"Tax-exempt aid for new Yankee Stadium raises questions" Newsday 7/2/8

Tax-exempt aid for new Yankee Stadium raises questions
BY KEITH HERBERT AND MICHAEL FRAZIER | keith.herbert@newsday.com; michael.frazier@newsday.com
July 2, 2008


More than two years ago, New York City and its Major League Baseball teams seized upon an innovative way to use tax-exempt bonds to help fund construction of the New York Yankees' new stadium in the Bronx and the Mets' Citi Field in Queens.

For the Yankees and the New York Mets, the public financing, with its lower interest rates for borrowing money, meant at least $147 million in savings for the Yankees over 30 years and $104 million for the Mets over 40 years, according to the Independent Budget Office, an independently funded, nonpartisan watchdog agency in the city.

But now, the playing field for such financing is shifting, even as the Yankees plan to seek another $350 million in what essentially is a government-subsidized loan for construction of their $1.3-billion arena.

Questions are being raised at both the federal and state levels.

In Washington, the Internal Revenue Service is contemplating a change that could block the Yankees from getting proceeds from the extra tax-exempt bonds the team says it wants to complete the new stadium.

In addition, a congressional subcommittee is asking the U.S. Treasury Department to explain why the financing for the Yankees and Mets was allowed in the first place and whether the IRS can change its regulations to more strictly limit publicly backed financing of sports stadiums. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who chairs a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is leading the inquiry.

Here in New York, the prospect of additional public financing for the Yankees prompted Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), chairman of the Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, to set a hearing today in Manhattan.

Is there a public benefit?

Brodsky, who last week called stadium financing "socialism for the rich," will aim questions at Seth Pinsky, president of the city's Economic Development Corp., the agency that put together the financing deal for the Yankees.

"What's the public benefit?" Brodsky said when asked what the committee, which has oversight of public bond financing, hopes to focus on at the hearing.

Pinsky said the project will boost the city's economy with the construction jobs and other revenue they bring.

"This is an amazing investment by the city," Pinsky said, referring to the new stadium in the Bronx. "The two major league stadiums being built today represent private investments of more than $2 billion in two underserved and deserving neighborhoods," Pinsky said.

Use of the public financing route stems from the fact that the Yankees don't own the land upon which the stadium is being built. The city does. Because the team doesn't pay any real estate taxes, the stadium deal hinged on compensation using payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, commonly called PILOT.

PILOT payments, however, usually are linked to real estate taxes, hotel taxes or sales taxes. In the Yankees' case, the PILOT is earmarked as a repayment of money for stadium construction borrowed by the city's Industrial Development Agency.

Without the tax-free government bonds to raise cash, the Yankees would have to shop for money via private financing and thus face higher borrowing costs.

City officials and the Yankees confirmed that they have been lobbying Treasury Department officials in Washington to persuade regulators not to make the change, and thereby continue allowing the PILOT funding mechanism.

Yankees president Randy Levine said the financing structure should remain unchanged.

"Our original transaction always contemplated completion bonds," Levine said last week. "We believe it's not fair to change course midstream of a transaction."

Controversial funding mechanism

The bond document signed in 2006 by the Yankees and the city provides that additional borrowing can be sought for the stadium's completion.

For the IRS, the funding mechanism has been a thorny question since 2006. Shortly after the agency approved the use of the PILOT method to pay for both New York stadiums, tax regulators proposed new restrictions on the use of PILOTs.

The proposed change in the IRS regulation, under consideration by U.S. Department of Treasury and IRS officials in Washington, also seems to be dousing the hopes of other sports-stadium developments, including the $950-million, 18,000-seat basketball arena for the Nets that had been planned as the jewel of Atlantic Yards, a residential and commercial development in downtown Brooklyn.

Andrew DeSouza, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said the proposed change would affect bonds sold after Feb. 16, 2007.

"They haven't been finalized yet," DeSouza said of the proposed IRS changes. "I'm not saying that they'll change. But it's an important issue and we're going to continue working on it."

How budget breaks down

The new Yankee Stadium, rising next to the 85-year-old stadium in the Bronx, originally carried an $830-million price tag. Driving the cost to $1.3-billion are changes made to the original plans: upgrades to concession stands, a larger, high-definition scoreboard in centerfield and nicer luxury boxes.

About $942 million in tax-exempt bonds and $25 million in taxable bond financing are part of the Yankee Stadium deal.

The city also has contributed parkland for the new stadium, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to build a Metro-North station and expanded subway platform. The state is contributing the cost of parking-garage construction. A total of $300 million is estimated to be the public contribution to the project.

The Yankees organization has assured city officials that the new stadium will be completed regardless of any IRS changes.

Similarly, for the $632-million Mets stadium, a large portion of the cost - $528 million - also would come from tax-exempt bonds.

Jay Horwitz, a spokesman for the Mets, said he had no comment when asked if the Mets had plans to seek additional tax-exempt borrowing to complete Citi Field.

The Yankees' tax problem

TAX REFORM ACT

1986: This federal legislation removed stadiums from the list of private business projects that could be financed with tax-exempt industrial development bonds. In limited cases, however, the law allows tax-exempt government bond financing for stadiums as long as local governments subsidize construction using "generally applicable taxes," such as a sales tax, real estate tax or hotel tax. The rules were designed to ensure that the federal subsidy of tax-exempt-bond financing was targeted at low-cost financing for critical public infrastructure projects.

DEALS FOR NEW YANKEES & METS STADIUMS

2006: Both the New York Yankees and New York Mets win financing deals for new stadiums in which New York City's Economic Development Corp. issues tax-exempt bonds to raise $830 million for a new Yankee Stadium and $547 million for a new Mets stadium, Citi Field. The tax-exempt government bond financing allowed the city's Industrial Development Agency to borrow money at a cheaper interest rate, saving the teams millions. To get around the 1986 IRS regulations, the deal crafted by the city and the teams utilized a PILOT mechanism - that is, payment in lieu of taxes. For the teams, the payments are equivalent to the loan payments the city must make to retire the debt incurred to build the stadium.

YANKEES NEED MORE

STADIUM CASH

February 2008: Planned upgrades to the scoreboard, concession stands and luxury suites spark the Yankees to seek an additional $350 million in tax-exempt borrowing via the city's EDC. The problem lies in potential revision of an Internal Revenue Service regulation - a revision proposed shortly after the Yankees and Mets got IRS approval for their tax-exempt financing in 2006.

STRICTER IRS REGULATION OF PILOTS COULD NIX MORE YANKEES' BORROWING

The proposed regulation under review by the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS would impose stricter interpretation of rules governing PILOTs. The proposed regulation would require PILOTs to be closely tied to "applicable taxes" such as a real estate tax, rather than a fixed payment - in the Yankees' case, a PILOT equal to the debt service on the bonds. The change could disqualify the Yankees from benefiting from further tax-exempt government financing via PILOTs. The Yankees are trying to persuade Treasury and IRS officials to drop the proposed regulation.

- KEITH HERBERT

"Rip-Off In The Bronx" WNBC 7/10/8

Rip-Off In The Bronx
By Gabe Pressman, Senior Correspondent

POSTED: 12:12 pm EDT July 10, 2008
UPDATED: 12:51 pm EDT July 10, 2008

NEW YORK -- If the people who live near Yankee Stadium believed what they were told about new parkland being built, they were deluded. That promise was a scam in a city with a rich history of scams.

This one is particularly atrocious because it hurts a neighborhood that can ill afford to lose any recreational facilities.

The Yankees made a deal with the city back in 2006 to take 25 acres of parkland to build their new stadium. The Bloomberg administration, then Gov. George Pataki and the New York Yankees promised that not only would the parkland be replaced. More land for parks would be provided. That turns out to be a false promise.

The group known as NYC Park Advocates has put out a report showing that only 21.78 acres of park land are being replaced -- meaning that the community is actually losing about four acres. The Yankees are the richest team in baseball and the Bronx neighborhood where it’s located is one of the poorest in the country.

The city and the Yankees seem to be playing a three-card monte game with the people affected.

The people have lost much of Macombs Dam and John Mullaly parks. Hundreds of trees, many at least 80 years old, have been cut down to make way for the new stadium.

That’s hardly a good thing for a community with a high asthma rate. On top of that, replacement facilities are being built over smaller plots of land and on the roof of a parking garage.

That doesn’t sound like anyone is truly interested in giving the folks in this neighborhood anything like what they lost.

City Hall says that construction costs have risen astronomically, from the $95.5 million estimated in 2006 to the current price tag, $174 million. The Yankees are also paying about 60 percent more to build the new stadium but they are getting help from taxpayer subsidies.

It’s been estimated that it will take two years to complete the so-called replacement parks. Don’t bet on it. Nor should anyone be convinced that the new parks are really new parkland. Some of it may have been listed as mapped parkland in years past.
There’s a park near the stadium named after Joyce Kilmer. He wrote the poem that begins: ‘’I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree….’’

Now they’ve torn the trees down nearby---and done it in the name of progress. As a kid I played in Macombs Dam Park. It was an oasis for young people in the neighborhood then ---and in the decades since.

Today, the kids and the neighborhood people who use the parks for recreation seem to be ignored as the city moves ahead with its grandiose plans to help the Yankees---no matter whom it hurts.

"NYC, Yankees Redefine Crookery" Sports Central 7/2/8

NYC, Yankees Redefine Crookery
By Diane M. Grassi

Just prior to the beginning of this 2008 Major League Baseball season, this writer wrote an article titled MLB Goes To Harlem Seeking Welfare, primarily examining the deceit and misappropriation of funds, regarding the new Yankee Stadium project.

It referenced the public entitlements that MLB will be receiving from the City of New York in the form of public financing and incentives, including a direct cash payment to MLB to the tune of $5 million in order to lure the tenancy of its new baseball broadcast network offices into a new high-rise building in the historic neighborhood of Harlem.

Since that time, in March 2008, the New York City Council has approved and ratified the complete rezoning of the entirety of Harlem in order to level up to 76 neighborhood businesses and residences, to completely and forever change the skyline of this once hallowed neighborhood.

The rezoning will provide for the construction of buildings over 20 stories high and is a boon for big businesses looking to cash in on lower real estate costs, especially in light of the present mortgage crisis and with property values in flux.

That prior report also discussed the parameters and arrangements of the initial public financing of both new stadiums for the NY Yankees and the NY Mets, set to be ready for Opening Day 2009 and both beneficiaries of such funding.

But upon further inspection, in addition to now realized and disclosed cost-overruns by the NY Yankees just recently, these rather complex and in some cases unorthodox arrangements extended the Yankees by the City of NY date back to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration in the mid-'90s.

And as recently as mid-June 2008, the Yankees are looking for even more handouts from NYC and New York State taxpayers between $350-400 million in funds, bringing the total and final cost of the new Yankee Stadium to nearly $2 billion, up from the its current total of $1.3 billion. And of the $2 billion, the majority would be funded either directly or indirectly by public subsidies.

But the machinations of the funding as well construction costs are now just part of the story and now includes both ongoing federal and state investigations on a multitude of issues where there is no shortage of actors in this drama.

One would think that the NY Yankees new stadium would not necessitate so many state and federal agencies and investigations, including nefarious characters involved in this script, no better suited for Broadway.

However, the new Yankee Stadium construction now includes the issues of graft within City Hall, including the former Giuliani administration, the hiring of state and federal lobbyists of both the U.S. Congress and the Internal Revenue Service, a state probe of construction fraud and violations, a Manhattan District Attorney's office racketeering investigation, an FBI probe, the Seminole Indian Tribe — with its own federal problems — and the lack of oversight by the NYC Economic Development Corporation, the NYC Buildings Department, the NYC Parks Department, as well as the NY Yankees.

In order to simplify, this part of the series discusses the involvement of the New York State legislature, as well as the IRS. The next article will delve into the more involved details concerning NYC and the NY Yankees organization and how both of their interactions and deals have led to all of their various conflict-of-interest scenarios.

What got the ire of the NY State legislature was perhaps best described by NY State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, Chairman of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions. "These decisions are being made in secret, in these Soviet-style meetings and it is outrageous." Brodsky was referring to a meeting between the NY Yankees and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration and its Economic Development Corporation office.

It was revealed that NYC is seeking relief from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to receive a special waiver from a law that the IRS amended in 2006 concerning the amount of tax-exempt bonds that may be allotted for the public financing of sports stadium facilities.

The Yankees' argument is that the amendment should be waived retroactive to 2004, when the original agreement with NYC was finalized. However, over $940 million in tax-exempt bonds have already have been floated for Yankee stadium alone.

With the NY State legislature's shortfalls in its present annual budget, Brodsky, among other legislators, feel that the $60-70 million in lost NYC, as a direct result of issuing more tax-exempt bonds, could be better spent on its infrastructure in desperate need of repairs.

Similarly, the United States Congress has gotten involved, as both NYC as well as the NY Yankees have hired lobbyists to get face time with various members of Congress serving on various finance committees who may have influence over the IRS and input in its special consideration of the NY Yankees.

But certain members of Congress believe such would set a terrible precedent for sports stadium construction all over the nation and that there was good reason for reeling in the financial structuring of such ventures, especially at a time when states are considerably strapped for cash.

Among the amenities that the NY Yankees claim they need the additional financing for is a larger video scoreboard. It is curious as to why in June 2008 that the NY Yankees all of a sudden had a need to enlarge the scoreboard decided upon a few years ago in its finalized plans. Could it be that over the winter the Kansas City Royals installed a new scoreboard at Kauffman Stadium which is now the largest of its kind in North America?

If there were not so many serious issues involved in this whole matter, it certainly would be comical. But this is past the point of amusement. It is but greed, abuse of power, and thievery in the dead of night all on the backs of New York residents and that which has potential national ramifications for all of professional sports.

As we will see in the next report, you cannot make this stuff up!

"Tax-exempt aid for new Yankee Stadium raises questions" Newsday 7/2/8

Tax-exempt aid for new Yankee Stadium raises questions
BY KEITH HERBERT AND MICHAEL FRAZIER | keith.herbert@newsday.com; michael.frazier@newsday.com
July 2, 2008

More than two years ago, New York City and its Major League Baseball teams seized upon an innovative way to use tax-exempt bonds to help fund construction of the New York Yankees' new stadium in the Bronx and the Mets' Citi Field in Queens.

For the Yankees and the New York Mets, the public financing, with its lower interest rates for borrowing money, meant at least $147 million in savings for the Yankees over 30 years and $104 million for the Mets over 40 years, according to the Independent Budget Office, an independently funded, nonpartisan watchdog agency in the city.

But now, the playing field for such financing is shifting, even as the Yankees plan to seek another $350 million in what essentially is a government-subsidized loan for construction of their $1.3-billion arena.

Questions are being raised at both the federal and state levels.

In Washington, the Internal Revenue Service is contemplating a change that could block the Yankees from getting proceeds from the extra tax-exempt bonds the team says it wants to complete the new stadium.

For the IRS, the funding mechanism has been a thorny question since 2006. Shortly after the agency approved the use of the PILOT method to pay for both New York stadiums, tax regulators proposed new restrictions on the use of PILOTs.

The proposed change in the IRS regulation, under consideration by U.S. Department of Treasury and IRS officials in Washington, also seems to be dousing the hopes of other sports-stadium developments, including the $950-million, 18,000-seat basketball arena for the Nets that had been planned as the jewel of Atlantic Yards, a residential and commercial development in downtown Brooklyn.

Andrew DeSouza, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said the proposed change would affect bonds sold after Feb. 16, 2007.

"They haven't been finalized yet," DeSouza said of the proposed IRS changes. "I'm not saying that they'll change. But it's an important issue and we're going to continue working on it."

How budget breaks down

The new Yankee Stadium, rising next to the 85-year-old stadium in the Bronx, originally carried an $830-million price tag. Driving the cost to $1.3-billion are changes made to the original plans: upgrades to concession stands, a larger, high-definition scoreboard in centerfield and nicer luxury boxes.

About $942 million in tax-exempt bonds and $25 million in taxable bond financing are part of the Yankee Stadium deal.

The city also has contributed parkland for the new stadium, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to build a Metro-North station and expanded subway platform. The state is contributing the cost of parking-garage construction. A total of $300 million is estimated to be the public contribution to the project.

The Yankees organization has assured city officials that the new stadium will be completed regardless of any IRS changes.

Similarly, for the $632-million Mets stadium, a large portion of the cost - $528 million - also would come from tax-exempt bonds.

Jay Horwitz, a spokesman for the Mets, said he had no comment when asked if the Mets had plans to seek additional tax-exempt borrowing to complete Citi Field.

The Yankees' tax problem

TAX REFORM ACT

1986: This federal legislation removed stadiums from the list of private business projects that could be financed with tax-exempt industrial development bonds. In limited cases, however, the law allows tax-exempt government bond financing for stadiums as long as local governments subsidize construction using "generally applicable taxes," such as a sales tax, real estate tax or hotel tax. The rules were designed to ensure that the federal subsidy of tax-exempt-bond financing was targeted at low-cost financing for critical public infrastructure projects.

DEALS FOR NEW YANKEES & METS STADIUMS

2006: Both the New York Yankees and New York Mets win financing deals for new stadiums in which New York City's Economic Development Corp. issues tax-exempt bonds to raise $830 million for a new Yankee Stadium and $547 million for a new Mets stadium, Citi Field. The tax-exempt government bond financing allowed the city's Industrial Development Agency to borrow money at a cheaper interest rate, saving the teams millions. To get around the 1986 IRS regulations, the deal crafted by the city and the teams utilized a PILOT mechanism - that is, payment in lieu of taxes. For the teams, the payments are equivalent to the loan payments the city must make to retire the debt incurred to build the stadium.

YANKEES NEED MORE

STADIUM CASH

February 2008: Planned upgrades to the scoreboard, concession stands and luxury suites spark the Yankees to seek an additional $350 million in tax-exempt borrowing via the city's EDC. The problem lies in potential revision of an Internal Revenue Service regulation - a revision proposed shortly after the Yankees and Mets got IRS approval for their tax-exempt financing in 2006.

STRICTER IRS REGULATION OF PILOTS COULD NIX MORE YANKEES' BORROWING

The proposed regulation under review by the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS would impose stricter interpretation of rules governing PILOTs. The proposed regulation would require PILOTs to be closely tied to "applicable taxes" such as a real estate tax, rather than a fixed payment - in the Yankees' case, a PILOT equal to the debt service on the bonds. The change could disqualify the Yankees from benefiting from further tax-exempt government financing via PILOTs. The Yankees are trying to persuade Treasury and IRS officials to drop the proposed regulation.

- KEITH HERBERT

"Hot dog clause in financing of new stadium gives taxpayers heartburn" Daily News 7/2/8

Hot dog clause in financing of new stadium gives taxpayers heartburn
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 12:56 AM

Call it the secret Hot Dog Giveaway.

The Yankees could be allowed to operate up to 25 vendor pushcarts outside the new stadium as part of a secret provision the team negotiated with the city and state for parking garages being built with public financing.

The "hot dog" clause - never made public until now - would kick in if the Yankees don't get 600 free year-round parking spaces.

That little goodie is just one ofseveral revelations buried in thousands of pages of documents and e-mails about the stadium project that city officials recently gave Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester).

Brodsky, who heads the assembly committee that oversees public authorities, demanded the documents after learning last month that the city's Industrial Development Agency was backing a Yankee request for $366 million in additional tax-exempt financing to complete the Bronx project.

The new request comes on top of the $942 million in taxexempt bonds the Yankees have received.

Brodsky has scheduled a public hearing today on the entire project. It islikely to be the toughest public review the $1.3 billion stadium has received.

"The more you see of authorities like the IDA, the more you realize they act like old-style Soviet commissars," Brodsky said. "No one has elected them, they're not accountable to anyone, and they operate in secrecy."

The assemblyman was furious when he learned that City Hall and state economic development officials have quietly urged the Internal Revenue Service to change its regulations to allow the Yankees and other city teams to pile up more tax-exempt debt simply to finance what are essentially private projects.

According to other documents IDA released to Brodsky, Mayor Bloomberg and former Gov. George Pataki greatly exaggerated the number of permanent jobs the new Yankee stadium will produce.

At the groundbreaking in August 2006, Bloomberg announced that the new stadium would "result in about 1,000 permanent jobs."

The actual job figures the Yankees submitted in their application to the IDA told a far different story.

They show the Yankees had only 104 full-time permanent employees in 2005. Included in that total were all team executives, ballplayers, office workers and maintenance personnel. Barely half were city residents.

The number of full-time permanent jobs, the Yankees projected, would increase to 140 by 2009, the year the new stadium will open. That's a gain of just 36 permanent jobs.

The big increase was expected to come in seasonal workers. The team predicted their number will jump from 440 in 2005 to 950 by the time the stadium opens - an increase of 510 part-time jobs.

In the team's newest application for more money, submitted by Yankees Vice President Lon Trost in March, the Yankees reported 879 part-timers on the payroll.

Amazingly, more than 700 of those part-timers live outside the five boroughs. So even the part-time jobs are barely benefitting city residents or the team's Bronx neighbors.

So why, we might be expected to ask, is City Hall backing hundreds of millions more in tax-exempt financing for a private business that barely employs city residents?

"At a time when we can't find enough money for the MTA and other public needs, who is making the decision to put these public resources in the hands of private parties?" Brodsky wants to know.

Well, the bureaucrats over at the IDA will finally get to explain today why they keep falling over themselves to give the richest team in American sports more public subsidies.

jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

"Corruption probe subpoenas are blanketing the Bronx" Daily News 6/30/8

More interesting is this second item:

Fort Yankee Stadium

Mayor Bloomberg apparently has adopted a bunker mentality on the new Yankee Stadium project, as serious questions arise over "equal" replacement of parkland, huge cost overruns, questionable financing and other issues.

Parks Commish Adrian Benepe is now under orders to pass any media inquiries about the project directly to Mayuh Mike's press office.

Maybe City Hall needs to build a bunker under the new stadium. ...

"Let's learn from Yankee Stadium and fix up these old dumps" SFGate 6/27/8

Let's learn from Yankee Stadium and fix up these old dumps

Thomas Swick
Friday, June 27, 2008


This year, after 85 years, the New York Yankees are playing their last season at Yankee Stadium. This exemplary American organization has concluded, amid much criticism, that just because your home happens to be a national treasure doesn't mean you can't trade it in for something more modern, more pristine, more dripping with profitable skyboxes.

The Yankees are once again proving themselves worthy of their name. For we are a nation untouched by sentimentality about the past, infused with confidence about the future. We, the people of tomorrow, boldly sweep history under the rug.
In which case, Yankee Stadium should simply serve as a start.

The Alamo

What is the comment of practically every American who visits? That's right: It's much smaller than I thought it would be.
And in Texas no less!

The place has been an embarrassment for over a century. We squeeze into our relaxed-fit jeans, drive our SUVs down eight-lane highways, stop for Whoppers and extra-cheese pizzas, and then pull up in front of this glorified manger.

We're a big people, ours is a big country, independence is a big deal - why do we allow it to be represented by this puny building?

It's time for the city of San Antonio to take down the Alamo (hey, if New Yorkers can demolish Yankee Stadium ...) and construct a new, improved Alamo, one with a 30-story, mission-style facade embedded with colored message boards that say - literally - "Independence."

It could incorporate the Menger Hotel into its sprawl and become a hotel/convention center sort of thing. It could have the River Walk running through it!

Mount Rushmore

Who are those guys again? Yeah, they were important - years and years and years ago.

And they were all, if I'm not mistaken, politicians. We don't venerate politicians. Not in the land of the spree and the home of the rave. Ours is a celebrity culture, and it's time we gave our celebrities their due.

But we're also a democracy. So let's vote on it - American Idol-style. What four stars would you, the American people, most like to see up on Mount Rushmore? Imagine the heated office debates. It's hard to leave out Brangelina, but if you pick them, you've only got space for two others. How do you resist seeing George Clooney in stone?

And because we're not slaves to the past, the faces would change every four years.

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse

Old media. Sure, it's nice to look at, but so what? It stands on prime real estate on the Outer Banks, stiff, unhelpful, a little arrogant. And you have to climb the stupid thing.

Americans want attractions that are fun, interactive, immersive - and don't require a lot of exertion, either physical or mental. Carolinians, tear down that silly tower and replace it with a theme park. And while you're at it, build a 24-hour casino next door.

Grand Canyon

A no-brainer. The thing is older than Yankee Stadium and the Alamo combined. And it's a long drive from Vegas.
Wouldn't it make sense to close up that sorry hole in the ground and build a replica in Las Vegas, the city that's famous for re-creations?
It always did seem a little odd that you went there and saw the fake Paris, the fake Venice, the fake Manhattan and then drove to see the real Grand Canyon. This way you'd get the beauty of four ersatz experiences without the bother of driving anywhere. And in Vegas you'd be able to see the entire canyon from one location (always a disappointment over there in Arizona).

The White House

Too much history, too many straight lines. How's our leader supposed to stay current, fluid, living in that museum?
Hire Frank Gehry to do one of his shiny, undulating numbers and set it down on the South Lawn. Then, even though it will consume more energy than a village in India, call it the Green House.

Thomas Swick is the travel editor of the South Florida Sun Sentinel, where this essay originally appeared. To comment, visit sfgate.com/travel and follow the links.

This article appeared on page E - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

"City choosing to forget" Metro 6/25/8

City choosing to forget
Selective memory on display in uproar over delayed Yankees’ parkland
by patrick arden / metro new york

JUN 25, 2008
When did the Bloomberg administration know that it was replacing parks lost to the new Yankee Stadium with polluted land?

That was the question City Councilwoman Helen Foster asked yesterday at a hearing on the project’s delays.

Costs to the city have doubled in the last two years, with the replacement parks’ bill climbing 84 percent to around $190 million. Yesterday, officials attributed part of the sticker shock to “unanticipated” cleanup.

“I can assure you that there was no attempt to underplay the cost,” said Liam Kavanagh of the Parks Department. But the city knew its replacement park parcels were contaminated — it’s even mentioned in the project’s initial environmental review. In 2006, Metro detailed the massive amount of pollution the city had found at the site.

The review acknowledged toxins exceeding state standards “were detected in soil samples from throughout the project area.”
Oil contamination was identified in dirt and groundwater.

National Park Service executive Jack Howard noted soil near the Harlem River had “petroleum-like odors.” With reason: The lot had hosted a Valvoline Oil facility and a power plant.

"Difficulty of Work Blamed for Delays Replacing Park Space Lost to Yankee Stadium" NY Times 6/25/8

Difficulty of Work Blamed for Delays Replacing Park Space Lost to Yankee Stadium

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: June 25, 2008
A parks department official, called before the City Council to explain why an effort to replace recreation space lost to construction of the new Yankee Stadium has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, said on Tuesday that the department’s inexperience with such complex projects was partly to blame.

The city was required to build new parks in the Bronx after Macombs Dam Park and a portion of John Mullaly Park were chosen as the site of the new stadium. State and federal law dictate that a similar amount of parkland of equal or greater fair market value replace the old parks.

The Parks and Recreation Department originally said that seven of the eight replacement parks would be completed by April 2009, in time for opening day at the new stadium. The eighth, Heritage Field, planned for the site of the current stadium, had been scheduled to open in December 2010, after the stadium is demolished, but that date has been pushed back to 2011.

Earlier this year, the agency said the completion of some of the parks would be delayed for as long as two years and cost $174 million, up from an earlier estimate of $95.5 million. The new figures prompted the City Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee to call for a hearing.

On Tuesday, council members asked Liam Kavanagh, the parks department’s first deputy commissioner, a series of pointed questions, including whether the agency had been dishonest about its original cost estimates.

“Is there a possibility the numbers were watered down or made less to make the package more appealing?” asked Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster, the committee chairwoman.

Mr. Kavanagh responded, “I can assure you there was no attempt to underplay the cost of the replacement program.”

He said the agency had had trouble carrying out its plan to place some of the replacement parks in unusual locations, including one atop a stadium parking garage. “It is not something we are fully familiar with,” he said.

The rooftop park, which will include a 400-meter track and basketball courts, was supposed to be completed next year. Now that date has been pushed back to 2010, the parks department has said.

Another replacement park, on an abandoned site along the Harlem River waterfront, ran into trouble when crews found more oil barrels buried there than they had been told to expect, he said. That led to significant costs for removing the barrels and cleaning toxic substances.

“This site is much different than something we typically deal with,” he said. The park along the waterfront will cost about $56 million to build, the department now says.

Mr. Kavanagh said that despite the problems, the waterfront park would be “available for public use a year from now, in line with the original schedule.” However, the stadium’s 2005 environmental report said the park would be done by October 2007.

When Councilman Alan Gerson asked why the agency had not done a more thorough analysis of replacement park sites to determine what they contained before starting construction, Mr. Kavanagh said that in many cases, the department had lacked access to do proper studies.

Mr. Gerson said, “All the reasons you cited are reasons why we should do full-fledged estimates before funding is in place.’’

Other delays and cost overruns are a result of rising construction prices and the decision to expand some parks, including Heritage Field, Mr. Kavanagh said. Three-quarters of an acre was added to that park, bringing it to a total of about 8.9 acres.

He said construction costs alone have been rising 0.75 percent to 1.5 percent each month.

“With international demand for petroleum-based products and basic construction commodities at an all-time high and local demand for construction services pushing supply limits, construction costs continue to outpace even the most liberal estimates,” Mr. Kavanagh said.

Mr. Kavanagh said that despite the delays and escalating costs, the city was committed to building the replacement parks as quickly as possible.

"Public to MTA, Yanks: Enough already!" AM New York 6/12/8

Public to MTA, Yanks: Enough already!
By Marlene Naanes | mnaanes@am-ny.com
8:21 PM EDT, June 12, 2008

New Yorkers have heard it all before and they say they've heard enough.

When big-ticket projects around the city are facing cost overruns, delays or funding difficulties, outstretched hands tap the public coffers. Somehow, some way, New Yorkers feel the cost always trickles down to them.

"The public always gets the brunt of it," said Andrew Steinhandler, 27, of Astoria. "There needs to be an end to asking for public support."

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority said this week that fares could go up sooner than expected if the state and federal government doesn't help relieve the agency's hundreds of millions in deficits.

At the same time, the Yankees said they are seeking $350 million more in public financing than it had originally agreed to in order to build its new stadium.

The latest came from the governor in his request for an audit on the World Trade Center site redevelopment. Gov. David Paterson's letter to the Port Authority hinted that the project could be facing delays and cost increases.

Enough, New Yorkers said.

"I have a tough time swallowing any kind of hardship the MTA might complain about," said Brian Oakes, 34, of Clinton Hill. "Every year or two years it seems like there's a hike in fares."

The Yankees probably knew they needed extra financing help all along, said a frustrated Robert Bernstein, 36, of Chelsea. "They tried to sell us on the sizzle and now they say they need more money."

Taxpayers feel the Yankees, the MTA and any other entity seeking more financing should look to bail themselves out instead of dipping into the public's pocket for more money.

The MTA said in a statement Thursday it has and will continue to tighten its belt. Yankees representatives did not respond to requests for comment. The Port Authority said it is conducting the governor-ordered assessment.

The Yankees' request received the most ire from public officials. Assembly members sent a letter Thursday asking for a hearing to examine why private sports projects have received support while other public projects have not.

"We can't fund the MTA capital plan yet someway we can find ways to fund a stadium," said Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester).

One taxpayer said people who oversee publicly-funded agencies or projects need to do a better job managing funds and predicting for the future.

"Everything just seems to be increasing, so I don't know if the economy a viable argument anymore," said Claire Pujol, 25, of East Harlem.

"Green Thievery in the South Bronx" NY Times 6/14/8

EDITORIAL
Green Thievery in the South Bronx

Published: June 14, 2008
Many promises were made two years ago when the New York Yankees grabbed prime parkland in the South Bronx to build a new stadium. One of them, made by the city, was that residents would have better parks, soccer fields, tracks and ball courts to replace what was taken away. That has not yet happened — and it must.

The Yankees took more than 20 acres of contiguous parkland — from Macombs Dam and John Mullaly Parks — to build a new stadium adjacent to the original one. Hundreds of mature trees were felled, and even though thousands of new ones have been planted, the area feels like the construction zone it is. State and federal law requires creation of equal or similar amounts of parkland when acres are given up for nonpublic purpose. But the city, which is paying for the new green spaces, is moving too slowly.

Residents have every right to be annoyed over the swap. Replacement facilities would be spread out over smaller plots of land, even over a parking garage. And instead of the natural turf that was taken away, the surface of choice is artificial and less appealing.

Tennis courts that had been in the center of Macombs Dam Park, across the street from residential buildings, will increase in number, but along the waterfront. Attractive as that may sound, it is too far and requires crossing too many busy roadways to be practical for those who live in the area.

In explaining the delays, the city says costs have risen from $95.5 million in 2006 to $174 million. The Yankees are also paying substantially more than first estimated, about 60 percent more, for their new digs. But they are being helped along by hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and may be heading back to the public trough for more. The team is on schedule to play in their new home next spring. Completing the parks for residents, meanwhile, may take another two years.

The Yankees are the richest team in baseball. Their neighbors are among the poorest in the nation. The city should move faster to provide substitutes for the healthy green spaces that have been taken away.

"High End or Low, Ballparks Break Bank" NY Times 6/14/8

High End or Low, Ballparks Break Bank

By JIM DWYER
Published: June 14, 2008

An interesting problem is what to do with the words and numbers “$2 billion.” Hardly anyone really knows what they mean. One example, worth repeating, is that the difference between a million and a billion seconds is the difference between 11 days and 33 years. A thousand seconds is 16 minutes.

This week, word came that the Yankees want $250 million to $350 million more in tax-free bonds to complete construction of what is the most expensive stadium ever built in the country. With $943 million already in its bucket, the team is scratching around for additional public financing to bring the Yankees’ part of the project to about $1.2 billion.

Add to that at least $500 million that the city is paying to build garages and to replace parkland, a figure that is likely to climb. By the time kids are at last playing in the new parks that will replace the ones handed over to the professional sports team, no one would be surprised if the whole stadium package came to $2 billion.

Such a number has no connection to ordinary life. It might help to scale things down.

The Yankees and the Mets are at one end of the professional sports world, in Major League Baseball. At the other end would be Class A short-season teams, which play 38 home games a year. Each team may field no more than 3 players who are older than 23. About 10 years ago, New York City built two ballparks for Class A short-season teams, one in Coney Island, Brooklyn, for an affiliate of the Mets, the other near the ferry terminal in Staten Island for a team half-owned by the Yankees.

Counting the improvements made to the streets around the stadium, the Staten Island ballpark cost about $76 million, the most expensive minor league baseball stadium ever built. It was 8 or 9 times the cost of the average minor league stadium built for 10 years before it, and was more than twice as much as the next costliest.

Both minor league parks are beautifully situated: In Staten Island, the stands overlook New York Harbor, and in Coney Island, the stadium is alongside the ocean.

Charming as they are, the two stadiums together cost about $120 million. Both teams have long-term leases with the city and are supposed to pay rent based on attendance. But the rent has rarely amounted to more than a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

Sometime in the next few years, New York City will have completed two new major league stadiums, with the Mets building a new park in Flushing, Queens. In the span of a decade, the city will have spent well over $2 billion to subsidize professional sports teams.

The stadiums began as a cause championed by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. His successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, professing great skepticism about the public financing of sports arenas, walked away from deals that Mr. Giuliani made in the last hours of his administration. Now, however, Mr. Bloomberg — a man with firsthand experience of what a billion dollars means — has proven to be every bit as generous as his predecessor.

That still leaves the problem of scale.

So one more example.

To build the stadiums in Brooklyn and Staten Island for 12 weeks a year of minor league baseball, the city borrowed the $120 million over three decades. The debt service on those loans costs the city $6 million annually, or $500,000 for every week of play.

And what does $6 million a year mean?

That is about $2 million more than the city pays for sports equipment and uniforms for 400,000 public high school students. And that means $10 a kid.

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

"'Soviet-Style' Tactics Said To Be Used To Help Yanks" The Sun 6/13/8

'Soviet-Style' Tactics Said To Be Used To Help Yanks
By PETER KIEFER, Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 13, 2008

City and state officials are working in concert to convince the Internal Revenue Service to make it easier to get access to hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-exempt financing for the construction of the Yankees, Mets, and Nets stadiums.

All three projects have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-exempt bond financing, but the city and state are seeking more, which has angered a number of watchdog groups and state legislators.

"These decisions are being made in secret in these Soviet-style meetings and it is outrageous," the chairman of the Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Richard Brodsky, said. On Wednesday, it was disclosed that the Yankees had approached the city about seeking an additional $350 million in tax-exempt financing.

"The city is working in Washington to seek relief on the IRS regulations," the president of the New York City Economic Development Corp., Seth Pinsky, said in an interview yesterday.

Since the 1986 Tax Reform Act was enacted during the Reagan administration, private development companies have faced tight restrictions when attempting to get access to tax-exempt bonds for sports facilities.

In 2006, with the support of the Bloomberg administration, the Yankees and the Mets were able to circumvent the federal regulation by employing a complex accounting technique that allows the bond debt to be paid by the city and state with money received from the private developer, known as payments in lieu of taxes.

Now the IRS is considering closing the loophole for future projects, a move city officials say would hinder development. They say that more private development projects should be able to get the benefits of tax-exempt bonding.

"They have taken away a tool that would be useful for a number of New York City development projects. Ideally we would like the ability to use this financing tool more broadly," Mr. Pinsky said.

The bonds, exempt from city, state, and federal taxes, are said to have an interest rate of about 25% below taxable bonds. According to the city's Independent Budget Office, the construction of the new Yankee stadium has already received $920 million in tax-exempt bond financing, resulting in savings of $190 million in tax payments for the Yankees.

Taxpayers are ultimately forced to pick up part of that tab. According to the Independent Budget Office, the city's treasury lost $10 million in taxes, the state $18 million, and the federal government $200 million.

City officials see the bonds as a relatively inexpensive way to subsidize development, specifically because the federal government picks up a greater share of the tab.

"What is advantageous is that the vast majority is paid for by federal taxes as a result the city loses a small amount of money," Mr. Pinsky said. "We are leveraging a small amount of city and state funds to get a substantial amount of federal assistance."

Bettina Damiani, a project director at a government watchdog group, Good Jobs New York, questions why the city would seek a break from Washington on sports stadium projects when there are so many other pressing infrastructure problems in the city that need additional financing.

"Doesn't the mayor have better things to do than be asking Washington for money to help the Yankees?" she said.

The writer of the book "Field of Schemes," Neil deMause, says the accounting trick used for the Yankees and Mets stadiums counters the intent of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. "At a certain point, this is a huge way for the cities to raid the federal treasury, and let everybody borrow tax exempt money," he said.

Mr. Pinsky said all the funds had been cleared by the IRS. He also said that the developer Forest City Ratner Co. had expressed interest to the city about seeking additional tax-exempt funding, but that the request was being handled by the state.

"We are not making an end-run around anyone," Mr. Pinsky said. "The IRS issued a letter saying what we are doing was perfectly legal."

A spokeswoman for the Yankees, Alice McGillion, said it was always the intent to be seeking additional tax-exempt funding, but she said the exact sum that would be sought had not been determined.

While in Washington yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg was asked about the possibility of additional subsidies for Yankee Stadium.

"With the current regulations, we couldn't give out any more interest-subsidized bonds. So it's an interesting thing. We'll talk to them certainly, as we'd talk to anyone building anything large in the city. But I think it's premature. We would like to see them do it without any more assistance, and whether they can do that or not, I don't know," he said.

"New York State Assembly questions Yankee Stadium funding" Daily News 6/13/8

New York State Assembly questions Yankee Stadium funding
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, June 13th 2008, 2:07 AM

State lawmakers and fiscal watchdog groups cried foul Thursday over the Yankees' bid for another $350 million in public financing for their new stadium, saying it could soak up funds needed for parks and transportation.

Three state Assembly members from New York City called for a public hearing to examine a proposal to provide public support for one the richest franchises in sports.

"These sports teams are private companies that appear addicted to keeping their hands in the government cookie jar," said Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn.

Jeffries and Assemblymen Ruben Diaz Jr. and Jose Peralta asked for a hearing on the use of public funds for the Yankees that they said were negotiated "in secret and without the control of elected officials" while other community projects are desperate for funding.

About $941 million in tax-exempt public bonds have already been issued for the $1.3 billion stadium that the Yankees are building across the street from their current ballpark in the Bronx.

Under current Internal Revenue Service regulations, the Yankees cannot ask for more public debt to be incurred for the stadium.

But city officials have been lobbying Washington for a change in IRS regulations that would allow the Yankees to get the $350 million in additional tax-exempt bonds they say they need. Such a change could help other big stadium projects — not just the new Yankee Stadium.

"The city along with the state as well as others have been working in Washington to seek relief from the applicable IRS regulations," said Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp.

Yankees president Randy Levine confirmed Wednesday that the Yankees were seeking additional bonding. A team spokesman said Thursday the Yankees had nothing to add.

The Yankees still plan to have the stadium completed by Opening Day 2009, regardless of whether they secure the additional funding.

The fact that the Yankees were seeking more financing didn't go down well with activists who questioned the need for a new stadium all along.

The Yankees' Opening Day payroll of $209.1 million was by far the highest in the Major Leagues. And when their new stadium opens next year it will be feature amenities like luxury suites, conference meeting rooms and a concierge service that should guarantee that the team's fans will be the richest in the majors as well.

Ticket prices will go up as well, with the team charging $500 to $2,500 for seats near home plate in the first five-to-eight rows of the new ballpark.

Critics of the stadium said other projects are more deserving of the money, such as transportation improvements, hospitals, schools, and the Hunts Point Market, America's biggest wholesale produce market, which is looking to leave New York if the city doesn't help rebuild its aging facility in the Bronx.

"I don't see why they should be allowed to use more tax-exempt bonds," said Neil deMause, co-author of "Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit." ''There's no benefit to the city for this."

Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, which unsuccessfully sued to block the new stadium because it required the razing of two city parks, said he welcomed legislative hearings into the Yankees' financing.

City economic development officials said they hope to persuade the IRS to rescind regulations against funding professional stadiums. The Yankees' proposal could lead to similar funding for the new Mets stadium and an arena for the NBA's New Jersey Nets, but could also apply to construction projects for other teams.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who made the Yankee proposal public, said negotiations over the proposed IRS change have taken place in secret, but Pinsky said his agency has nothing to hide.

"The Yankees have informally approached us to seek some additional financing for their project," he said. "The reason nothing's been made public is that there is nothing to make public at this point."

"Yankees to City: What’s Another $350M Between Friends?" Village Voice 6/12/8

Yankees to City: What’s Another $350M Between Friends?
Posted by Neil deMause at 11:00 AM, June 12, 2008


What? This stadium just isn't good enough?

Next time you're tempted to conclude that New York's state legislature is entirely useless, remember this: State Assemblymember Richard Brodsky broke the news on Tuesday that the Yankees are looking to get an additional $350 million in city tax-exempt bonds for their new stadium, currently under construction in the Bronx.

"The explosion of public debt issued by obscure semi-public and private institutions is reaching unmanageable proportions," declared Brodsky, chair of the committee overseeing public authorities. "The Yankee Stadium financing may or may not be a good thing, but it certainly should be done in the light of day."

In the interest of daylight, then: The $350 million the Yanks are seeking would be on top of the $940 million in city bonds the team already got in 2006; presumably, the added cash would help pay for the $300 million in extra costs (for such things as a larger scoreboard) that team officials first reported in February.

The Steinbrenner clan would pay off the bonds, but by using city-backed tax-exempt debt, could save beaucoup bucks — about $60 million, according to the city Independent Budget Office.

In effect, the city would be arranging a low-cost loan to the Yanks, with the savings coming out of the city, state, and (mostly) federal treasuries. The big question is whether it's legal. Since 1986, tax-exempt bonds have been mostly off-limits to teams if they’re paying the bulk of stadium construction costs. The trick the Yanks (and Mets) used to get around this restriction: officially designating their stadium costs as “payments in lieu of property taxes,” or PILOTs, magically transforming their private money into tax dollars as far as the feds were concerned. (The new stadium, like the old, will be publicly owned and pay no property taxes.) Though IBO director Ronnie Lowenstein warned that this was "a very, very aggressive interpretation of the IRS code,” the IRS okayed the deal in July 2006, paving the way for the Yanks’ groundbreaking the next month.

The resulting flurry of questions led the IRS to tighten up the new loophole slightly, requiring that for all projects going forward, any PILOT payments be adjusted year to year to reflect the actual assessed value of the land — a provision that’s expected to reduce the value of the bond subsidy slightly, since bondholders like to know that their money’s coming regardless of what the real estate market is doing.

Another potential obstacle for the new Yankee bonds: The IRS still insists that PILOTs can be no more than the total property taxes that would be due on the site; as the IBO was already skeptical that the existing payments fell below this threshold, tacking on another $350 million is sure to raise more questions as to whether the IRS is bending the rules to please a powerful taxpayer. (Janel Patterson, a spokesperson for the city Economic Development Corporation, issued a statement that the city would be “working with the State in Washington to seek relief from the applicable IRS Regulation,” but didn’t provide specifics.)

For Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York, which has issued several reports analyzing the Yankees deal, the latest news was déjà vu all over again. "It's like Groundhog Day,” she says. “At a time when gas prices are through the roof, property taxes are increasing, water bills are getting higher, they say they're going to raise the subway fare again, all of this so we can cater to Steinbrenner? Misplaced priorities is an understatement."

"Yankees Want More NYC Bonds for Stadium: Brodsky" ABC News 6/10/8

Yankees Want More NYC Bonds for Stadium: Brodsky
By Joan Gralla
June 10, 2008

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Yankees baseball team wants a city agency to sell $350 million of bonds for its new stadium or else it will not be able to complete the project, state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said on Tuesday.

The Internal Revenue Service, however, would have to approve the new bond sale. The federal tax agency cracked down on financing these types of projects with tax-exempt debt after the Yankees got a waiver for the first sale of debt for their new stadium in the Bronx, the Westchester Democrat said.

"Right now, they (the Yankees) are saying they don't think they can complete the stadium unless the Internal Revenue Service ruling is reversed and they apparently have been joined in this effort to reverse the ruling by the Nets and the Mets," Brodsky told Reuters by phone.

However, Yankees President Randy Levine said: "This will not affect the completion of the stadium."

Levine and the city's debt-selling agency confirmed they wanted a waiver from the IRS. "We are working under the strong leadership of the city and state to try to seek relief from the regulations," Levine said.

The Yankees, one of the most profitable U.S. sports enterprises, once threatened to move out of the Bronx.

Though the team that has won 26 World Series titles decided to stay put, civic advocates say they and their cross-town rivals, the Mets, got overly rich taxpayer subsidies.

The new Yankee stadium is expected to open in 2009, replacing the 1923 stadium made famous by Babe Ruth.

In addition to other benefits, the city's Industrial Development Authority in 2006 sold $941 million of tax-exempt bonds for the Yankees and $548 million of debt for the Mets, whose Shea Stadium in Queens dates back to 1964.

Tax-exempt debt is crucial for the new basketball arena's financing. The Nets, which won two championships when they were in the American Basketball Association, plan to open the Brooklyn arena in time for the 2010-2011 season.

Janel Patterson, an Industrial Development Authority spokeswoman, confirmed the city would consider selling more debt for the Yankees and said the IRS ruling blocks other projects.

"The City is working with the State in Washington to seek relief from the applicable IRS regulation, as this regulation has taken away a tool that would be useful for a number of important, New York economic development projects, not just Yankee Stadium," she said in a statement.

A spokesman for the Nets had no immediate comment. A spokesman for the Mets was not immediately available.

Brodsky demanded reforms and more accountability, saying: "The explosion of public debt issued by obscure semi-public and private institutions is reaching unmanageable proportions."

Brodsky also questioned if a city corporation, the Capital Resource Corporation that now plans to sell debt formerly sold by another agency, had met disclosure requirements.

He added: "These deals are usually negotiated secretly, with little accountability or public oversight, and directly or indirectly leave taxpayers on the hook.

(Editing by Braden Reddall)

"Time and Cost Rise for Yankee Stadium Parks" NY Times 5/25/8

Time and Cost Rise for Yankee Stadium Parks

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: May 25, 2008

The cost of replacing two popular parks where the new Yankee Stadium is being built has nearly doubled. At the same time, several of the eight new parks, which were supposed to be completed before the new stadium opens next spring, have been delayed by as much as two years, according to city documents.

The price of the new small parks — which are to replace tennis and basketball courts, a running track and baseball and soccer fields eliminated to make way for the new stadium — is now projected to be $174 million, almost one-seventh the cost of the $1.3 billion stadium itself. The original estimate had been $95.5 million. The increase comes amid skyrocketing costs for construction projects, both public and private, around the city.

The stadium is being financed by the Yankees with city subsidies, while the eight new parks for the South Bronx, which range in size from 0.24 acre to 8.9 acres, are being paid for by the city.

None of the replacement parks have been completed, and construction on several has not yet started; however, the parks department has built a temporary replacement park on a parking lot in the area, opened a ball field this spring at a school almost a mile to the east, and is building a sports field at a recreation center about a mile to the north.

The city was required to build the new parks after it selected the 28.4-acre Macombs Dam Park and a portion of the 18.5-acre John Mullaly Park as the site of the new stadium in 2005. State and federal law dictated that a similar amount of parkland nearby of equal or greater fair market value be built to replace the parks that would be lost.

Some residents have been critical of the trade-off. While Macombs Dam and Mullaly Parks were almost contiguous stretches of grass and trees amid the concrete topography of the South Bronx, the replacement parks are small parcels scattered around the area. The sites include sports fields atop a planned stadium parking garage and a park along the Harlem River, which is on the opposite side of the Major Deegan Expressway.

The parks department has predicted a net increase of 2.14 acres of parkland in the swap, to 24.56 acres from 22.42 acres. But that has failed to quell some local disappointment.

“We’ve lost our biggest park, and what we’ve been reduced to is this parking lot,” said Anita Antonetty, 51, a South Bronx resident, referring to the temporary park at Jerome Avenue and East 161st Street. “We lost hundreds of trees that were 80 years old, and now there’s this monstrosity of cement across the street from where people live.”

The parks department gave the $95.5 million cost estimate for the replacement parks as part of the city’s final environmental impact study for the stadium project in August 2006.

In March, Adrian Benepe, the parks commissioner, told the City Council parks committee that the figure had climbed to $190 million. Last week, Jama Adams, a department spokeswoman, put the cost estimate for the replacement parks at $174 million — about $16 million less than Mr. Benepe’s figure — but said that it might continue to grow. She said Mr. Benepe had spoken “off the top of his head.”

The estimated cost of the replacement parks now almost matches the amount the parks department has spent building and refurbishing parks and recreation centers throughout the Bronx over the past six years. Since 2002, the agency has spent $178 million on parks and recreation centers in the borough, according to department figures.

Parks officials said the cost of the replacement parks had risen because of a series of unforeseen circumstances, including the discovery of buried oil barrels beneath one of the future parks and construction costs that have been rising 1.5 percent each month.

“This increase to city funds covers conditions we have recently encountered that simply could not be anticipated beforehand,” the department said in a May 12 report provided to The New York Times.

As part of a further explanation, Ms. Adams wrote in an e-mail message that “construction costs have continued to increase at a rate beyond what we anticipated, we have added new aspects to our projects, and we have learned new things about the sites that have affected our design and infrastructure work.”

Ms. Adams added that the cost of building the stadium had also increased, by about 60 percent, although Yankees officials have said the stadium will be completed on time next spring, even if the replacement parks are delayed.

Mr. Benepe declined to be interviewed for this article. Ms. Adams said it was typical for costs to increase as projects proceed from the design stage.

The parks department attributed the delays of as long as two years for the replacement parks to “unforeseen site conditions and new design aspects.”

The delays mean the neighborhood will go at least five years without some of its sports fields: Stadium construction in Macombs Dam Park started in 2006, and the permanent replacement park will not be completed until 2011.

The Bronx borough president, Adolfo Carrión Jr., a supporter of the stadium project and the parks plan, said through a spokeswoman that he was briefed monthly by the parks department.

“As of today, the project remains on schedule,” the spokeswoman, Anne Fenton, said in an e-mail message last week. “We have made sure that the parks department is meeting on a regular basis with the community and addressing any concerns.”

But opponents of the stadium project said they are not surprised by the problems surrounding it.

“The real emphasis was on building a stadium for the Yankees, and the community and the parks were an inconvenient afterthought,” said Christian DiPalermo, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, an advocacy group. “The Yankees couldn’t miss a season, but it was O.K. for the community to miss five years of parkland and be shut out of a community benefits agreement.”

Under a community benefits program agreement between the Yankees and Bronx elected officials, intended to help mitigate the effects of the stadium construction, Bronx charities were to receive $800,000 annually once construction started. But only $11,500 of that money has been distributed so far, according to the group that administers the fund.

The temporary park at Jerome Avenue and 161st Street was meant to provide a measure of tranquillity and recreational space as the stadium construction opened last spring, but it was almost a year behind schedule, according to city documents. Now heavily used, it will be paved over for a stadium parking garage once the replacement parks are finished.

With the exception of Heritage Field, a park planned for the grounds of the existing Yankee Stadium, the city said in its 2006 environmental impact report that the replacement parks would be ready by next year.

“By 2009, all of the replacement parkland and recreational facilities would be constructed,” the report stated. Residents said parks officials told them at the time that the parks would be finished by April 2009, in time for opening day at the new stadium.

But the department now says that much of the work will not be finished until almost a year later, including a park that will house a permanent 400-meter running track, four basketball courts, a combination soccer and football field and eight handball courts.

Heritage Field, which will have three sports fields, has also been delayed nearly a year — from December 2010 to the fall of 2011. The park is expected to cost $50 million, a figure that includes the demolition of the existing Yankee Stadium, the parks department said.

Work on two other replacement parks — each smaller than a half-acre — which had been scheduled for completion by October 2007 will not begin until next month, the parks department said.

Another replacement park, a 5.8-acre parcel on the Harlem River waterfront that is expected to cost $56 million to build, was also scheduled to be finished by last October, but will not open until sometime in the winter of 2009, the department said.

"Locals unsold on park; Bloomberg’s first ‘redevelopment park’ far from Yankee Stadium" Metro 4/21/8

Locals unsold on park
Bloomberg’s first ‘redevelopment park’ far from Yankee Stadium
by patrick arden / metro new york

APR 21, 2008
MELROSE. On Friday, the Bloomberg administration opened a new artificial-turf ballfield on an old schoolyard here and billed it as “the first Yankee redevelopment park.”

The city had promised to create replacement parks in the South Bronx to make up for the 25 acres of parkland lost to the new Yankee Stadium project.

But the replacement scheme has yet to show an actual gain of open space. A hodgepodge of parcels, the plan relies on 12.5 acres that were already mapped as parkland or were asphalt playgrounds like the lot here at P.S. 29, which was built 45 years ago.

The city spent $2.4 million to put down the fake turf in this schoolyard and to build bleachers, dugouts and a handball court. But the new park is one mile away from the parks that were taken away — it’s in an entirely different neighborhood, overseen by a different community board.

Joyce Hogi walked 15 blocks to attend Friday’s ceremony. “They were long blocks, too,” she said. Last year Hogi testified before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee about the community’s opposition to the Yankees’ stadium project.
“If they had asked us where we wanted replacement parks, guaranteed no one would have said, let’s come all the way over here,” Hogi said.

Artificial turf under fire in other states

The new artificial turf field at P.S. 29 was unveiled just as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it’s looking into the possible health hazards of artificial turf.

Last week, two artificial turf fields were closed by New Jersey health officials after detecting high levels of lead. Lead can cause brain damage and other illnesses.

While the concerns arose from surface coloring and airborne dust, many turf fields use crumbled tire rubber, which has also been found to contain lead.

The city’s Health Department is currently compiling its own report.

“There’s no doubt in my mind it’s safe,” said Parks Department Commissioner Adrian Benepe.

The city is spending $190 million on the new replacement park facilities, upgrading existing spaces and cleaning up some land by the Harlem River.

Bronx Community Board 4 continues its anti-democratic ways

Last Tuesday at the Bronx Community Board 4 Parks & Recreation Committee meeting, one community resident asked how he could become a committee member. He was told that there was a moratorium on community residents becoming committee members. Below are two articles from the New York City Charter and a paragraph from the Community Board Member Handbook that outline the participation of community members on the community boards:


CITY CHARTER: CHAPTER 69
COMMUNITY DISTRICTS AND COTERMINALITY OF SERVICES
SECTION 2700. DECLARATION OF INTENT.
It is the intent of this chapter to encourage and facilitate coterminous (adjacent) community districts and service districts to be used for the planning of community life within the city, the participation of citizens in City government within their communities, and the efficient and effective organization of agencies that deliver municipal services in local communities and boroughs.

11-83 Although the Charter requires that the chairperson of each Community Board committee be a Board member, there is no limitation as to the number of non-Board members who may be appointed to serve on a Board committee.
Non-Board Members on Committees - The Charter permits community residents who are not Board members to serve on Board committees. This is a good way of drawing on additional expertise and manpower. It is also a method of recruiting potential Board members. A Board member must chair each committee.

Previous to the purge of CB4 board members over the last two years, members of the community could join a committee by attending three consecutive committee meetings. It is not as if CB4's committees are bursting at the seams with members. Most of the committees cannot get a quorum, and meetings are far and few between. Therefore, it appears that this so-called moratorium is just another tactic to keep the people from participating in the process of city government within this community.

Community boards cannot be run as private clubs restricted to like-minded people. We, the community who live and work in this district, need to get CB4 back to being the forum where all can voice their concerns and vision for this community; and, thus, work together to make this district a better place to live.

Anita Antonetty

Serrano Letter to Mayor on Congestion Pricing and Yankee Stadium Parking 4/2/8

April 2, 2008

Honorable Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, New York 10007

Mayor Bloomberg:

In the past year, I have provided strong and unwavering support for the city's congestion pricing plan, even when that position has not proven politically expedient. My support was based on the plan's merits and the fact that my community suffers a disproportionate number of environmental burdens. I continue to believe that congestion pricing is a major step toward rectifying environmental and social injustice.

I also believed that congestion pricing would not only reduce smog-producing vehiculartraffic in Manhattan, but in all the boroughs of New York City. The aim of congestion pricing is to encourage commuters to leave their cars at home, and not overburden our boroughs with additional traffic. Residential parking permits gave assurances to local communities that their neighborhoods would not become a haven for commuters seeking to avoid the congestion pricing fee.

With that said, it troubles me to learn of a major loophole emerging outside of the congestion pricing zone - specifically, the rules and regulations that concern several new parking facilities under construction or already completed at the new Yankee Stadium site.

The South Bronx community, with extraordinarily high asthma rates, will suffer if parking lot spaces remain open for commuters on non-game days. Given the increasing costs of gas, and the potential congestion pricing fee, the South Bronx will become an attractive park-and-ride destination for commuters from Westchester, New Jersey and other areas. As current policy indicates, most if not all existing parking facilities are only open for fans attending Yankee games. They are closed on all other days of the year. My hope is that this policy does not change to accommodate drivers bypassing congestion pricing fees.

Since Yankee parking for the old stadium lots is not open now, I see no reason why the lots should suddenly need to be kept open year-round for the new stadium.

My understanding is that any decision on the new parking lots will be made several weeks from now. It alarms me that such decisions are being made after legislative votes in the City Council and State Legislature on congestion pricing, not to mention the fact they were not made in concert with the Traffic Mitigation Commission.

Opening up the parking garages in this area will draw increased automobile traffic into the South Bronx. For example, commuters who currently park daily at high-priced Manhattan garages will be encouraged to rent space in the lower priced Yankee garages, and then take the subway downtown.

I also want to prevent these lots from becoming a transportation crutch for those who commute to the South Bronx for work. Many of these people take mass transit, but will consider driving should there be an increased supply of parking spaces.

Expanded commuter parking defeats the purpose and spirit of congestion pricing, the whole point of which is to encourage commuters to leave their cars at home and to enhance mass transit.

I thank you for taking the issue of residential street-parking permits seriously. But in the neighborhoods around Yankee Stadium, the issue of lot parking is just as important as that of street parking. A failure to deliberate on this matter opens up a real loophole in our parking strategies and traffic mitigation efforts.

I am urging you to take this issue seriously. Please take the necessary steps to prevent park-and-ride sprawl in the South Bronx. As the congestion pricing vote approaches Albany this week or next, I ask you for a timely response to my concerns.


Sincerely,

José M. Serrano

"Showing Power, but Weakening a Neighborhood" NY Times 3/31/8

Showing Power, but Weakening a Neighborhood

By HARVEY ARATON
Published: March 31, 2008

Baseball season is an 85-year-old fact of neighborhood life. Happens every spring. Still, opening day is no less jarring, a fresh reminder to a longtime resident of how the Yankees rule.

Joyce Hogi lives on the Grand Concourse, a five-minute walk from her job as assistant to the principal at All Hallows High School on 164th Street in the South Bronx. “Once again, it’s so much in your face, cars and police barricades everywhere, everything geared to the comfort of the Yankees and their fans,” she said.

The Yankees win. When John Sterling makes the “the” sound hysterically polysyllabic on the radio this season, take a moment to consider at whose expense.

By the tens of thousands, fans will come Monday for opening day, Toronto at the Yankees, and every game day thereafter to gape at the retrofit future Yankee Stadium that stands, however unfinished, alongside the weathered ti