium. Part two will actually discuss indoor venues such as those built in several cities such as Charlotte and Atlanta to discuss the differences in politics for arenas. The last part will provide the few pros and many cons of public funding of stadiums and why New York's fight differs from other cities.

One elsewhere in the country may have heard about the controversy surrounding New York's bid for the 2012 Olympics, sports' grandest one-night (really, sixteen-night) stand. The proposed Olympic Stadium, which would actually open in 2009 as the permanent residence for the New York Jets, would be located on the Hudson rail yards that neighbor the Jacob Javits Center on Manhattan’s West Side.

The New York Sports and Convention Center, would be an expensive project for all involved and would likely become the most expensive entertainment venue in history. With the stadium bowl taking most of the real estate, an expanded convention space, extended subway lines, an office tower and environmental amenities because of the nearby Hudson River, this project's price tag has soared within the past two years - $1.4 billion to near $2.5 billion. Woody Johnson, the owner of the Jets, pledged $600 million on the team's behalf towards the construction of the NYSCC. The remaining $800 million was to come from both the City of New York and New York State, with $400 million each. With this recent price escalation, these newfound expenses have yet to be accounted for.

Recently, the rights to these rail yards, originally owned by the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, were sold to the Jets for a reported $720 million after an open bidding process and months of mudslinging between the Jets and Cablevision, which owns nearby Madison Square Garden (along with the Knicks, NY Rangers and the Liberty). Cablevision, which can't even run cable right, has been campaigning against the NYSCC because it would threaten their domain in concerts and other indoor entertainment (and understandably so).

So what the hell does this mean to Dallas, Los Angeles, Indianapolis or Charlotte? Any metropolitan region in the United States?

Everything.

New York has joined the modern stadium politics after the recent stadium construction boom of the last fifteen+ years. For the City itself, it has been over forty years since a stadium for a major league pro team has been built when the Mets opened Shea Stadium in 1961. In the area, none have been built since Giants Stadium was completed in New Jersey just past 25 years ago. In joining this debate, New York now meets the same hurdles as other cities in America have in recent memory. Many scholars and media trace of the recent explosion in stadium construction to the development of retro-style baseball parks as in Baltimore. Oriole Park at Camden Yards, located near the beautiful Baltimore Harbor, is considered a huge success by many local governments as well as sports organizations. Personally, I have been there a couple of times in passing, but the story behind it gives much more of a presence.

• Baltimore, itself as a city, has a negative reputation amongst major cities in the US. High crime rates are mentioned when someone even says Bal’ more. Usually, as urban life goes, when there's crime, there's grime. Without sounding like a public policy class, neighborhoods become neglected when civility is. To begin to come up out of this reputation says much about the efforts made by those responsible for the stadium. This leads to...
• Reason B: When Robert Irsay irked (bad pun intended) and downright angered Baltimoreans when he moved the beloved Colts in 1983, the city's reputation slowly began to creep towards the negativity that I mentioned before. With only one team left in the city after the NBA Bullets moved north to Washington DC in 1973, the Orioles became the sole and dependent identity of professional sports in the city.
• Irsay, whose son Jim assumed ownership after his father's death in 1997, moved the Colts because he wanted improvements made to Memorial Stadium if the team was to remain profitable: lure players and big money consumers. He believed that he was promised a new stadium by the state of Maryland, but the state denied this claim. He figured that if Maryland would not help, then he could shop the team to various cities. Indianapolis had just finished construction on the Hoosier (now RCA) dome, and was committed to enhancing its image as a major league town. A perfect marriage...

Camden Yards serves as a link to this past because of fears of Oriole owner Peter Angelos moving the team out of the city. Baltimore did not want a repeat of 1983, especially with the last team in the city. Construction began in 1989 and was completed in August 1992. The Maryland Stadium Authority, a quasi-government organization provided the funds to secure the land (~$100 million) and build the structure (estimated between $100 and $135 million). The State raised several taxes in order to come up with the money without tapping into already existing funds. Though the MSA owns the stadium and the surrounding land, the profits for the most part go to the Orioles. Hmmm... The MSA also worked a similar deal in bringing the original Cleveland Browns to Baltimore (Ravens) in 1995, packaging a promise for M&T Bank Stadium.

Since 1992, fifteen new baseball parks have been built, one is currently being built (St. Louis) and at least one more prove to be on the way (Miami). Even the Yankees have unveiled models of a new home. Possibly an even more astonishing fact is that only one of these new fields has been built with predominantly private funding (SBC Park in San Francisco). Football? Well, there have been sixteen new fields with two remodelings and one to be built (Glendale, AZ). One has yet to be privately funded.

How the heck did teams get away with public dollars?

Several books have been written on the topic, but the one making the biggest ripples these days is Public Dollars, Public Stadiums. For the most part, the book discusses mainly outdoor venues, and with good reason. Outdoor stadiums, for the most part, are not strong profit centers unless A.) the team is a playoff-caliber team, B.) the stadium hosts more than one outdoor sports team, C.) climate and a slew of other reasons. Because the NFL season is short (a minimum of 10 games, including two preseason games), the venue is mostly empty for the entire year, leaving little opportunity for anyone to make a dollar. Baseball is better in the usage (minimum of 83, with two spring training games at some locations), but if the team is out of contention early, no money can be made. Unless the venue can host other events such as concerts and conventions, there is little to be made in the offseasons. Owners realize this and they don't want to foot the bill all the way, if at all, but play on the civic pride that teams afford their homes for assistance. If they can threaten to leave town for another, it's as bad as being left at the altar for some towns. Washington DC and New York lost two baseball teams because of this, several other cities such as Seattle and Milwaukee lost teams as well.

Part Two coming soon.