Other midwestern cities getting strongarmed by billionaire sports owners.

[brizee]

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2...-indy/7562117/

It's not quite the parking lot moves Illitch makes but it's still insane.*

Miami also got played by the Marlins a few years ago.

Even LA is trying to put out for the NFL.

*What really sucks is that the contract for the Wings guarantees the Pistons will never use the facilities.

[emu steve]

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2...-indy/7562117/

It's not quite the parking lot moves Illitch makes but it's still insane.*

Miami also got played by the Marlins a few years ago.

Even LA is trying to put out for the NFL.

*What really sucks is that the contract for the Wings guarantees the Pistons will never use the facilities.

The one thing folks miss is that pro teams provide essentially free entertainment.

The NFL is free on various networks and for the cost of Fox Sports Detroit [[I have DirecTV so I don't know what a local sports station cost) one can get the Tigers, Wings, and Pistons.

Pro sports, for the television viewer, is almost a free gift.

One doesn't need to pay $50 for a Tiger ticket or $6 bucks for hot dog. Buy a $5 pizza at... and turn on you HD television.

[canuck]

The one thing folks miss is that pro teams provide essentially free entertainment.

The NFL is free on various networks and for the cost of Fox Sports Detroit [[I have DirecTV so I don't know what a local sports station cost) one can get the Tigers, Wings, and Pistons.

Pro sports, for the television viewer, is almost a free gift.

One doesn't need to pay $50 for a Tiger ticket or $6 bucks for hot dog. Buy a $5 pizza at... and turn on you HD television.

Good point there steve.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

People also should remember that no one is forced to do anything. Municipalities are free not to subsidize the sports franchises, and the franchises are [[semi) free to move or stay put. Neither side is actually in control of the other. If anything, the localities have a slight advantage, in that sports teams generally need league consent to move to a different market [[although the NHL does not have that power). Everyone needs to get their mind out of the victim gutter.

[illwill]

The Atlanta Braves are moving from the city to the burbs. This caused a huge discussion about race relations but the Braves said most of their fans are from the burbs and they wanted to go to where the money is. And it was much cheaper that what Ted Turner was wanting.

The Mayor of Rosemont, IL., a Chicago suburb offered free land for the Cubs...but he was laughed at.

I think Detroit teams are good. Although we were disappointed when the Detroit Shock moved to OKC. We just need to get those pistons in the city.

[Lombaowski]

The one thing folks miss is that pro teams provide essentially free entertainment.

The NFL is free on various networks and for the cost of Fox Sports Detroit [[I have DirecTV so I don't know what a local sports station cost) one can get the Tigers, Wings, and Pistons.

Pro sports, for the television viewer, is almost a free gift.

One doesn't need to pay $50 for a Tiger ticket or $6 bucks for hot dog. Buy a $5 pizza at... and turn on you HD television.

You're no sports fan then. Nothing like seeing a baseball game on a spring day, nothing like being at a Stanley Cup Playoff game. Now the NBA???? Well....

[KJ5]

Well I think our elected representatives need to stop rolling over and taking it in the rear from these billionaires. If public funds help build these arenas the taxpayers should get a share of the profits too. It's shameful how a bankrupt city lets some billionaire run roughshod over it.

[Lombaowski]

The Atlanta Braves are moving from the city to the burbs. This caused a huge discussion about race relations but the Braves said most of their fans are from the burbs and they wanted to go to where the money is. And it was much cheaper that what Ted Turner was wanting.

The Mayor of Rosemont, IL., a Chicago suburb offered free land for the Cubs...but he was laughed at.

I think Detroit teams are good. Although we were disappointed when the Detroit Shock moved to OKC. We just need to get those pistons in the city.

Part of the problem in Atlanta was the stupid location they built the stadium in. It is in the teeth of Atlanta traffic south of downtown, there is no MARTA stop there, and it's in the hood. It's like Detroit putting their stadium at Michigan and Livernois. I mean Dodger Stadium is a pain to get to also, but it's Dodger Stadium and it was also built 60 years ago. The new stadium was placed where it is because of politics, and Turner gave in because of all the money he was gonna make off the Olympics.

Same thing happened in DC, the Nationals got cheap land in Anacostia in hope the ballpark would revive the neighborhood. They imagined shops, restaurants, bars, condos, etc, etc. They have a bunch of public housing, the worst neighborhood in DC behind them, and very little economic activity. Restaurants? Few. Bars? Few. Condos, they are building some but not a whole lot going on. The black caucus won in both Atlanta and DC, and the fans lost. No one goes to either stadium before the game or stays after. And DC has a metro stop 200 meters from the gate!

DC is being gentrified at an alarming rate, so maybe Anacostia develops but I'm thinking it'll be somewhat seedy for a long time. Atlanta? No one wants to drive to the game after work and sit in that horrendous traffic to pay $10 for a beer. The Mets may have a worse location, but they have chop shops instead of ghetto and it's quite a bit easier to get to and from.

[erikd]

The one thing folks miss is that pro teams provide essentially free entertainment.

The NFL is free on various networks and for the cost of Fox Sports Detroit [[I have DirecTV so I don't know what a local sports station cost) one can get the Tigers, Wings, and Pistons.

Pro sports, for the television viewer, is almost a free gift.

One doesn't need to pay $50 for a Tiger ticket or $6 bucks for hot dog. Buy a $5 pizza at... and turn on you HD television.

Outside of the NFL, most pro sports games are televised on cable channels that have to paid for. There are very few Tiger, Wings, or Piston games televised on the free over-the-air channels. The pro sports teams are paid quite handsomely by the cable networks to carry the games, so the assertion that the teams are providing free television entertainment is not correct.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with paying for cable so that I can watch sports, but it certainly isn't free.

[erikd]

People also should remember that no one is forced to do anything. Municipalities are free not to subsidize the sports franchises, and the franchises are [[semi) free to move or stay put. Neither side is actually in control of the other. If anything, the localities have a slight advantage, in that sports teams generally need league consent to move to a different market [[although the NHL does not have that power). Everyone needs to get their mind out of the victim gutter.

I completely disagree with this statement. The taxpayers are absolutely forced to subsidize these stadium developments. There is no opt-out for the taxpayers who disagree with this misuse of our tax dollars. The billionare power players like Mike Ilitch spend a lot of money greasing the palms of politicians on both sides of the isle to ensure that they get political support for these huge government subsidies.

I don't know what makes you say that the citizens and taxpayers who are speaking out against this "need to get their minds out of the victim gutter." When the citizens speak out against something that their government is doing, it's not playing the victim card, it's democracy in action. Supporting or opposing government policy and spending is not whining about what is being done to you, it is a vocalization of your displeasure with the decisions that your elected representatives have made.

[Gistok]

Well I think our elected representatives need to stop rolling over and taking it in the rear from these billionaires. If public funds help build these arenas the taxpayers should get a share of the profits too. It's shameful how a bankrupt city lets some billionaire run roughshod over it.

You need to go back and read the other threads on how the Stadia and future Arena are being funded... it's not coming out of your pocket, so you getting a share of the profits is a moot point.

The Stadia were funded by the team owners, former Indian Gaming Casino state money, liquor by the glass and hotel room taxes, and state land drilling lease fees.

The future arena is being funded by the team owner, future downtown property tax increase captures, and again state land drilling lease fees.

With the exception of the state land drilling lease fees, these monies would not have been available for other uses, such as public lighting or public safety.

[emu steve]

Part of the problem in Atlanta was the stupid location they built the stadium in. It is in the teeth of Atlanta traffic south of downtown, there is no MARTA stop there, and it's in the hood. It's like Detroit putting their stadium at Michigan and Livernois. I mean Dodger Stadium is a pain to get to also, but it's Dodger Stadium and it was also built 60 years ago. The new stadium was placed where it is because of politics, and Turner gave in because of all the money he was gonna make off the Olympics.

Same thing happened in DC, the Nationals got cheap land in Anacostia in hope the ballpark would revive the neighborhood. They imagined shops, restaurants, bars, condos, etc, etc. They have a bunch of public housing, the worst neighborhood in DC behind them, and very little economic activity. Restaurants? Few. Bars? Few. Condos, they are building some but not a whole lot going on. The black caucus won in both Atlanta and DC, and the fans lost. No one goes to either stadium before the game or stays after. And DC has a metro stop 200 meters from the gate!

DC is being gentrified at an alarming rate, so maybe Anacostia develops but I'm thinking it'll be somewhat seedy for a long time. Atlanta? No one wants to drive to the game after work and sit in that horrendous traffic to pay $10 for a beer. The Mets may have a worse location, but they have chop shops instead of ghetto and it's quite a bit easier to get to and from.

Folks are either wrong or carelessly wrong discussing the location of the Nationals Park.

The precise location is the southern part of "Near Southeast" which is the area south of the southwest/southeast freeway, S. Capitol, S.E, and ultimately the Anacostia River. The stadium is just south of M Street, S.E. [[think it is actually N St. S.E.).

It is approximately one mile south of the Capitol.

ANACOSTIA area of D.C is the OTHER SIDE of the Anacostia River. Anacostia has nothing to do with the stadium or 'Near Southeast."

BTW, the Southeast/Southwest Freeway divided Capitol Hill from "Near Southeast" and the ole 'right side/wrong side of the [[freeway)'.

Capitol Hill is very, very expensive residential. Near southeast was light industrial, housing projects, etc. etc.

BTW, as I've posted in other threads, there have been thousands of housing units, mostly apartments, built in the area of Nationals Park. The thing which hurt development was that the stadium opened 3/2008. The economic crash came 9/2008.

I find the development near Nationals Park, breathtaking.

I need to get some 2000 / 2010 Census numbers for population in that area.

Here is a great, great website on the ballpark area:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm

[Hermod]

I completely disagree with this statement. The taxpayers are absolutely forced to subsidize these stadium developments. There is no opt-out for the taxpayers who disagree with this misuse of our tax dollars. The billionare power players like Mike Ilitch spend a lot of money greasing the palms of politicians on both sides of the isle to ensure that they get political support for these huge government subsidies.

I don't know what makes you say that the citizens and taxpayers who are speaking out against this "need to get their minds out of the victim gutter." When the citizens speak out against something that their government is doing, it's not playing the victim card, it's democracy in action. Supporting or opposing government policy and spending is not whining about what is being done to you, it is a vocalization of your displeasure with the decisions that your elected representatives have made.

Better yet, instead of "vocalization of your displeasure" you should vote for politicians who have the principles to not allow their palms to be greased.

[emu steve]

BTW, this is what Nationals Park is doing for their ballpark area [[scroll down a bit for the residential park).

http://www.jdland.com/dc/visiting-na...?show=whatsnew

One thousand housing units under construction now...

[emu steve]

I see note of 'gentrification' in a post above.

No folks were displaced by the ballpark [[If I remember right between 15 - 25 folks lived in old houses in the area which wasn't residential at all - it was light industrial, kind of an urban wasteland) or the area which are now becoming apartment buildings.

This is NOT a case where poor folks got displaced by rich folk, but where light industrial area has turned into a pricey residential area. This isn't like the 70s and 80s where apartment buildings were converted to pricey condos.

For those into D.C. demographics, D.C. is a growing city [[yep, hard to believe).

Most of the new residential activity is near the Nationals Ballpark and an area called "NoMa".

[Pickford-Bentler]

Folks are either wrong or carelessly wrong discussing the location of the Nationals Park.

The precise location is the southern part of "Near Southeast" which is the area south of the southwest/southeast freeway, S. Capitol, S.E, and ultimately the Anacostia River. The stadium is just south of M Street, S.E. [[think it is actually N St. S.E.).

It is approximately one mile south of the Capitol.

ANACOSTIA area of D.C is the OTHER SIDE of the Anacostia River. Anacostia has nothing to do with the stadium or 'Near Southeast."

BTW, the Southeast/Southwest Freeway divided Capitol Hill from "Near Southeast" and the ole 'right side/wrong side of the [[freeway)'.

Capitol Hill is very, very expensive residential. Near southeast was light industrial, housing projects, etc. etc.

BTW, as I've posted in other threads, there have been thousands of housing units, mostly apartments, built in the area of Nationals Park. The thing which hurt development was that the stadium opened 3/2008. The economic crash came 9/2008.

I find the development near Nationals Park, breathtaking.

I need to get some 2000 / 2010 Census numbers for population in that area.

Here is a great, great website on the ballpark area:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm

My brother was moved over their when NAVSEA left Crystal City for the Navy Yard development. He told me it was "dicey" at first but has got a lot better.

The geography of that region lends itself to development.

When I lived by Pentagon City, I would ride my bicycle to East Potomac Park to do laps at high speed. There is a bridge over the Potomac with a dedicated bike lane.Trails tend to get jammed, thus requiring conscientious biker to slow down.

Anyhow, it is not much farther to hit M street by the warf, thus being about a mile from Nationals Park.

On warm summer days, I would walk from Pentagon City to the Capital.

If the stadium was a black caucus perk, then it would be next to Fedex Field. That neighborhood is probably 95% black.


We could be engaged in a which came first - the chicken or egg? - argument.

FedEx has done nothing to really make Landover the place to be. Is that due to the stadium or location?

That land by Nationals Stadium is gaining traction. Is that due to the stadium or location?

[Scottathew]

The Mets may have a worse location, but they have chop shops instead of ghetto and it's quite a bit easier to get to and from.

My wife and I stayed in Manhattan for a week and went to a Mets game during that time.

It was amazingly simple to get to and from the game. The subway stop was very close to the gate and there's nothing but a concrete walkway between the stadium and the subway. The entire stadium is designed to efficiently flow foot traffic from the subway to the seats. When the game is over they have a ton of trains lined up to take you back into Manhattan.

When the game ended we were back in Times Square in about 30 minutes.

[emu steve]

I can answer the chicken or egg question with a photo [wish I could do an insert image. ]

The last photo set [[scroll to the bottom) is of the Nationals Ballpark site in 2006 / 2012. [[construction started in 2006 and was completed 03/2008).

Does it look 'ripe for redevelopment'? [[look at the photo dated Feb. 19, 2006).

http://www.jdland.com/dc/photoarchiv...?group=jdfaves

[Cincinnati_Kid]

You're no sports fan then. Nothing like seeing a baseball game on a spring day, nothing like being at a Stanley Cup Playoff game. Now the NBA???? Well....

There's nothing wrong with the NBA. They are more popular and draw more fans than the NHL. The NBA is always bashed, and I think I know why.

[emu steve]

There's nothing wrong with the NBA. They are more popular and draw more fans than the NHL. The NBA is always bashed, and I think I know why.

Hmmm.

I wish all of those [[white) NHL hockey players would quit fighting.

NBA players don't do that ;-)

[wolverine]

Outside of the NFL, most pro sports games are televised on cable channels that have to paid for. There are very few Tiger, Wings, or Piston games televised on the free over-the-air channels. The pro sports teams are paid quite handsomely by the cable networks to carry the games, so the assertion that the teams are providing free television entertainment is not correct.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with paying for cable so that I can watch sports, but it certainly isn't free.

And last I heard, revenue sources are diminishing since people skip over the ads. Guarantee the people who say "I can watch it at home cheaper on my tv" will be first to complain when advertising shows up on jerseys.

[emu steve]

Outside of the NFL, most pro sports games are televised on cable channels that have to paid for. There are very few Tiger, Wings, or Piston games televised on the free over-the-air channels. The pro sports teams are paid quite handsomely by the cable networks to carry the games, so the assertion that the teams are providing free television entertainment is not correct.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with paying for cable so that I can watch sports, but it certainly isn't free.

If that is the definition, the cost of the Tigers, Wings, and Pistons is the additional cost of Fox Sports Detroit. [[Most homes have cable or dish regardless of whether they are or are not sports fans so I wouldn't include basic cable or dish.).

"almost free" or maybe I should have said at minimal cost.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

The taxpayers are absolutely forced to subsidize these stadium developments. There is no opt-out for the taxpayers who disagree with this misuse of our tax dollars. .

Taxpayers are not "forced to subsidize" the sports clubs any more than anyone is "forced to subsidize" anything receiving government money they disagree with. I can name a thousand things I oppose that the government spends money on. And there is an opt-out: elections. We really do have elections, and we really do have the ability to change who is in office. Now, admittedly, we rarely do throw out incumbents individually or en masse. But the fact we don't doesn't mean that we can't.

Taxpayers subsidizing sports facilities is rightfully controversial. The subsidies can be direct [[paying for the stadium) or indirect [[assembling land, providing infrastructure leading to a stadium, etc). A city needs to weigh whether it feels the economic benefits to the city merit the support it would give the team. Undoubtedly, like every other aspect of government involvement in the world, there is a level of waste, corruption, mismanagement and just plain poor decision-making that can occur. But no one holds a knife to the throat of a mayor, county exec, or governor demanding subsidies to stay or move or build. Detroit & Michigan could have decided to not assist Olympia with the new arena. Olympia could then make one of several decisions: stay at the Joe under more or less the same terms; build a new arena downtown entirely with their own money; move to a new facility in the suburbs; move to the Palace; move out of town; sell the franchise to another owner, who would answer the location question for him or herself. As a fan of both the Red Wings and the City of Detroit, I would hope both sides make decisions that are in their own best interests. When those best interests overlap, a subsidy of some sort is reasonable, perhaps even good public policy; when they don't, there should be no subsidy.

Detroit and Michigan voters have had the issue of public subsidies for sports franchises out front since at least the 1970's with the Silverdome and JLA construction. If voters are so opposed to subsidies, they have a funny way of showing it, electing people who have supported it repeatedly over the years, and not throwing out of office those who did vote for it.

I am not generally for subsidizing any business. But if a city wants an asset that it might not otherwise have, and the government of that city makes it somewhat difficult and expensive to do business in that city, the decision is not altogether unreasonable to consider offering money to get the team to stay. Would I trade the Wings to a different city to cut the murder rate in half or improve our graduation rates? In a heartbeat. But the one thing doesn't preclude the other.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

The one thing folks miss is that pro teams provide essentially free entertainment.

The NFL is free on various networks and for the cost of Fox Sports Detroit [[I have DirecTV so I don't know what a local sports station cost) one can get the Tigers, Wings, and Pistons.

Pro sports, for the television viewer, is almost a free gift.

One doesn't need to pay $50 for a Tiger ticket or $6 bucks for hot dog. Buy a $5 pizza at... and turn on you HD television.

You can only see most sporting events via cable TV these days. So if you're paying a cable bill, sports entertainment is HARDLY free. Those cable bills are steadily increasing.

[emu steve]

You can only see most sporting events via cable TV these days. So if you're paying a cable bill, sports entertainment is HARDLY free. Those cable bills are steadily increasing.

I think we have an exercise in logic here.

Cable [[or dish) is pretty much a requirement for a sport fan, that is true.

However, cable [[or dish) is pretty much a requirement for anyone who watches television. Think that is true [[also).

I don't know how most systems handles channels like ESPN/2/U in terms of placing them in a separate tier. I believe, could be wrong, that ESPN get about $5 per household from cable systems. [[I think $5 is a bargain, but I love sports).