Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nationals Park

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Smirkman
    replied
    Originally posted by efin98 View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some of the stadiums built with public money paid in part through bonds? And aren't those bonds to some extent fixed at a certain rate? And if so can't they determine what the minimum amount they need to pay over the course of the bond per year to establish a bare minimum they need to take in from the teams to pay off the bonds?

    And from that can't they figure that the excesses from the revenues be considered "profits" since they are more than what is needed to pay off the bond for the year?
    If you use truly use public money for the construction (& land purchases) then no, because that money came from the government. The money in DC did not come from the local government. They just allocated it, thus creating a profit of any amount over what they had to spend on the ballpark.

    FWIW - The metrodome was not profitable, but it did come in under budget. I believe PacBell/ATT Park in SF was/is profitable but that was funded with private revenues that are allocated by the team and not the city. In DC the city acts as the middleman. In fact many private enterprises lined up to allocate the funds, but DC recognized there was/ could be a profit and kept it for itself as the private enterprises were to retain any amount over the cost of the ballpark. One item I am unsure of is the cost of managing the contract and if the city's cost was included in the contract (I have not read the contract for 2 years) although it is likely that they did. This would be a direct cost that if it exists should be removed from any profit.

    Leave a comment:


  • efin98
    replied
    Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some of the stadiums built with public money paid in part through bonds? And aren't those bonds to some extent fixed at a certain rate? And if so can't they determine what the minimum amount they need to pay over the course of the bond per year to establish a bare minimum they need to take in from the teams to pay off the bonds?

    And from that can't they figure that the excesses from the revenues be considered "profits" since they are more than what is needed to pay off the bond for the year?

    Leave a comment:


  • Smirkman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    So can somebody explain to me how a brand new park that is 70% full on average is so wildly profitable when every other park, save Metrodome, has hemorrhaged public money? It just seems a little bit odd to me.

    Also, did the financial geniuses at the city account for the surefire drop in attendance for the next few years, since the ballpark will get old (and from what I've seen in pictures, it will get real old, real quick) and the team still isn't in a position to compete? And, is the Anacostia area growing faster than, say, the utterly failed neighborhood-building of Atlanta, Chicago (WS), Texas, etc.?

    Well, I guess that the others were not geniuses (not that DC is). You make alot of accusations and assumptions based on relatively weak data. Simple research will answer all of your loaded "questions." I stated earlier that they were conservative estimates. As I am sure you doubt or question what that means, but it simply means that they accounted for attendance fluctuations. There are numerous articles quoting those that did NOT support the building of the ballpark. Mayor Fenty is a prime example as he was the one most vehemently opposed to the ballpark. Just because something isn't the norm doesn't mean a new way of doing something won't achieve different results. Nobody thought the Olympics could be profitable until LA in '84.

    BTW - I wasn't aware of Atlanta, Chicago or Texas' building of a ballpark was to build neighborhoods. They are all in residential areas (of varying styles) and only Atlanta is anywhere near a downtown. DC didn't build the ballpark to redevelop a neighborhood, they built it to add amenities and to increase the redevelopment efforts that were in place but slow to develop other than the DOT HQ and a few scattered office buildings. The entertainment and residential development plans exploded with the announcement of the ballpark. Additionally the city will benefit financially from the offshoot development that is not included in the financial projections. Without a doubt this ballpark is a financial success and no money came from the DC general fund. The ballpark was funded by a special tax that large business owners approved, but benefits the city (and the Nats obviously).

    Note: The ballpark is not IN Anacostia (neighborhood). It is close to the Anacostia River.
    Last edited by Smirkman; 06-04-2008, 06:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • six4three
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    So can somebody explain to me how a brand new park that is 70% full on average is so wildly profitable when every other park, save Metrodome, has hemorrhaged public money? It just seems a little bit odd to me.
    That's the question, isn't it? They say they'll earn these mountains of profit, but no details on how they'll succeed where everybody else has failed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean O
    replied
    So can somebody explain to me how a brand new park that is 70% full on average is so wildly profitable when every other park, save Metrodome, has hemorrhaged public money? It just seems a little bit odd to me.

    Also, did the financial geniuses at the city account for the surefire drop in attendance for the next few years, since the ballpark will get old (and from what I've seen in pictures, it will get real old, real quick) and the team still isn't in a position to compete? And, is the Anacostia area growing faster than, say, the utterly failed neighborhood-building of Atlanta, Chicago (WS), Texas, etc.?

    Leave a comment:


  • Smirkman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    So Washington, even with the park half-full most nights, will be only the 2nd city to make a profit on a new stadium in history? Also, if it's $20m a year, that's 30 years in today's money until we break even.

    And, not for nothing, but PPOR with those "projections", please.



    And, oddly enough, in the land where "the pursuit of happiness" is one of our primary rights, the government is allowed to take what's not rightfully theres as long as money is involved?


    Thanks Nationals! Thanks Lerners!



    Because they were running their own businesses, which should be allowed in the US.



    Hah! We each have rights that the government, at its fundamental level, cannot abrogate. The government here is saying "we don't care that you've chosen what you want to do, and we're forcing this on you unconstitutionally." There is nothing selfish about being victimized by a government that is taking away your rights.
    That's $20 million profit. Please redo your math as that comes to $1211 million total in 30 years.

    I respectfully disagree. I not going to debate the issue of eminant domain with you as our opinions differ. I believe there are some things that must be gained through eminant domain like Central Park, freeways and yes in some situations stadiums.

    D.C. Council Crafting Plan to Pay $150 Million for Soccer Stadium

    By David Nakamura
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, May 28, 2008; A01


    A coalition of D.C. Council members is drafting legislation that would authorize Mayor Adrian M. Fenty to spend $150 million in public money to subsidize construction of a soccer stadium for D.C. United in Southeast Washington, city government sources said.

    Under the plan being developed by Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the 27,000-seat stadium would be included in a larger, mixed-use development at Poplar Point, a 110-acre swath of parkland along the Anacostia River. The site is across the river from the Washington Nationals' baseball stadium.

    The city would finance construction bonds with excess tax revenue being collected by the District to pay for the baseball stadium. D.C. United would be responsible for paying for any costs above $150 million, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is still being finalized.

    The legislation could be introduced at the council's next legislative meeting Tuesday, if all goes smoothly, the sources said. Gray, Evans and Barry are working to win majority support on the 13-member council, but the project could prove contentious. Debate over the baseball stadium's $611 million financing package dragged on nearly two years, dividing the council and residents.

    In February, Fenty (D) floated essentially the same plan as the one being developed by council members, but he backed off after the proposal was made public. The mayor, who as a council member voted against the baseball package, has been reluctant to actively support the soccer project and is content to let the council take the lead, the city government sources said. Through a spokeswoman, Fenty declined to comment yesterday.

    But at a meeting last night of the Anacostia Coordinating Council, a neighborhood group in Ward 8 that supports the stadium, business leader James Bunn asked Fenty to commit to the stadium project.

    "We are moving forward and hope to have a deal that can be announced soon," Fenty replied.

    The three council members have said they must act soon to keep the soccer team in the District. Team owner Victor B. MacFarlane has been talking with Prince George's County officials about moving the franchise to Greenbelt or New Carrollton if the District is unwilling to help build the stadium.

    Council member Kwame R. Brown (D-At Large), chairman of the Economic Development Committee, met with Gray, Evans and Barry two weeks ago to discuss the financing plan. Brown, who is running for reelection, has been generally supportive of a stadium but has not committed to voting for it.

    "There have been so many different scenarios, and that's one of the last ones that I've heard," Brown said of the $150 million plan. "I need to see exactly what that means. . . . I haven't been presented anything, nothing in writing. How are we going to do it?"

    Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said she had not heard about the latest plan. When the stadium issue was broached a few months ago by Fenty, Cheh said, she voiced opposition to using public money.

    "I just don't think we should be an ATM for sporting authorities, unless they can make a compelling case to me," Cheh said.

    Calls to Evans and Gray were not returned yesterday, and Barry declined to comment.

    United plays at 47-year-old RFK Stadium, where MacFarlane has said the team loses $10 million a year because it does not control ad revenue at the stadium under its agreement with the city. Plans for a new facility have been stalled since last summer, when the Fenty administration abruptly broke off informal discussions with MacFarlane.

    The administration said MacFarlane's proposal, which included him taking control of the entire Poplar Point development, was not good for the city. Fenty aides ultimately awarded the development rights for Poplar Point to Bethesda-based Clark Realty Capital, which included a soccer stadium as an option in its proposal.

    MacFarlane, meanwhile, opened negotiations with officials in Prince George's but has continued to talk with D.C. officials about Poplar Point. A request to MacFarlane's spokeswoman for comment did not yield a response yesterday.

    D.C. United officials have been eager to complete a deal before the council goes on summer recess in mid-July, but the timetable is tight. After being introduced, the stadium legislation would require a public hearing, a committee markup and two council votes. Furthermore, the proposed financing plan represents a potential sticking point.

    City financial officials project that the District will collect about $20 million more each year from taxes on businesses and stadium sales of tickets, food and merchandise than required to pay for Nationals Park. That additional money could be used to fund a soccer stadium, D.C. Chief Financial Natwar M. Gandhi has said. Business leaders, who have already been in contention with the Fenty administration over a reduction in the size of a commercial property tax cut, have said any excess revenue could go toward retiring the 30-year baseball stadium bonds early and relieving businesses of their tax burden more quickly.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean O
    replied
    Originally posted by Smirkman View Post
    The city of Washington owns the ballpark which it leases to the "private corporation." The money that DC "gave" was an investment and conservative projections have the city making a profit of upwards of $20 million a year + the redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood.
    So Washington, even with the park half-full most nights, will be only the 2nd city to make a profit on a new stadium in history? Also, if it's $20m a year, that's 30 years in today's money until we break even.

    And, not for nothing, but PPOR with those "projections", please.

    There are situations where the government shouldn't be involved but this one is a win-win situation for almost everybody. Even those that moved received far more then they would have if a ballpark wasn't lanned for the area.
    And, oddly enough, in the land where "the pursuit of happiness" is one of our primary rights, the government is allowed to take what's not rightfully theres as long as money is involved?
    The only onces that suffer were those that never planned on moving and there were only like 8 inhabited residences and those business owners that can't restart their business elsewhere.
    Thanks Nationals! Thanks Lerners!

    Many of those are gay porn halls that are restricted from most neighborhoods because of proximity to schools or residences so basically they would only be able to stay in their existing location until the neighborhood rebounded (if ever) so they had a vested interest in seeing that the neighborhood never rebounded.
    Because they were running their own businesses, which should be allowed in the US.

    There is seriously something wrong with people in this country that are so selfish they care only about their own needs to the detriment of the greater good.
    Hah! We each have rights that the government, at its fundamental level, cannot abrogate. The government here is saying "we don't care that you've chosen what you want to do, and we're forcing this on you unconstitutionally." There is nothing selfish about being victimized by a government that is taking away your rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • efin98
    replied
    Originally posted by nymdan View Post
    ...and takes away what should be the best affordable tickets in the place...
    And doesn't matter in the end since it's not their job to be close to the action, just describe what is going on in the first place!

    Leave a comment:


  • Philtration
    replied
    Originally posted by RoastedPeanut View Post
    I still think that they should go with the name of Walgreen's Field.. It would be just, so... Fitting. Compliments of the internet..

    Nice! I though that I saw that W from some place before but I did not put them together... until now.

    Leave a comment:


  • six4three
    replied
    Originally posted by Smirkman View Post
    conservative projections have the city making a profit of upwards of $20 million a year
    That'd be a first. I'd like to see those "conservative projections".

    I'm a fan of publicly-financed parks, have voted for my share of them. I believe that they bring lots of benefit to a city, but none of that is financial.

    Originally posted by Smirkman View Post
    gay porn halls
    :noidea

    Leave a comment:


  • Smirkman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    Big surprise. So, the government gave hundreds of millions of dollars to a private corporation, and then aided in stealing land from its rightful owners (who are also taxpayers). And then, as if that's not enough, the private corporation sued the government because of cost overruns.

    There is something seriously wrong with this country.
    The city of Washington owns the ballpark which it leases to the "private corporation." The money that DC "gave" was an investment and conservative projections have the city making a profit of upwards of $20 million a year + the redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood. There are situations where the government shouldn't be involved but this one is a win-win situation for almost everybody. Even those that moved received far more then they would have if a ballpark wasn't lanned for the area. The only onces that suffer were those that never planned on moving and there were only like 8 inhabited residences and those business owners that can't restart their business elsewhere. Many of those are gay porn halls that are restricted from most neighborhoods because of proximity to schools or residences so basically they would only be able to stay in their existing location until the neighborhood rebounded (if ever) so they had a vested interest in seeing that the neighborhood never rebounded.

    There is seriously something wrong with people in this country that are so selfish they care only about their own needs to the detriment of the greater good.

    Leave a comment:


  • nymdan
    replied
    Originally posted by Smirkman View Post
    Place them high like DC and Pitt and keep the closer seats for paying customers.
    ...and takes away what should be the best affordable tickets in the place...

    Leave a comment:


  • Smirkman
    replied
    Originally posted by stlfan View Post
    Ok, so I have been listening to the Cards vs Nationals game on the radio. There are been a couple of rain delays so Mike Shannon and John Rooney have been doing a good job of filling the time. John keeps making wisecracks about how high up the press box is. One of the things he said was along the lines that he was going to call an exterminator because of the small bugs he was seeing but then he realized that what he was seeing were the players on the field.

    So, I take it that this first hand account they are giving is quite telling as to how far up the press box is. Mike Shannon asked something like if John could see the Washington Monument from the press area and he said he could look down on it. Funny stuff.
    Which means the press box isn't taking up closer seats behind HP. I remember how the announcers commented about Tiger Stadium having an extremely close press box and not giving a crap because I would never have the opportunity to sit there. Place them high like DC and Pitt and keep the closer seats for paying customers.

    Leave a comment:


  • stlfan
    replied
    Ok, so I have been listening to the Cards vs Nationals game on the radio. There are been a couple of rain delays so Mike Shannon and John Rooney have been doing a good job of filling the time. John keeps making wisecracks about how high up the press box is. One of the things he said was along the lines that he was going to call an exterminator because of the small bugs he was seeing but then he realized that what he was seeing were the players on the field.

    So, I take it that this first hand account they are giving is quite telling as to how far up the press box is. Mike Shannon asked something like if John could see the Washington Monument from the press area and he said he could look down on it. Funny stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • efin98
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    Big surprise. So, the government gave hundreds of millions of dollars to a private corporation, and then aided in stealing land from its rightful owners (who are also taxpayers). And then, as if that's not enough, the private corporation sued the government because of cost overruns.

    There is something seriously wrong with this country.
    Blame the Supreme Court, they ruled that it was perfectly legal for them to do it in the first place not long before they actually took the land(separate case, but same impact).

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X