I touched on this in the other entry, but there have been other projects in the Bx that have been approved before the Stadium project, and there are other projects in other boroughs that are independent of the Stadium project.

Given the way things work, I would not be surprised if they were related, but at the same time, I would not be surprised if these projects were independent.

You’ve shifted the argument: the Park versus the Stadium is nother issue altogether. Assuming the park land is eventually replicated in the area, I don’t even think it is an issue. Otherwise, I am not really sure how you make the determination. While someone who heavily uses the park would be worse off, one who never stepped into it likely wouldn’t care. I haven’t polled all of the area residents, but if they feel as you do, they need to elect new community leaders, most of whom clamored to keep the Yankees in that location.

I’ll also make one more point about the jobs and economic activity. Again, seasonal jobs might not register as being important to some, but for the thousands who hold them, I am sure there is real economic value. Also, more than just Stan’s benefits from stadium traffic. There are bodegas, delis, franchises, souvenir stands, taxi companies, parking attendants and other similar businesses that benefit. Are we talking about 100 people….1,000 people…I don’t know. But there are enough people who depend on the economic activity generated by the Stadium to make one at least pause before dismissing them.

As for the jobs: for the investment the taxpayers are making, I would hope for more than jobs that provide a few hours a day, 81 days a year.

Economic growth for the area doesn’t come from money spent in the Stadium. If the Yankees did move away, the only businesses that would be seriously affected would be Stan’s Sports Bar et al. The area’s economy would be essentially unaffected.

Here’s my one starting premise: the new Stadium provides no benefits to the community that outweigh the loss of Macombs Dam Park. The new parkland, if it ever materializes, won’t do that either. I firmly believe that this neighborhood would be better off with a park and no Stadium, if that’s what it came to.

Good. I hate it when politicians put in things such as voter approved term limits and then do an end run around them.

[6] The Yankees and Mets both had deals in place when Guliani left office. When Bloomberg took over, he reworked them to account for the post 9/11 economic downturn. The threats ceased because real negotiations were taking place.

Historically, the Meadowlands, Yonkers and the west side of Manhattan were 3 potential locations.

Not only that, but a stadium on the west side of Manhattan would be a nightmare. Of course, it’s reasonable to assume that a Stadium there would’ve cost more than the one in the Bx.

When you are talking about tax abatements, I think it is incorrect to refer to the public trough. Otherwise, everyone who owns a house has had it built on the public trough. And, if you accept that broad definition, then how can you argue about everyone taking advantage?

If you look at that report you posted, the City’s non-infrastructure costs are minimal. Regardless of how you feel about it ideologically, it is a big Win for New York City.

As for the economic activity outside the Stadium, I got to about 20 games and spend a lot of money on souvenirs, parking and food. Judging by the crowds and lines I encounter, it seems as if many other people do as well. Maybe these “service” jobs don’t meet everyone’s standards, but the people who hold them probably value them more highly.

As for the Gateway Mall, you couldn’t be any more wrong. For starters, the developers did receive $200mn in tax free financing. Also, while parkland wasn’t needed, the City did have to condemn the old Bronx Terminal Market. Like it or not, these types of things are needed to facilitate big project construction. Also, I am sure that the Yankees project had some influence on the Gateway developers…it is a lot more attractive to make an investment in area where others have made a similar commitment.

As for where the Yankees could have gone, there are several options. With over 60% of attendance from NJ and Westechester, either area could have been a possibility. In fact, a quick search found the state of NJ proposing three sites as late as 1996.

As for my ideologically, I am pro-Yankees and pro-New York City, and in this case, both of those are being satisfied.

I will say again: the economic benefit to the area is minimal. Yes, 4 million people can come into the area with minimal economic benefit, because virtually none of them spend money outside the stadium. The real economic benefit will come from the mall down the street; it provides real commerce, real jobs, didn’t involve the taking of parkland, and didn’t cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. it’s of vastly more benefit to the area than the Stadium ever will be.

The Yankees weren’t required to stay in the Bronx, no – but as I said above, where were they going to go?

I’ll say more later…for now, it’s clear that Brodsky overstated his case far too much. That’s too bad, because he could have addressed the real deceptions without damaging his own credibility.

I guess you could argue that the Yankees would never have left the City, but similar bluffs have been called in the past. When the cost is really so small, it would be irresponsible to take such a risk.

By then, I don’t think any threats would have been credible, anyway. Where was he going to move to? Who was going to build a stadium for him?

Now matter how you want to spin it, the fact remains that money is not going from the City to the Yankees. I hate to belabor the point, but the main support given to the Yankees is about $6mn in forfeited tax revenue (before netting out expenses to maintain the old building) over the next 40 years, a large portion of which is actually absorbed by the Federal Government, not the City (especially to the extent that buyers of the bonds are NYC residents). Also, it should be noted that without the tax exemption, the Yankees would have higher interest expenses (going to investors, not the government) and therefore larger tax deductions, which could wind up reducing the team’s tax liability (and could actually lower the true tax savings).

In many ways, the City and Yankees are partners in this deal. The City maintains the land, allowing the team to get favorable financing and avoid property tax, while the Yankees spend over $1 billion in the South Bronx as well as commit to staying there for a very, very long time.

I guess you can scoff at the idea of construction jobs that last only 3 years, but all construction is temporary. If you don’t think the city unions and their laborers value those jobs, then I would suggest you think again. Also, the Yankees are not required to stay in the Bronx. You simply can not state that there will be a small net gain on that basis because it ignores the real possibility that the Yankees could relocate. Lost jobs hurt even more than ones that aren’t created.

Net net, NYC is better off because of the Yankees staying in the Bronx, and the area is better off for the billions of dollars flowing into the area.

Would it be nice if the Yankees could have used private financing? I guess. The Government collectively could have gained a marginal amount of increased revenue, while for the Yankees, they would have owned the land. Of course, the increased financing cost would have prohibited the project, so eventually reality does set in. I think too many people are losing sight of the reality of the situation, partly because they don’t fully understand the complexities, but mostly because they are looking at the issue through an ideological prism.