Yankee Scorecard, or the no spin zone

The Developers Claim:
This plan is a good one, because the public will not bear any costs of the new stadium.

The Community Responds:
FieldofSchemes.com reports that the public investment needed to facilitate the development of this “free” stadium is about $450 million.
* $140 million in city funds for replacement parks, et al
* $ 70 million in parking lot construction subsidy
* $ 5 million in state capital reserve funds
* $ 15 million in rent rebates for existing stadium
* $ 55 million in tax exempt bond subsidies
* $ 44 million in Yankees property tax waiver
* $ 22 million on sales-tax breaks on construction materials
* $103 million in forgone stadium rent revenue

The Developers Claim:
The Project will result in huge economic gains for the city.

The Community Responds:
The DEIS and supporting ERA report indicate that total tax benefit of this proposal is approximately $225 million, a net loss of $225 million over 30 years. The Village Voice indicates that the ERA report may be overstating economic benefits and estimates total tax impact to be $150 million, or a loss of $300 million over 30 years.

The Developers Claim:
A New Yankee Stadium will mean thousands and thousands of construction jobs.

The Community Responds:
Construction will yield about 4,500 on site jobs. When construction is over, these jobs will disappear, along with their benefit to the community. The renovation of Fenway Park will actually employ 5,500 construction workers, suggesting that renovating the current structure may be a more effective way to provide temporary construction jobs.

The Developers Claim:
A New Yankee Stadium will mean thousands of good new jobs for Bronx residents.

The Community Reponds:
The DEIS and ERA report indicates that a new stadium would result in only 700 new permanent jobs, most of which would be part-time, low-wage, seasonal jobs. The Croton Facility Monitoring Committee reports that more than half the construction jobs there use labor originating outside of New York City, and 75% of labor originates from outside the Bronx. So perhaps 1,100 temporary construction jobs may go to Bronx residents

The Developers Claim:
A New Yankee Stadium would drive up attendance with new fans bringing new dollars to the area.

The Community Responds:
Yankees home attendance was 4.09 million in 2005, an American League record. In order to bring in the proposed 600,000 new fans indicated in the EIS, the new facility would have to draw 4.7 million people, an average of 58,000 per game. This is impossible in a stadium seating 53,000.

The Developers Claim:
A new Yankee Stadium would be a tourist attraction, including a 300 seat restaurant and Hall of Fame.

The Community Responds:
The existing Yankee Stadium is a tourist attraction and features year round tours and gift shop.
A 300 seat restaurant is the equivalent of an Appleby’s and would serve locals more than tourists.

The Developers Claim:
A Hall of Fame may attract new tourists.

The Community Responds:
A Hall of Fame can be developed now, independent of the new Stadium.

The Developers Claim:
A New Yankee Stadium will bring in new fans and new business, turning this part of the Bronx into a year-round destination.

The Community Responds:
The current facility drew 4.09 million fans in 2005, the highest attendance in American League history. Any significant increase over this attendance in a new stadium is highly unlikely. A new stadium will actually capture existing business with new interior concession space, diverting business from existing local merchants. Baseball stadia rarely have activity more than 100 times a year, and do not bring growth or year round activity to an area.

The Developers Claim:
A New Yankee Stadium will result in new and additional park space.

The Community Responds:
The Parks Department is preparing to spend $110 million to create new parks, when it might only cost $25 million to renovate existing Parks, an overspending of $85 million. Additional park space is contained entirely along the riverfront and can be developed now, independently of the stadium project. Developing the waterfront parcel as park space and renovating existing park space results in a net gain of park space one-half acre greater than that proposed by the Parks Department.

The Developers Claim:
A New Yankee Stadium would result in “Central Park” for this part of the Bronx.

The Community Responds:
This part of the Bronx already has a “Central Park” which would be destroyed to facilitate this project. Park improvements are a primary function of government and should not be tied to a project like this.

The Developers Claim:
The Yankees will help maintain new parks.

The Community Responds:
The Yankees can help maintain existing parks, right now.

The Developers Claim:
Renovation Yankee Stadium would be more expensive than building a new stadium.

The Community Responds:
Fenway Park (1912) is being renovated for $200 million. Angels Stadium (1966) was renovated for about $100 million. The previous Borough President proposed a renovation plan that would cost $189 million ($225 million in current dollars)

The Developers Claim:
Yankee Stadium is too old.

The Community Responds:
Yankee Stadium was completely renovated to “state of the art” status in 1976. On that basis it is younger than the recently renovated Angels Stadium (1966) and the soon to be renovated Dodger Stadium (1962) .

The Developers Claim:
Yankee Stadium is falling apart.

The Community Responds:
In 1998, City Buildings Commissioner Gaston Silva stated, “From a structural perspective, there's no reason why Yankee Stadium can't be around for another 75 years if it's maintained properly”.

The Developers Claim:
Yankee Stadium does not have the amenities to produce the revenues of a modern baseball facility.

The Community Responds:
In 2005, Yankee Stadium generated an estimated $110 million in ticket sales and $70 million in concessions sales or $180 million, more than the player payroll of any other team, except the New York Yankees. This does not include luxury box revenues, stadium advertising or other stadium revenues, or new revenue streams such as name rights, new advertising space or additional luxury boxes. This is $60 million more than the player payroll of the team with the next highest player payroll, the Boston Red Sox.

The Developers Claim:
Yankee Stadium would have to expand onto Ruppert Place, 157th Street and River Avenue if fully reconstructed.

The Community Responds:
All non-game day uses can be removed from Yankee Stadium and located across River Avenue in existing retail space, or new in space constructed across 157th Street or Ruppert Place. New space constructed across West 157th Street or Rupert Place would create new ballpark precinct like that found in Baltimore and San Diego. Offices/kitchens/storage space can be linked to Loge/Luxury Box level by ornamental bridges over Ruppert Place or 157th Street enhancing the urban design of new ballpark precinct.

The Developers Claim:
The politicians all support this plan.

The Community Responds:
The politicians never consulted their constituents and are forging on a head in conflict with their constituents’ wishes. Approval of parkland alienation was based on quid pro quo in the State Assembly Speaker’s District, not needs of Bronx host community.

The Developers Claim:
Much of this plan was proposed by the Borough President, an Urban Planner.

The Community Responds:
Neither the Borough President nor the Chief Planner of the Parks Department are accredited Urban Planners.
* It makes no sense from an urban planning perspective to move a noxious use adjacent to a residential district.
* It makes no sense from an urban planning perspective to move a complimentary use, like a stadium, further from a proposed shopping center and transit connection.
* It makes no sense from a resource allocation perspective to spend $110 million to replicate existing facilities.

The Developers Claim:
This plan would facilitate the development of new amenities such as a health club, skating rink,high school, hotel and Metro North station.

The Community Responds:
None of these amenities are part of this plan. The EDC, the Board of Education and Metro North have not indicated any interest in proposing or funding these amenities. These amenities are all separate from this plan and can be completed at any time, independent of this plan.

The Developers Claim:
The Yankees may move elsewhere if they do not get a new stadium.

The Community Responds:
The Yankees have no place else to go. The West Side Yards are being developed by the MTA, and the Department of City Planning determined that traffic in that location is too big a concern. Access to New Jersey is determined by the New Jersey Turnpike, one of the more congested roadways in the nation. The Devils and Nets, which have had championship, or near championship season are seeking to leave the Meadowlands for more transit friendly locales in Brooklyn and Newark. New Jersey taxpayers will not support subsidies to bring the Yankees to New Jersey. The New Jersey Transportantion Fund is broke and will not be able to pay for infrastructure providing roadway access to a new stadium. The current location is accessible by two subway lines, multiple bus lines, foot, bike, the Major Deegan and the Bruckner. The current location is more easily accessible to fan base in Westchester, Connecticut and Long Island than one in New Jersey