New Yankee Stadium - by HOK Sport

[nycitylaw]

current | subscribe

CITY COUNCIL
Disposition/Rezoning
West Concourse, Bronx

"House that Ruth built" to get new home


82-year-old Yankee Stadium and nearby public parks to be replaced by new stadium, park space and public parking. On April 5, 2006, City Council approved 11 Parks applications related to development of a new Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, including disposition of three parcels of land to the Economic Development Corporation.

The new stadium site on East 161st Street is immediately north of Yankee Stadium’s current site. The proposal included 15.82 acres of new public park space and four new parking garages. The plan required map amendments to designate new parkland and eliminate portions of surrounding streets, as well as an action by the State legislature to eliminate 162nd Street. The plan also required two special permits for parking garages, a concession for new tennis facilities, and City acquisition of a leasehold interest in the new stadium to facilitate the financing of the project. The Yankees will fund the entire cost of the new stadium, spending over $800 million, while the City and State will provide $160 million and $70 million respectively on nearby infrastructure and additional improvements.

Yankee Stadium, built in 1923 and remodeled in 1976, is outdated and lacks modern space for seating, press, food service, shops, restrooms and player training. The new stadium will accommodate 54,000 spectators, 2,298 fewer than the current stadium, but will allow for more spacious circulation, food service, media and security as well as a team store and Yankees history museum. The stadium will also have 60 suite boxes, up from 18 in the current stadium. The new stadium’s facade will be reminiscent of the original 1923 stadium, which lost much of its original material during the 1976 renovation.

In its initial proposal, the Yankees proposed to maintain the existing stadium as a “heritage field” where little leagues and other groups could play by appointment. The Yankees revised the plan, however, and will demolish the existing stadium to accommodate new City parks that will replace two existing public parks eliminated by the new stadium. The revised plan will create 15.82 acres of parks on the site of the current Yankee Stadium, along the Harlem River waterfront and on River Avenue, 5.91 more acres of parkland than currently exists. On the site of the existing Yankee Stadium, Parks will construct three softball fields for use without an appointment. The waterfront park will include an esplanade, a comfort station and a 16-court tennis facility. The River Avenue park will include facilities for soccer, track, baseball and basketball.

Four new garages with a total of 4,769 spaces are planned, including a four-level, 1,300-space garage to the southwest along the Macomb’s Dam Bridge entrance; a three-level, 949-space garage five blocks to the south with retail space along River Avenue; a 920-space garage to the north, a majority of which would be reserved for Yankee players and staff; and a two-level, below-ground, 1,600-space garage with a park above to the south.

At a March 28, 2006 hearing of the Council’s Planning, Dispositions & Concessions Subcommittee, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe urged approval, saying that the plan would provide jobs, reinvigorate the area’s parks, and secure the Yankees’ presence in the Bronx for another 40 years. The Yankees have agreed to pay for all stadium maintenance. Currently the City pays to maintain portions of Yankee Stadium and projects that the current stadium will become unprofitable for the City within the next ten years.

In response to concerns raised by Subcommittee Chair Dan Garodnick, Assistant Parks Commissioner Joshua Laird noted that the plan would take measures to minimize construction time and provide temporary parks and parking until the project was complete.

The Council’s Bronx delegation, including Maria Baez, Helen D. Foster, and Maria del Carmen Arroyo, opposed the plan, criticizing nearly all aspects of the proposal and highlighting the Yankees’ reputation as a poor neighbor in the Bronx. Council Member Foster, a lifelong Bronx resident, said that she was adamantly opposed to the proposal and described herself as “a Yankee fan, but not a fan of the Yankees organization.” Council Members Thomas White and Charles Barron joined the Bronx delegation, questioning what benefit the plan would bring to the community.

Yankees Corporate President Randy Levine and Hall of Fame outfielder Reggie Jackson touted the jobs and financial investment the project would bring to the Bronx. Levine also expressed a desire to develop a binding community benefits agreement in which the Yankees would provide support for Bronx parks, education, and other community needs. Jackson admitted that the Yankees have not always been good neighbors, but urged the community to use the current opportunity to get the attention of Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Council Member Foster commented that she would not sign a community benefits agreement.

When questioned about alternate plans, the Yankees argued that nearby Macombs Dam Park and John Mullaly Park provided the only feasible site in the Bronx for a new stadium, and that the footprint of the current site could not accommodate a modern stadium.

Other speakers in support included Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion Jr., union representatives, residents, and the local Chamber of Commerce, who argued that the plan would create jobs, improve parks, and build a neighborhood that, in conjunction with the nearby Bronx Terminal Market plan, would become a destination for tourists and other New Yorkers. Opponents to the plan came from Community Board 4, parks advocates, and residents, who criticized the construction timetable, scattered nature of the park replacement plan, and traffic impacts.

The Dispositions Subcommittee voted unanimously on April 5 to approve the proposal. That same day the Land Use Committee approved by a 22-1 vote with Council Member Barron voting against it. Later that day the full Council approved the plan by a vote of 45-2-2 with Council Members Barron and Foster voting against, and Council Members Letitia James and Rosie Mendez abstaining. Council Members Baez and Arroyo voted in favor of the plan after reaching a signed community benefits agreement in which the Yankees agreed to provide $2.3 million in job training, education and other community support to the Bronx. Arroyo also announced that her support was influenced by a pledge from Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki to build a new Metro North railway station as part of the new development.

The Council’s Finance Committee scheduled a hearing for April 10, 2006 to allow comment on the plan’s PILOTs and tax-free bonds. Full Council review on the PILOTS and bonds is pending.

ULURP Process: Parks, as lead agency, issued a final EIS on February 10, 2006, which proposed environmental impact mitigation measures. Community Board 4 disapproved all 11 applications by a vote of 16-8-5. Borough President Aldofo Carrion Jr. approved on several conditions, including acceleration of the construction schedule and that the plans include a hotel, a sports industry high school, and a Metro- North station. Following a public hearing with 28 speakers in favor and 32 opposed, the Planning Commission approved with 12 votes. Commissioner Irwin G. Cantor recused himself.

Council: Yankee Stadium (April 6, 2006); CPC: Yankee Stadium (C 060056 MMX – map amendment; parkland); (C 060057 MMX – map amendment, parkland); (C 060058 MMX – map amendment; parkland); (C 060059 MMX – map amendment, streets and parkland); (C 060144 PQX – acquisition of interest); (C 060145 PPX – disposition of property); (C 060146 PPX – disposition of property); (C 060147 PPX – disposition of property); (C 060148(A) MCX – concession, tennis courts); (C 060149 ZSX – special permit, garage); (C 060150 ZSX – special permit, garage) (February 22, 2006).

[lofter1]

The High Cost of Grass

NY OBSERVER
April 12, 2006

http://therealestate.observer.com/20...-of-grass.html

Neil deMause has more details on yesterday's Yankees-Mets hearing, including the explanation from the Parks Department's Josh Laird that the reason the city's contribution for the Yankees has increased was due to "overall inflation in construction costs."

It would be one thing if the city was paying to build the new stadium itself: China's construction frenzy has increased steel prices worldwide. But most of New York's money was supposed to go toward replacing lost park land. Apparently, China's boom has also led to a run on grass seed.

Also, the Independent Budget Office testimony explains why the Yanks are disguising rent payments as payments-in-lieu-of-taxes: because to do otherwise would disqualify them from obtaining tax-free bonds. Ironically, the only way to get tax-free bonds is if the money to repay them comes from taxpayers, not the private business that benefits from them.

-Matthew Schuerman
copyright © 2005 the new york observer, L.P.

[Transic]

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/index.jsp?...&rc=1194&ndi=1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 107-06
April 9, 2006

MAYOR BLOOMBERG DISCUSSES ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NEW METS AND YANKEE STADIUM PLANS

The following is the text of Mayor Bloomberg's weekly radio address as prepared for delivery on 1010 WINS News Radio for Sunday, April 9, 2006


"Good Morning. This is Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

"Springtime in New York - parks are blooming, sidewalks are teeming with life, the mercury inches higher every day, and baseball is back again.

"Opening Day is always filled with new hopes and dreams as our beloved Mets and Yanks take the field for the first time and every fan truly believes a Subway Series is within reach - I know I do. But this year, there's even more optimism in the air as both teams have made major strides towards opening new homes in 2009. And that would be an incredible doubleheader for New York, and for baseball fans everywhere.

"Let's start with those Amazin' Mets. Last week, the team unveiled its plans for a brand-new facility which they will build in a parking lot just east of Shea Stadium. The new stadium's design will merge the intimate feel of classic ballparks like Ebbets Field with the comfort and amenities of today's modern sports arenas, making it a great place for players to play and for fans to enjoy the game.

"It will also be a great deal for the City. Building the stadium means more than 6,000 new construction jobs and tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue. While the City and State will contribute towards the project's infrastructure, the Mets will pay for the stadium's entire construction.

"The future for the Bronx Bombers looks equally exciting. Their hopes for a new stadium cleared a major hurdle last week when the City Council approved plans for the project. While it will be hard for us to say goodbye to the 'House that Ruth Built,' the benefits of the Yankees' new home are going to be incredible - stunning architecture; perfect sightlines; and much more parking. As part of the project, the City also will create more than 24 acres of parks and playing fields, much of that along the Harlem River waterfront and at the current Stadium site.

"With both new projects, the teams will be responsible for meeting the ongoing costs of maintenance - which the City, as the owner of both existing stadiums, currently covers. That's going to save us of hundreds of millions of dollars over the coming years.

"Furthermore, the new stadiums will help drive some of our most important neighborhood redevelopment projects. In the South Bronx, the new Yankee Stadium, along with the new parks and reconstruction of the Bronx Terminal Market, will revitalize the area for generations to come. The Mets new ballpark will go hand in hand with a $500 million project to revitalize downtown Flushing, and our plan to transform the junkyards and auto body shops in nearby Willets Point into a community jewel - full of parks, housing, and shops.

"These projects are going to help our economy continue growing - unemployment is now at a 5-year low, and this week we announced that the welfare rolls have fallen to their lowest level since 1964, because of our successful efforts to move people from welfare to work.

"You know, there was a time when people said that you couldn't pull off these kinds of big projects in New York anymore. But in one week, we proved that we could - twice. And we made sure that two of the nation's most storied ball clubs are staying right in the neighborhoods where they've always belonged.

"This is Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Thanks for listening."

[Transic]

http://www.silive.com/sportsflash/me...ylist=sisports

NY City Council approves Yankees, Mets stadium financing plans

4/26/2006, 4:19 p.m. ET
The Associated Press


NEW YORK (AP) — The new multimillion-dollar baseball stadiums that the Yankees and Mets want to build passed a financing hurdle on Wednesday when the City Council approved their payment plans.

The Yankees ballpark, planned to open in 2009 next to its old home in the Bronx, is expected to cost more than $1 billion, with the city and state kicking in more than $200 million. The Mets stadium, to be built on what is now the parking lot of Shea Stadium in Queens, is predicted to cost about $800 million, of which the city and state will contribute about $165 million.

The teams will pay the remainder of the costs, financed through both taxable and tax-exempt bonds. The Yankees and Mets plan to make "payments in lieu of taxes," or PILOTs, to pay off the tax-exempt bonds — which is essentially what the council voted to allow Wednesday.

The taxable portion of the bonds will be paid in the form of lease or rental payments.

"It's a win-win for the city of New York and it's a win-win for the Mets and the Yankees," said City Councilman David Weprin, who is finance chairman.

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

City Council Approves Stadium Financing Plans For Mets, Yankees

April 26, 2006

The City Council overwhelmingly approved funding Wednesday for both the new Mets and Yankee stadium projects.

Lawmakers voted 48 to 1 for the Mets’ plan, and 46 to 3 for the Yankees. According to the plans, each team will pay for building its own respective ballpark, with the city and state paying for infrastructure improvements.

On Tuesday, the Mets agreed with Queens lawmakers to give back to the local community. Under the deal, the Mets will give at least 25 percent of the construction jobs to minority and women-owned firms in Queens.

The team will also give $500,000 a year to Queens Little League and non-profit groups.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also agreed to spend $50 million on repairing the Roosevelt Avenue Bridge near the new Mets stadium.

"We think it's a benefit for the city. It will increase our dollars that flow within the city. It will give Queens businesses an opportunity to fairly compete with anyone to get an opportunity to work for the Mets," said Queens Councilman Leroy Comrie.

The pressure on the Mets to give back to the community follows a move by Bronx lawmakers who struck a similar deal with the Yankees.

Link - http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=1&aid=58923

[Transic]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2449846

Yankees, Mets coexist despite their differences

By John Helyar
ESPN.com

The Yankees and Mets have a few things in common besides their New York domiciles. They've both had Casey Stengel and Joe Torre as managers. They've both had Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry as reclamation projects. They're both getting sweetheart deals from New York to build new ballparks. They reap the biggest revenues in their respective leagues.

But otherwise these two teams, girding for interleague battle this weekend, are profoundly different. The Yankees play in the storied "House That Ruth Built." A sign on its edifice boasts of the team's 26 world championships. So, at the slightest provocation, do Yankees fans. They believe in a divine right to yet more championships, and they believe these grounds are sacred -- even the otherwise profane "bleacher creatures" in Section 39.

The Mets play in the charmless Shea Stadium, named for a corporate lawyer. It is located atop a former landfill, beneath the LaGuardia Airport flight path, and adjacent to the finest collection of chop shops in the tristate area.

Oh, Shea has seen some glory. There were the amazin' championships of 1969 and 1986, and let's not forget the Beatles concert of 1965. But compared to Yankee Stadium's aura of glorious history, Shea's legacy is far more imbued with futility. One need look no further than the two park's respective center-field fences. Behind the one in the Bronx is Monument Park, which pays tribute to Yankee legends. Behind the one in Queens is a cheesy, outsized apple, which rises into view when the home team hits a homer. Mets fans are not insatiable triumphalists; they are indefatigable loyalists.

The games at Shea this weekend will crackle with intensity not just because they're a test of the resurgent Mets against the redoubtable Yankees. This interborough rivalry is also a profound, often profane cultural conflict.

Mets fans are descendants of jilted Dodgers and Giants fans, who wanted National League baseball back in the worst way and got just that, in the form of the 1962 Mets (40-120). William Shea, the lawyer, secured the expansion franchise, first by threatening to create a whole new league to compete with Major League Baseball, then by promising that New York would build the stadium that bears his name. It was christened in 1964 with Dodgers "holy water" (from Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn) and "Giants holy water" (from the Harlem River where it passed the Polo Grounds).

On the walls of the Pine Restaurant, across Grand Central Parkway from Shea, Mets memorabilia shares wall space with Dodgers-Giants totems, including a Duke Snider warm-up jacket and a bat signed by Bobby Thomson and Ralph Branca. Formerly known as Bobby V's Sports Bar & Restaurant, when Bobby Valentine owned it during his tenure as Mets manager, it's the closest place for Mets fans to cry in their beer after games.

"The Mets replaced something that was lost, and there's been something lovable about them going back to Casey Stengel," says Chuck Rose, the restaurant's current owner and the son of a loyal Giants fan. "There's no sense of entitlement, like with the Yankees."

The Mets' new park will underscore the team's roots as Shea's generic design never did -- with an entry rotunda reminiscent of Ebbets Field. Owner Fred Wilpon is especially partial to the Brooklyn side of the Mets' ancestry, as a son of Flatbush and a batting-practice pitcher for the Dodgers in his youth. He took great pride in restoring professional baseball to the borough in the form of the Brooklyn Cyclones, a Mets farm team.

Today's Mets crowds will never be confused with the banner-bearing, happy-go-lucky ones of the early years. (Well, except for the "Let's Go Mets" chants, which have lasted through the ages.) The Mets' fan base skews suburban -- primarily Long Island, where 26 percent of it resides, according to a 1998 New York City government report. Until recently, the fan base also skewed hugely white.

Things have started changing since the Latinization of the team under general manager Omar Minaya. Greater numbers of Hispanics now disembark at the No. 7 train's Shea Stadium stop, especially for Pedro Martinez's starts. But the tableau in the Shea parking lot is still predominantly middle-class and working-class New York: families tumbling out of Chevy Suburbans, guys tailgating out of their plumber vans.

"Our image is more blue-collar," says David Howard, the Mets' business operations chief, "as opposed to the more corporate or Wall Street image the Yankees have."

When you take a step back and survey the whole New York sports scene, the contrast between the Mets and Yankees can be seen in a broader context. As Frank Vuono, a sports business maven and partner at 16W Marketing in Rutherford, N.J., puts it: "A Yankees fan is a Giants fan is a Rangers fan. A Mets fan is a Jets fan is an Islanders fan. It's the old establishment versus the outsiders. It's teams with lots of history versus the younger, less traditional ones."

In a sense, casting the Mets as lunch-pail clock punchers stretches credulity. Blue-collar? Blue bloods such as Joan Whitney Payson and Nelson Doubleday have owned the franchise for most of its existence. Wilpon, who bought out Doubleday's 50 percent share and took control of the club in 2002, doesn't come from old money but, as a very private real estate magnate, he might as well.

But perception is more important than reality here, and spinning is a key part of branding. If the Mets can't be top dog in this town, they might as well be an appealing underdog.

"I think the Mets connect more with the typical New Yorker," Howard says. "We have challenges; we have ups and downs; there's a sense of persevering. I think that appeals to the everyday New Yorker, the people who are out there trying to make things better for themselves and their families."

To cite the Mets' "ups and downs" as part of their appeal is to make a virtue of mismanagement. The team was "up" in the late '60s and early '70s, when it pulled off the 1969 miracle and the "You gotta believe" pennant of 1973. The Yankees were then struggling through their post-dynasty Horace Clarke era. Then, in a fit of pique and cheap, the Mets traded away Tom Seaver in 1977 and fell back into a succession of dreadful "down" seasons.

The Amazins were back "up" by the mid-1980s, winning the fabled Buckner-aided championship of 1986 and contending for others. From 1984 to 1992, the Mets outdrew the Yankees, then in a 14-year postseason draught. Again the Mets dissipated their advantage. High-flying stars such as Gooden and Strawberry were laid low by substance abuse. High-priced free agents such as Bobby Bonilla and Eddie Murray laid eggs.

Meanwhile, George Steinbrenner got a lot smarter about his affairs. He started leaving more of the baseball decisions to his baseball people, and the Yankees' farm system yielded young stars such as Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. He started pressing the Yankees' business advantages and widening the financial gap between his franchise and the rest of baseball.

Steinbrenner negotiated a 12-year, $486 million contract with Madison Square Garden Network in 1988, tripling his team's TV money. He did a 10-year licensing deal with adidas in 1997, reaping $95 million for the Yankees and infuriating other owners. They temporarily kicked Steinbrenner off MLB's executive council. The Boss accumulated the swag to have a virtually unlimited payroll -- and, from 1996 to 2000, the Yankees swaggered to four championships.

The Mets had some highs during that stretch, too, notably in reaching the 2000 Subway Series. But the Amazins weren't nearly as adept at the business of baseball as the Yankees. Steinbrenner was able to pull off the 1988 MSG deal because he'd negotiated an out from his old TV contract. The Mets did not and were locked into Cablevision on a long-term basis.

Then, as the 12-year MSG contract was expiring, Steinbrenner conjured up a regional cable TV outlet, the YES Network. That launched in 2002 and has created a double windfall for the Yankees. They get MLB's biggest local broadcast revenues ($62 million a year, according to Forbes) and, along with three YES Network co-investors, they get a stake in America's biggest regional sports network. The Mets, in partnership with Comcast and Time Warner, launched their own cable network this year, called SportsNet New York. But they've spotted the Yankees a four-year head start and have a long way to go to develop programming beyond the team's games.

The Mets, however, have shown a new aggression since Wilpon became sole owner. He launched the Mets' salsa turn by hiring general manager Omar Minaya, who's given the club an edge in signing Hispanic stars and relating to Hispanic fans. Jeff Wilpon, the owner's son and the club's chief operating officer, maintains there's no master strategy. The Mets have a diversity-driven marketing approach that includes courtship of 15 ethnic groups.

"There was never a point when we said, 'Let's go after these Latin guys,'" he says. "Pedro [Martinez] was the best player available at the time and a rock star. The next marquee free agent was [Carlos] Beltran. But when we needed a catcher, we traded for Paul Lo Duca and left Bengie Molina on the sidelines. And David Wright is as All-American as you can get."

Nonetheless, the Mets stand to pick up a windfall of fans from New York's burgeoning Hispanic population, and nobody else thinks it's by accident. It's just good business.

Nor did the Mets just fall into a new stadium. They've been pressing for one since 1998, when Wilpon unveiled the original proposal for one with a retractable roof. Then he waited patiently for years, while Steinbrenner huffed and puffed about his need for a new stadium. For as long as he threatened to decamp for New Jersey and for as long as rabid Yankees fan Rudy Giuliani was in office, Steinbrenner seemed to get all the attention, even as Shea Stadium continued to fall down around the Mets.

This continues a rich tradition of New York city government supporting its richest ballclub, according to Neil Sullivan, author of "The Dodgers Move West" and "The Diamond in the Bronx." Particularly in their dynastic periods, he says, "The feeling at City Hall has always been, 'Go with the Yankees; their glory will rub off.'"

Even as New York lurched toward fiscal crisis in the 1970s, then-Mayor John Lindsay championed a costly renovation of Yankee Stadium, which is owned by the city. By contrast, when the Brooklyn Dodgers' Walter O'Malley looked to the city for help in assembling land parcels in that borough to build a new stadium in the 1950s, he got the brush-off, according to Sullivan: "Brooklyn was considered the poor relation in town."

The Mets inherited that legacy, along with the Dodgers fans. During the Giuliani administration, the Yankee Stadium owners box was like a city hall annex. Even now, the city's former deputy mayor, Randy Levine, is the Yankees' president.

Jeff Wilpon maintains his club wasn't being dissed by city officials; it was just applying less heat to them.

"Giuliani's big push was to make sure that he wasn't the mayor who let [the Yankees] leave the city," he says. "We've never threatened to leave; we felt we'd be able to work something out."

In December 2001, just before leaving office, Giuliani made a magnanimous nonpartisan gesture. He agreed to back new $800 million stadiums for both clubs.

Incoming Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has no evident rooting interest in either team, put the kibosh to that. But when City Hall needed to generate a new stadium to make a plausible bid for the 2012 Olympics last year, the Mets' dormant plans were suddenly a "go." Bloomberg was getting nowhere with a proposed West Side stadium, in the face of stiff opposition, and the Queens venue presented no such problems. He gave his blessing to an Olympic stadium there, to be converted to a Mets stadium. The city lost its Olympic bid, but Fred Wilpon gained his long-awaited stadium. The Yankees subsequently secured city approval for their new stadium, which, as with the Mets, will be adjacent to the club's current home. They're on parallel tracks to open the new parks in 2009.

Though city and club officials have touted the facilities as privately financed, it's not quite that simple. The Yankees and Mets can defray costs (a budgeted $800 million and $550 million, respectively) by financing through government-issued municipal bonds. That's a $276 million subsidy over the life of the bonds for each team, according to the city's Independent Budget Office. Between the two clubs, the city will also spring for $254 million in infrastructure and other improvements to the areas surrounding the ballparks. Both the Yankees and Mets can also use their stadium construction costs to reduce their revenue-sharing obligations to small-market clubs.

Clearly, the Mets have the most to gain here. The Yankees can't draw much more -- if any more -- than the four million they packed into the stadium last year. The Mets, on the other hand, could do a lot better than last year's 2.8 million gate in a new park. The team's season-ticket base currently hovers between 17,000 and 18,000, according to Dave Howard, because that's about the extent of high-quality seats at Shea. The new park will have a lower capacity (45,000 versus 57,000) but, says Howard, "I dare say there will be 35,000 great seats."

The Mets have had a tough time competing with the Yankees for the corporate crowd, not just because of the pinstripes' superior cachet but because of Shea's inferior suites. The Mets have 45 of them for lease, but they're in distant locations down the left-field and right-field lines.

"When companies are entertaining clients, they don't want to be out in the outfield," Howard says. "They want to be in a premium, prime location. We think there's a great opportunity there."

Expect the Mets to add $10 million a year in revenue for naming rights -- the going major-market rate for major corporations to put their name on a stadium. Don't expect the Yankees to similarly cash in. If Steinbrenner accepted 20 pieces of silver to call the place Citigroup Field, he'd have finally gone over the line.

Sparkling new facilities also will enhance the Mets' ability to attract families, which the team's suits already consider a strong point. In comparison to Yankee Stadium, it is family friendly. Shea Stadium surely can get rowdy (ask John Rocker). But on a game-to-game basis, nothing at Shea compares to Yankee Stadium's bleacher creatures, who issue obscene chants from Section 39 for the rest of the fans' listening pleasure.

Shea Stadium has a mascot, the bloated baseball head Mr. Met, whom the kids adore. Yankee Stadium has no mascot, unless you count Giuliani. Shea Stadium has the Pepsi Party Patrol, which shoots T-shirts into the seats between innings. Yankee Stadium's idea of between-innings entertainment is the grounds crew's interpretation of "YMCA" as it rakes the infield in the middle of the fifth. The Shea Stadium anthem, "Meet The Mets," exhorts fans to "bring your kiddies, bring your wife, guaranteed to have the time of your life." The Yankee Stadium anthem, "New York, New York," is an ode to ambition: "I want to wake up in a city that doesn't sleep, and find I'm king of the hill, top of the heap."

Not wishing to provide incendiary quotes for the Yankees' clubhouse bulletin board, Jeff Wilpon carefully opines of his rivals: "They don't have the mascot; they don't shoot T-shirts; they have their own traditions and that's the way they like to do it. There's no right or wrong; we just think our fan base is different."

Yankees president Randy Levine insists, "We're very family-oriented," noting the club couldn't have drawn 4 million fans last year without appealing to them. "All you have to do is see how we price our tickets," says Levine, also citing a plethora of "Bat Days" and other youth-oriented promotions by the clubs.

The Yankees should be even more appealing to the masses in a new park, he argues, with wider concourses, better concessions and an improved seating configuration. The current stadium has about 20,000 seats in the lower bowl and 30,000 in the upper deck. Those numbers will be reversed in the new stadium, which will also more than triple the number of suites (to 60) in the current facility.

"It will be a combination of our traditions and new amenities," says Levine, adding that the new park will actually restore features of the original Yankee Stadium that were lost in the 1970s remodeling. The exterior facade will be restored, for instance, with its grand cathedral windows.

Still, some feel the Yankees are risking bad karma by pulling up stakes and moving ... even if ever so slightly.

"A new curse of the Bambino will be visited on them for moving those monuments," says Jim Bouton, the one-time Yankee pitcher and "Ball Four" author. "It was a less hallowed place after the remodeling, but they're going to undo whatever 'hallow' is still left."

Current-day Yankee Alex Rodriguez shrugs off that notion.

"We'll definitely miss it because the history is second to none," he says, surveying the field before a recent game. "But you look forward to moving into a new building, like we did at Safeco Field in Seattle. The amenities are better for everyone, players and fans. You lose the mystique [of the old stadium], but I think the mystique will always be with the pinstripes."

Certainly a change in venue won't alter how Mets fans feel about their rivals. They hate the blanking Yankees, just about as much as Red Sox fans hate the blanking Yankees. Maybe even more, at this point, since they haven't had the cathartic experience of coming back from a 3-0 deficit to beat the blanking Yankees in the postseason. Mets bloggers -- and there are many -- take as much delight in venting their spleens at the Yankees as they do at celebrating or disparaging their Amazins.

Somehow, except for these two intense interleague series each year, the rival factions manage to live relatively peacefully in the same metropolitan area. It helps that they largely migrate to different suburbs. According to the 1998 city-government survey, 22 percent of the Yankees' fan base lives in New Jersey, 11 percent in Westchester/Rockland counties.

Another reason for the peaceable coexistence is that the teams' fans tend to travel in different circles, both vocationally (Yankees fans occupy executive suites, Mets fans work back in IT) and socially. In Cornwall, N.Y., it's generally understood that Tom's Tavern is the Mets' bar and the Shamrock Tavern is the Yankees' bar. Only those who can't resist a good taunt after a few belts broach the enemy's lair.

The third reason: A lot more passion emanates from one camp than the other these days. Many Yankees fans have become merely dismissive. It's the cruelest cut of all for Mets fans: unrequited hatred.

"Mets fans are wannabes," says Bob Cerullo as he awaits the start of a recent game at the stadium. Like a lot of Yankees fans, he wonders: Why do people hate us for our devotion to excellence and tradition?

And: The Yankees aren't about families? Sez who? Cerullo recalls his all-time favorite Yankee moment, "when we won the World Series in 1996 and my kids were crying. I knew I'd raised them right. I bleed pinstripes."

The Mets may not be that far away from achieving a greater state of parity and getting Yankees fans to declare them worthy foes. The season is young yet, but the Mets seem to be coming on and the Yankees seem to be getting older (hello, Randy Johnson) and frailer (goodbye, Hideki Matsui). Last year, the Yankees' TV audience was more than double that of Mets games, but the Nielsen ratings gap has narrowed to a more competitive 4.1 to 2.5 so far in 2006. Between the new cable TV network and the new stadium, the Mets' long-standing deficit in financial firepower will narrow. (Wilpon's club is generally estimated to have 60 percent to 80 percent of the financial firepower of Steinbrenner's. Forbes, for instance, recently valued the Mets' worth at $604 million, the Yankees at $1 billion.)

If Omar Minaya marshals those resources well -- continuing to invest in players like Carlos Delgado instead of Mo Vaughn -- the team could become enough of a threat that Yankees fans extend it their ultimate compliment: a reciprocal sentiment of loathing and a rousing cry of "Mets suck."

John Helyar is a senior writer for ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine. He previously covered the business of sports for The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine and is the author of "Lords of the Realm: The Real History of Baseball."

[TonyO]

^ Great article.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not wishing to provide incendiary quotes for the Yankees' clubhouse bulletin board, Jeff Wilpon carefully opines of his rivals: "They don't have the mascot; they don't shoot T-shirts; they have their own traditions and that's the way they like to do it.

We have the Red Sox.

And as long as we have the Red Sox, the Mets will always be a secondary concern. Before the '86 world Series, a friend of mine from California called and asked who I was rooting for.

"If you were a Yankee fan, you wouldn't ask that question."

[lofter1]

Oh, Shea has seen some glory. There were the amazin' championships of 1969 and 1986...

My biggest lmao moments at a Mets game this year were the incessant announcements trumpeting the "20th Year Anniversary" of the Mets last WS Championship.

Gotta give the Mets' fans credit for wishful thinking ... and maybe they are due for another one this year ...

WS 2006: Mets v. Yankees, anyone?

[Transic]

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/artic...park/2745.html

Extra innings for new Yanks park

Team said construction would begin this spring, but federal approvals remain out of reach

by patrick arden / metro new york
MAY 26, 2006

SOUTH BRONX — In early April, Yankees president Randy Levine made a prediction on the steps of City Hall.

Flanked by construction workers celebrating City Council approval of the team’s $1.2 billion new stadium plan, Levine vowed construction would begin “this spring.”

But in the words of Yankees great Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

As the new stadium’s design has quietly worked its way through the city Art Commission, the Yankees have yet to get the final OK to build on Macombs and Mullaly parks, across the street from the House That Ruth Built.

That plan to use parkland — which met with stiff opposition in the community — still requires a go-ahead from the National Parks Service, which had paid $422,650 for improvements to an 11.2-acre portion of Macombs Dam Park in 1979. Any park receiving federal dollars under the Land and Water Conservation Fund must remain a park in perpetuity, unless it is replaced with parkland of equal value, “usefulness and location,” and “all practical alternatives” have been exhausted.


Wind-up, no pitch

Yesterday National Parks Service LWCF manager Jack Howard was still waiting on the application.

“I don’t know exactly when that’s going to happen,” he said. “We have to make sure everything’s in compliance with our requirements. I’m assuming the state is working with the city to ensure that the information is complete.”

So far, the state has asked the city to get new property appraisals twice. A third set of appraisals is in progress, said Ashe Reardon, a spokesperson for the Parks Dept, to insure these comply with federal appraisal standards.

The city wants to replace the Macombs LCWF parcel with 8.9 acres under the current stadium and 1.15 acres of existing pedestrian walkways. But since that replacement property only equals 10.05 acres -- not the 11.2 acres being taken away -- the city is also including a 5.1-acre lot near the Harlem River. This property is next to the Major Deegan Expressway and not connected to the other parkland.

Slated for a private tennis concession, the riverside parcel is also on a floodplain, according to the second appraisal. Stanley Mayer, whose family-owned business Siegmund Strauss was in the neighboring Bronx Terminal Market, recalled flood waters once reached “three or four inches below” his loading dock. “We were sandbagging with rice bags to keep the water out of our store.”

The state held a public-comment period on the parkland-conversion plan until April 3. Lukas Herbert, an urban planner and member of Community Board 4, wants the state to reopen the comment period because the appraisals weren’t public and the city didn’t provide original LWCF documentation, as required.


Triple play

“The public has to have all the facts, or the comment period is meaningless,” Herbert said. “It’s not an equitable swap, because the replacement parkland is not of equivalent usefulness or location. They’re breaking up the replacement in three parcels — one will have baseball fields in five years, one is going to be a concrete walkway, and one will be tennis courts on the waterfront, where you’ll have to pay a substantial fee. There also was a power generator there — we could be getting contaminated land.”

Yankees spokesperson Alice McGillion said yesterday the team has no groundbreaking date.

“The Yankees tried to intimidate the community by saying they’d break ground any day,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of NYC Park Advocates. “They knew this project wasn’t going anywhere anytime soon.”


Financing on deck

• The Yankees and the Mets await an IRS ruling on whether they can use $1.4 billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance their new stadiums. “The IRS is still reviewing our request,” said Jorge Montalvo, a spokesman for the city’s Industrial Development Agency, who noted the IRS had also requested more info. A determination is expected in “probably a few months.”

[Transic]

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionaln...respondent.htm

YANKS MUSCLING UP IN SWING AT NEW PARK

By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent

June 12, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - The Yankees have two new heavy hitters - a pair of Washington lobbyists drafted to help steamroll bureaucratic obstacles to the team's plan to build the latest incarnation of Yankee Stadium on city parkland that only the feds can unlock.

The big-bucks lobbyists will try to get fast federal approval for the project, even as community foes prepare to sue to block construction of the $800 million, 53,000-seat ballpark.

But a tangle of federal agencies could snarl the Yankees' plans. The National Park Service, which has refurbished city parks with taxpayer dollars, the Army Corps of Engineers, the IRS and landmark preservationists must agree to go along before the new House that Ruth Built can go up.

According to disclosure reports, the Yanks have hired former Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.), husband of former Rep. Susan Molinari (R-S.I.) and son-in-law of former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari. Paxon commands top dollar and represents a wealth of big corporate clients.

They've also signed Michael Rosetti, a Buffalo native who handled bitter land disputes as a lawyer for the federal Department of the Interior.

George Steinbrenner's team needs the feds to sign off on the project before it can break ground across the street from the current Yankee Stadium - atop Macombs Dam and John Mullaly parks, two longtime community staples.

Washington paid more than $400,000 to refurbish those parks in the 1970s - under a law that bars private developers from bulldozing them. They include several baseball diamonds and some of the South Bronx's few tennis courts.

While the law allows the Yanks to replace them with new parks, the replacements must sit nearby and must be worth at least as much as the old ones. The team's current replacement offer has activists fuming.

"This isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and the Yankees are fully aware of that," said Geoffrey Croft of New York City Park Advocates. "The land itself is not a good swap, because some [fields] are on top of parking garages. [And] five of the acres are a mile away from their existing place."

If the feds accept the swap, his group will sue, Croft vowed.

The Bronx Bombers are not exactly shaking in their cleats. "All of those [arguments] have been heard," said Yankee CEO Lonn Trost. "Votes were taken, and the new stadium has been approved by every process required."

The National Park Service fix insists its taking its role in the urban drama seriously. "Our job is not to delay a process but to simply protect the taxpayers, who put in around $400,000 back in the '70s to ensure some recreational opportunities," said spokesman Phil Sheridan.

The City Council authorized construction in April, but the Yankees' application for tax-free federal financing of construction bonds is still awaiting IRS approval - another issue that could require a political cleanup hitter.

geoff.earle@nypost.com



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

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=1&aid=60134

Yankees Hire Lobbyists To Push For Stadium Approval

June 12, 2006

Some heavy hitters have reportedly joined the Yankee roster– not the corner outfielders they need, but rather a pair of Washington lobbyists hired to push the team's plans for a new stadium.

The Yankees need approval from several federal agencies to build their a stadium, because they plan to build on existing parkland Washington paid to refurbish 30 years ago.

The New York Post reports former Congressman Bill Paxon and attorney Michael Rosetti will lead the Yankee charge.

And while the team has vowed to replace the parkland, community activists say that promise isn't good enough and plan to fight the plans.

Meanwhile, Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion is reportedly getting rid of community board members who have tried to block the stadium plans.

The New York Post reports three longtime board members are not being re-appointed to Community Board 4. The board chair is also not coming back, even though he supports the stadium.

The board's role is only advisory. Carrion has already approved the project.

[Transic]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...-stadium_x.htm

2008 All-Star Game would be fitting send-off for historic Yankee Stadium
Updated 6/30/2006 3:20 AM ET

The 2007 All-Star Game will be held at San Francisco's AT&T Park, but no city has been chosen for 2008.

Here's a suggestion for Commissioner Bud Selig: Forget your decade-old obsession with awarding the game to teams so they can showcase new stadiums, as this year's July 11 game at Pittsburgh's PNC Park will do.

The 2008 game should be played at Yankee Stadium as a farewell to the most revered venue in baseball history, if not in all sports.

"I frankly don't know what I'm going to do for 2008, but there should be a decision fairly soon," says Selig, speaking by phone from his Milwaukee office.

The Yankees and Mets are getting new stadiums scheduled to open in 2009. Selig should give the Mets the 2009 game, scheduled for a National League city, even if their new park isn't ready.

Choosing Yankee Stadium for 2008 is a no-brainer, but there are those within baseball who'd prefer to wait until the new park is open.

Yankees President Randy Levine refuses to comment or even say if the Yankees would like to host an All-Star Game.

It's astonishing this marquee event hasn't made a stop in New York in more than a quarter-century. Other sports love to hold events in the Big Apple, but when it comes to the All-Star Game baseball has stayed away.

The last time the All-Star Game was held at Yankee Stadium was 1977.

There hasn't been an All-Star Game at Shea Stadium since 1964, the year the park opened next to the World's Fair.

New York, if you count the years when the Dodgers and Giants played there, is tied with Chicago (White Sox and Cubs) for hosting the game seven times.

Regardless, 1977 seems a long time ago.

"At times, when a team is trying to get a new stadium and needs something to help we've promised them an All-Star Game," Selig says. "We want to show off our new stadiums."

Since 1997 just once — Boston's Fenway Park in 1999 — has the game not been played in a new stadium. And that trend will continue next year in San Francisco, where the game is returning for the first time since 1984 at Candlestick Park.

The drought has also been long for the St. Louis Cardinals. There have been four All-Star Games in that city but none since 1966. Now, with a new stadium, I would guess the Cardinals will be getting the game soon.

Dodger Stadium, still one of the greatest parks in the majors, hasn't hosted it since 1980. But pity the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks. Those teams have been shut out. The Marlins were awarded the 2000 game, but because they were unable to get a new stadium MLB gave the game to Atlanta.

"I try to do something that's good for the sport," Selig says. "My objective is to not only help the club, but the sport."

The decision isn't made by a committee; it's all Selig's, but he says "I bounce it off the Executive Council."

"I'm not as sensitive about alternating between the two leagues as I used to be," Selig adds. "You really have to go with the best venue. We're going to try to alternate as much as we can after we play these two years in the National League."

The chosen city must prevail in a spirited bidding process.

That's how the Detroit Tigers landed the game for 2005.

"You put in a formal bid through the commissioner's office," Tigers CEO Dave Dombrowski says. "They sort through those bids and made a decision. You put together a presentation on how you would handle certain things. There's no money involved."

For the hosting team the game doesn't provide a huge financial windfall. It does, however, spur interest in the team and help season-ticket sales.

Fans get more involved. Even though the Pirates (26-52) are having a dreadful season, their players have received unbelievable support in the balloting process.

Jason Bay is the leading vote-getter among NL outfielders, Jack Wilson is second among shortstops, Jose Castillo is third among second basemen and Freddy Sanchez is fourth among third basemen. His 597,249 votes are all write-ins.

Patty Paytas, Pirates vice president and the team's All-Star Game coordinator, says according to the convention bureau Visit Pittsburgh the region will have a positive economic impact of $52.3 million. That's great and deserved for a city that had to claw for a new stadium.

We should celebrate that but not be in a hurry to turn our backs on Yankee Stadium. One more grand moment in the sun will do just fine.

Posted 6/30/2006 12:40 AM ET

Updated 6/30/2006 3:20 AM ET

[Transic]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...TYM&refer=home

NYC Agency Approves Stadium Loans for Yankees, Mets (Update2)

July 11 (Bloomberg) -- New York City's Industrial Development Agency approved $1.58 billion of tax-exempt and taxable financing for baseball's Yankees and Mets to build new stadiums.

Agency officials said the deal was contingent upon the U.S. Internal Revenue Service allowing the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for most of the financing. Plans for the stadiums, which have wide political support, already have been approved by the City Council and the state's Empire State Development Corp. and Public Authorities Control Board.

The financing agreement would save the city about $113 million in the next 40 years by relieving it from maintenance and repair costs that would have exceeded rent payments at the two existing stadiums, agency officials said in a prepared statement. By the time the stadiums are completed in 2009, they will have created 16,000 construction jobs, the officials said.

"New stadiums for the Yankees and Mets will give a tremendous boost to the local economies of the South Bronx and Flushing, Queens,'' said the development agency's interim chairman, Joshua J. Sirefman.

The financing hinges upon the Internal Revenue Service granting the city a private letter permitting it to use its power to issue tax-exempt bonds for the stadiums. Several council members have said they remain unsure about whether the IRS will approve the transaction, although city attorneys assured officials in the mayor's office and council members that it will pass the review.

Job Creation

"In the event it isn't, each team may have to go back to the drawing board to come up with a new financing structure,'' Council Finance Committee Chairman David Weprin said when the body approved the arrangement in April.

Seth Pinsky, vice president of the city Economic Development Corp., which oversees the Industrial Development Agency, said the letter to the IRS was sent in April. The IRS hasn't indicated when they would respond, Pinsky said. "Our lawyers tell us they're optimistic,'' he said. "If it turns out that the tax letter runs against the agency, we'll have to reevaluate.''

The Yankees will get about $920 million in low-interest tax-exempt bonds and $25 million in taxable bonds to build its new stadium in the Bronx just north of the existing Yankee Stadium. The project will create about 9,700 construction jobs and 615 permanent jobs, excluding concessions, the agency said in a news release.

Bond Mix

For the new Mets stadium, IDA will issue about $528 million in tax-exempt bonds and $104 million in taxable bonds. The new Mets stadium, to be built in Flushing, Queens, just beyond the centerfield fence at Shea Stadium where the Mets now play, will create about 6,100 construction jobs and 970 permanent jobs, including concessions, the agency news release said.

Debt service on the tax-exempt bonds for both teams will be paid through payments in lieu of taxes, known as PILOTs, a financing structure the City Council approved. The taxable bonds for both teams will be repaid from rent. The development agency intends to also use exemptions from taxes on real estate, mortgage recording and sales to help lower the cost of construction for both teams, the news release said.

The Yankees' $1.169 billion project and the Mets' proposed $813 million stadium each cost more than the most expensive baseball stadium to date, eclipsing St. Louis's new $646 million Busch Stadium and "Ballpark Village.'' The Toronto Blue Jays' Rogers Centre, built in 1989, is second most expensive, costing $570 million, according to Major League Baseball.

Luxury Boxes

The Yankees' plan calls for demolishing the 56,937-seat current ballpark, built in 1923 and extensively renovated in the mid-1970s, and turning that site into several ball fields for community use. The new 53,000-seat ballpark, on which the team would hold a 38-year renewable lease, will include 60 luxury suites and new parking lots on 22 acres of what is now nearby parkland.

The city would contribute $164 million for infrastructure improvements such as new parks, sewer lines and road work. The state would provide $74.7 million, mostly for new parking, under agreements described by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the City Council in April.

The 42,500-seat Mets stadium is designed to be built in brick, limestone, granite and cast stone to evoke Ebbets Field, the home of the old Brooklyn Dodgers. Shea, which opened in 1964, would be demolished.

The Queens stadium's $813 million cost would be financed through $632 million in bonds, including $528 million in exempt- issues carrying lower-than-market interest rates and $104 million in taxable bonds. The Mets would hold a 40-year renewable lease.

The city would pay $91.4 million for infrastructure improvements, and the state $74.7 million.

The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Henry Goldman in New York City Hall at
hgoldman@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: July 11, 2006 16:52 EDT

[Transic]

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/artic..._nod/3500.html

Yanks get Fed nod

New stadium approved by National Parks Service; foes plan lawsuits

by patrick arden / metro new york
JUL 19, 2006

BRONX — The controversial plan for a new Yankee Stadium took a step closer to reality last Friday, when the National Park Service finally gave the go-ahead for the team to use an 11.2-acre portion of Macombs Dam Park that had received federal funds in 1979.

The team is still waiting on IRS approval for its use of $920 million in tax-free financing, but the NPS decision came as a major blow to stadium opponents in the Highbridge community, who had hoped the feds would save them from the trouble of a lawsuit.

Even as the Yankees’ project was approved by the city this spring, the state had yet to complete the necessary paperwork to convert the parkland. Parks receiving government money are protected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, unless they’re replaced with parks of equal value, “usefulness and location,” and “all practical alternatives” have been exhausted. Last month, the NPS’ Jack Howard told Metro he was still waiting on the state’s proposal. He warned the process could be lengthy. “This is not a rubber stamp,” he said.

A done deal?

But the process ended up being a simple matter. NPS spokesman Phil Sheridan said, “We received the materials on Friday [June] 30.” Fourteen days later it was done.

“It’s definitely a rubber stamp,” said attorney Antonia Bryson of the Urban Environmental Law Center. Yesterday Bryson was “making preparations” to sue the NPS, and she said additional suits against the city and the Yankees are a “definite possibility.”

“It took the Park Service two weeks to make a decision, and one of the weeks was July 4,” she said. “I can’t imagine they were working overtime.”

During the NPS’s public comment period, Geoffrey Croft of NYC Parks Advocates asked for the state’s final site appraisal. “The public has never had a chance to comment on that,” he said.

Neither did the NPS. “We don’t actually see a copy of the appraisal,” said Sheridan. “We rely on the state to look at this thing and say it’s OK.”

Looming lawsuit

Bryson, who helped fight the failed West Side stadium, called the case “one of clearest environmental justice issues I’ve ever seen.”

The neighborhood, she noted, is “virtually 100 percent Latino and African-American, and they depend on these parks.” The community, in fact, was built around the parks. “Now the stadium is jumping across that big divide and going right smack in front of these people’s windows.”

The Yankees did not return calls for comment.

Still, Bryson says, “being right is often not enough.” She worries the city’s promise to build parks in three years could be easily sidetracked.

“It’s hard to make people realize what an injustice this is,” she said. “Most people see it as a NIMBY fight, but this is one of the worst things you could have in your backyard.”

[Transic]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...DeM&refer=home

New York Gets IRS Approval on Baseball Stadium Bonds (Update1)

July 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruled in favor of New York City's plan to issue $1.5 billion of tax-exempt bonds for baseball's Yankees and Mets to build new stadiums.

The long-anticipated ruling follows the approval of the financing package by the New York City Industrial Development Agency July 11 and clears the way for the city to sell the debt next month.

"I'm glad the IRS confirmed we could help make these projects happen by authorizing tax-exempt bonds, the result of which actually will mean increased tax revenue for New York City,'' Joshua J. Sirefman, the development agency's interim chairman said in a statement.

The U.S. tax code limits the amount of tax-exempt bonds states and local governments may issue for private purposes. In its ruling, the IRS permitted the teams to pay off the bonds by making payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOT's, which are structured to resemble a city property tax.

The Yankees will get about $920 million in low-interest tax-exempt bonds and $25 million in taxable bonds to build its new stadium in the Bronx just north of the existing Yankee Stadium. The project will create about 9,700 construction jobs and 615 permanent jobs, according to the development agency.

August Sales

For the new Mets stadium, the development authority will issue about $528 million in tax-exempt bonds and $104 million in taxable bonds. The new Mets stadium, to be built in Flushing, Queens, just beyond the centerfield fence at Shea Stadium where the Mets now play, will create about 6,100 construction jobs and 970 permanent jobs, the agency said.

The development authority plans to issue the bonds on behalf of the Yankees in mid-August, said spokesman Andrew Brent. The team tapped Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America to manage the bond issue. Citigroup Inc. will manage the Mets bond sale, which is planned for mid-to-late August, Brent said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/artic...iums/3521.html

IRS approves bonds for stadiums

by patrick arden / metro new york
JUL 20, 2006

MANHATTAN — For the last month, construction equipment has sat idle in the Shea Stadium parking lot, waiting for the International Revenue Service to OK the city’s use of tax-free bonds to fund a new ballpark.

The IRS approved the city’s controversial plan yesterday, clearing the way for both the Mets and the Yankees to break ground for new stadiums. The city’s Industrial Development Agency will issue almost $1.5 billion in tax-free bonds to finance the projects. Neither the Yankees nor the Mets returned calls for comment.

Doubts had been cast on the funding scheme by the city’s Independent Budget Office, which cited a 1986 law that restricted the use of tax-exempt bonds to build stadiums. City Comptroller William Thompson also expressed “reservations” and asked for an IRS ruling.

Then last week the city decided to raise the amount the Yankees could borrow in tax-free bonds to $920 million. Dan Steinberg, a research analyst with the government watchdog group Good Jobs New York, had wondered whether that was a sign. Yesterday he was convinced.

Public financing

“The IRS decision violates the spirit of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, when Congress intended to ban public financing for sports facilities,” he said. “It’s a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. One day people will look back and see the Yankees’ project as a colossal boondoggle.”

IRS approval for the Yankees’ financing coincided with a go-ahead from another federal agency, the National Park Service, which gave the nod for the team to build on parkland.

“Isn’t that odd?” commented Antonia Bryson, an attorney with the Urban Environmental Law Center, who was in the midst of preparing a lawsuit against the NPS when she received news of the IRS ruling. She speculated that the timing of the two decisions was more than a coincidence. “Their lobbyists must have been aiming for a date.”
She was referring to the Yankees hiring of two high-powered Washington lobbyists to win the necessary approvals.
Bryson is representing members of Highbridge community group Save Our Parks. When she heard of the NPS ruling on Tuesday, she vowed to sue the agency and then added that the group may sue the city and the Yankees too. Yesterday she couldn’t say when a suit would come.

In the neighborhood

Geneva Causey has lived across from Macombs Dam Park for 39 years. Yesterday she wondered how she could end up with a stadium across the street, where people were now gathering for shade.
“It seems everyone greenlighted this without considering the community,” she said. “If anyone came here and looked at the neighborhood, this wouldn’t be happening.”

Out at home

• Highbridge residents had denounced the Yankees’ plan to build the stadium on 22 acres of parkland. The new ballpark would be much closer to homes, they complained. They also criticized the plan’s replacement parkland and parking garages.

[Outerbanks Lookout]

Yea, one of the worst, what a deplorable argument. I could easily think of a few more that would make this seem like an extreme overstatement...