"A New York Treasure" --Village Voice

Dirty Work

Does the New York Times have it in for the Yankees? The New York Post sure thinks so. Last Sunday, an editorial in the Times blasted the Yankees’ plans for a new stadium:

While a plan is still being negotiated, the team seems to be acting like a superstar free agent and asking for the moon. The team is reportedly expecting the city and state to pitch in $300 million to build, among other things, a parking garage that would be used mostly during games. That is wrong, and if the city intends to give the Yankees Macombs Dam Park for its new site, the team – not the taxpayers – should pay to replace that open space elsewhere. The Yankees can boast that they would pay for the stadium – about $750 million – but under new rules they can deduct capital costs from annual payments to the league, so they will hardly feel the pinch.

The Yankees have the richest franchise in the league, and they have played the better part of a century in a depressed area of the South Bronx without adding much to the neighborhood. There are plenty of ways the team can give back, including helping to build affordable housing, schools and retail space in the area. The Yankees should also preserve at least the facade of the beloved House That Ruth Built.

The Times owns a piece of the Boston Red Sox. Yankee president Randy Levine told the Post:

“Not only were the facts cited in the editorial incorrect, but the arguments are similar to those emanating from rival teams worried about a new stadium rising in The Bronx.”

…”Isn’t it amazing that the Times never mentions the tax enhancements it receives for its projects, including the new Times building, when they pass judgment on other transactions?” Levine said.

“In the past 25 years, 20 out of the 30 major league teams have built new stadiums. Except for two, they all got public subsidies,” Levine told us. “All we are asking for is infrastructure. Is the New York Times paying for the streets and subways around their building? Of course not.”

Fight, fight.

Share: Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email %PRINT_TEXT


1 jkay   ~  Mar 30, 2005 5:58 pm

1.  The Times has gone overboard with their Sox coverage. Their sports section has sucked for many years. They sucked big time even before they had a Sox affiliation.

2 Ryan   ~  Mar 31, 2005 5:02 am

2.  Why is it the job of the Yankees to "build affordable housing, schools and retail space in the area." What an effing joke.

3 KJC   ~  Mar 31, 2005 5:17 am

3.  "Does the New York Times have it in for the Yankees?"

I think we came to the conclusion last year that the answer to that question was "absolutely, yes." (We also made it official that Dan Shaunessy sucks, although that's been known for years...)

4 Knuckles   ~  Mar 31, 2005 6:25 am

4.  The Times has the blandest, weakest sports section in the area, and it's only gotten more unreadable since they started pumping the Sox. Every article you read on MSN, CNN, ESPN, Slate, etc. all have disclaimers about which subjects of the column are related to the media outlet- maybe the Times should start doing the same every time they run a lame-ass puff piece on someone like Kevin Millar during spring training.

As for a new Stadium, NY should realize that they may actually be lucky because George can write off the building costs and save some money. Otherwise he'd be starting a bidding war for public financing between NYC and North Jersey. Keep the team in the Bronx, the team pays for the stadium, and George gets to drop his revenue sharing contribs- everyone with a interest in the city and the Yankees wins.

feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver