"Yankee Stadium rec area cost out of the park" Crains 1/27/9

Yankee Stadium rec area cost out of the park

By Daniel Massey

Published: January 27, 2009 - 2:29 pm

The cost of replacing more than 22 acres of South Bronx parkland displaced by the new Yankee Stadium has skyrocketed 67% to nearly $195 million, according to a new report by the Independent Budget Office.

Design revisions, project additions, unanticipated cleanup of hazardous materials and construction inflation have driven costs up by $78.6 million, the report said. While the Yankees are financing the stadium — with the help of city and state subsidies — the parks are being paid for by the city.

“The city pledged to provide new recreational facilities of equal or greater fair market value to those displaced,” the report said. “Since the plans were announced, the costs of these projects have risen significantly.”

Funding for the increase has been built into the city’s capital budget, according Doug Turetsky, chief of staff of the IBO, a city agency that operates independent of the mayor. A spokesman for the mayor did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to the original 2005 estimate, the cost of the replacement parks was projected to be $116.1 million. But design revisions and the addition of new projects have added $30 million to the cost. Unanticipated hazardous waste cleanup and environmental remediation cost an extra $7.6 million, and additional site work and safety increased costs by $10.9 million. A greater-than-expected rise in construction costs accounted for $7.6 million of the increase, while construction delays added $6.2 million.

The factors driving the remaining $16.3 million cost increase are not yet clear because portions of the project are still out for bid, the report said.

Eight smaller parks will replace Macombs Dam Park and a portion of John Mullaly Park, which were demolished to make way for the new stadium and parking garages. The facilities will cover 32 acres and include a 400-meter track with a soccer field and stands, five ball fields, 16 tennis courts, four basketball courts, eight handball courts, a skateboard park, an ice rink and a recreational center.

The parks were initially expected to be completed by December 2010, but construction delays at almost every facility means they will not likely open before the fall of 2011. In a period of rising construction costs, delays typically increase project expenses. The recession could bring costs down, but the IBO’s analysis was based on current market conditions.

The increases and delays came as no surprise to community members who believed all along that the city’s original plan was not feasible. They vigorously opposed the stadium, in large part because of its impact on neighborhood parkland.

Joyce Hogi, a member of Community Board 4’s parks committee and a longtime area resident, said community members told the city it was underestimating the amount of environmental remediation that needed to be done, but that its warnings went nowhere. “We knew the costs of the parks were going to escalate,” she said. “During our protests, we said ‘there are tanks under the soil, there’s remediation that needs to be done.’”

Even if there are no further delays, Ms. Hogi believes irrevocable damage has already been done. “The kids that played in these parks will be adults and parents by the time we get the replacements,” she said.

"Tear Down Stadium and Build Up the Bronx" NY Times 1/21/9

Tear Down Stadium and Build Up the Bronx
By HARVEY ARATON
Published: January 24, 2009

Months after its rousing and official farewell, old Yankee Stadium stands strong, proud and in one piece, shuttered but not altogether silenced.

Twenty-two days until pitchers and catchers, its message board atop the outer wall reminded passers-by last week — one day before the Yankees finally left the building. Humble sorts they are, they made a publicized show of an administrative schlep across the street Friday that was months overdue, like the demolition of a ballpark so beloved that it almost sounds sacrilegious to ask, why is it still here?

A civic conscience trumps sentimentality, however. Enough is enough. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Tear down this stadium, Mr. Bloomberg!

“That’s going take at least two years because the city’s priority is the Yankees, not the neighborhood,” said Joyce Hogi, a member of the Community Board 4 parks committee.

She and her colleagues fought a long, losing battle of preservation best evidenced by two stadiums at the expense of cherished parkland, to be replaced here and there and on terms mostly beneficial to a private enterprise already worth in excess of $1 billion. All while the old and the new stand side by side, towering over what is commonly called the nation’s poorest Congressional district like some supersize baseball mall.

From the press office of the mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, we received the city’s estimated timetable of 16 months — or spring 2010 — for the dismantling of the old stadium, as well as explanations of why it has yet to begin (without a demolition company even chosen by the city).

PART I “The primary reason Yankee Stadium has not started demolition is that the new stadium and its offices have just now become available for occupancy.” But if New York schoolchildren can learn in trailers when there is a shortage of building space, why couldn’t the Yankees have conducted business in a temporary shelter for a few short months to expedite the demolition process?

PART II “The demolition of Yankee Stadium, with a lot of adjacent construction, utility work and proximity to the elevated subway structure, requires a complicated public procurement process.” But if demolition is so complicated, how has Shea Stadium — not as cramped but similarly flanked by a new stadium and an elevated subway — been largely flattened, piece by piece, since October, with the job expected to be completed next month?

Hogi’s point about construction priorities is one that cannot be hammered home enough. When it is in the baseball team’s interest to demolish a stadium so there will be enough parking by opening day, the old ballpark can’t come down soon enough. When the existing stadium site has been designated for replacement park baseball fields, the community can wait — in the case of Heritage Field on the existing old Stadium site, until at least fall 2011, or three years after the last major league pitch.

We have heard many 11th-hour lamentations lately about tax-free bonds and infrastructure costs, about sweetheart deals handed to baseball teams when the city is swimming in the red ink of recession. No question, the entire business of public spending on pro sports has been sordid, and not just in New York. In New Jersey, state government can’t slash budgets fast enough while hundreds of millions in public money pour into Meadowlands infrastructure that will be used by the Giants and the Jets to bilk their most loyal fans.

These aren’t the first megadeals cut by politicians that do not pass the smell test, but nobody has been swindled like the Yankee Stadium community. Nothing has been taken that can’t be replaced except the centralized parkland the Yankees have wanted since they remodeled the old place in the mid-1970s and hung a blue sign on the fence of Macombs Dam Park that said: We Do Care.

Having long ago learned that slogans are much cheaper than sympathy, now there is one on the River Avenue side of the new stadium. Building the Future of the Bronx, it says. All that is missing is Bombers after Bronx. The community’s future is parkland in piecemeal, with taxpayers picking up the ever-escalating tab.

The city and the Yankees say the area will benefit in economic development. Hogi said: “The Yankees have been there for 80 years and what’s been developed? The only thing they are building now is a fortress so the people coming in will never have to step foot in the neighborhood.”

Hogi lives on the Grand Concourse, where she said drawn shades aren’t enough to dim the nighttime light emanating from the new stadium, blocks away. She works at All Hallows High School on 164th Street, where she has watched sports teams load onto buses to play home games in the East Bronx. She cringed last summer at the sight of children jammed into an interim park on 161st Street and Jerome Avenue, while two stadiums cast long shadows on narrow streets, the epitome of Yankees shock, arrogance and awe.

The community should not have to endure another two-stadium summer. Old Yankee Stadium should not be harder to take down than Barry Bonds. Do something about this, Mr. Mayor. Tear down this landmark now.

E-mail: hjaraton@nytimes.com

"Yankee Stadium and Citi Field are the Houses That You Built" NY Daily News 1/18/9

Yankee Stadium and Citi Field are the Houses That You Built

Updated Sunday, January 18th 2009, 1:12 PM

For the last time, the Yankees aren't building a new Yankee Stadium for the Bronx because it is the poorest Congressional district in the country. And they aren't building it for you anymore than the Mets are with Citi Field. This isn't about a grand slam home run for the city's economy. It is a grand slam for these baseball teams.

Yankees president Randy Levine - whom Hal Steinbrenner has somehow allowed to become the angry face and threatening voice of his organization - likes to scream about lies and distortions. He ought to know. You can start here: That the Yankees moved across the street as some sort of public service. They didn't. New ballparks and new arenas are never public services and never help the taxpayers, not in the Bronx, not in Queens, not in the Meadowlands.

Not anywhere.

The Yankees had a perfect right to make the best possible deal for themselves, even though somebody like the IRS is eventually going to ask why the assessed value of the land the Yankees needed to build the new Yankee Stadium went from $26 million to $204 million one day because that's what the bond underwriters wanted.

Nobody ever doubted that the Yankees, and the Mets, would get the additional tax-free bonds the city's Industrial Development Agency gave them Friday. The IDA does what it is told by Bloomberg the way our valiant City Council does on term limits.

You are not supposed to say no to this mayor. You are not supposed to say no to the Yankees when they want an additional $370 million in these tax-free bonds (on top of the nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds they've received originally). All you are supposed to do is this: When told this is a sweetheart deal for the city instead of for the Yankees, you are supposed to nod your head and act grateful.

These aren't stadium deals between Bloomberg and the baseball teams. They are mergers. And Bloomberg needs them as much as the Yankees and Mets do. Because without them, New Yorkers would start asking this mayor who promised big, huge growth projects where those projects are.

If Michael Bloomberg thinks the questions about these deals go away because the Yankees and Mets go away with the last of their bonds now, he's nuts.

People had a right to ask questions about the Yankee deal in particular and the way it has been written and rewritten. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky had a right to do it without being attacked as a grandstander and fraud by Levine, who comes from the Giuliani school of politics: I'm right, you're a liar.

The shame of this all is that the transparency on all this, and the facts we needed on this, come so late in the game. But here is what Brodsky, who challenges this deal the way the mayor of New York never did, doing what elected officials are supposed to do, said on Friday:"You may want a new Yankee Stadium, or you may not. But whatever side you come down on, remember that it's your money that's going to build it. The Yankees are alone in insisting that it's Yankee money. Even NYC officials now admit the truth of what we've been saying, that taxpayer dollars are tearing down The House That Ruth Built, and replacing it with The House That You Built.

"Here's how they do it. The city sends the Yankees a property tax bill like everyone else gets. The Yankees write a check (about $70 million a year) to the city for that amount, just like everyone else. But next, unlike you or I, the city winks and sends that check to the Yankees' bankers to pay off the $1.4 billion mortgage, plus the $1.4 billion in interest on the new Stadium. You or I can't get that deal, but the Yankees did.

"And they got a lot more. The got an additional $575 million directly to build parking garages and sewers and other stuff for the new Stadium. They don't have to pay sales tax and mortgage recording taxes that every other taxpayer pays, and they get interest rate subsidies. That's an additional taxpayer subsidy of about $350 million.

"And New York City now concedes that it's taxpayer money. The city IDA, in sworn statements, says, "The City has chosen to use its property taxes … to pay for the financing of the construction and operation of the Stadium." We dug those statements out after both the city and the Yankees put out press releases that repeated what we knew to be untrue about whose money was being spent.

"And there are some, if limited, economic benefits to the city and the Bronx, which needs all the economic activity it can get. There won't be a lot of new jobs in exchange for our $4 billion. At most, 57 new permanent new jobs will be created (more likely only 22 as the Yankee official application says). But the Yankees also say they will create more than 1,000 part-time jobs. That's good, even if most of those folks will work only 80-90 days a year, and many will be minimum wage jobs. And there are more than 5,000 temporary but well-paying construction jobs.

"Maybe a new, taxpayer funded Stadium is a good thing. Maybe the old Stadium wasn't good enough. But in the face of our current economic and social pain, shouldn't the city at least ask the Yankees to put up additional Yankee money and reduce the taxpayer burden? Is it unreasonable to ask one of the richest private corporations in the world to recognize the pain that New Yorkers are now undergoing?

"Muni Bonds for Yankee Stadium Would Break Law, Legislator Says" Bloomberg 1/14/9

Muni Bonds for Yankee Stadium Would Break Law, Legislator Says

By Henry Goldman

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- New York City’s Industrial Development Agency would break the law by approving $430 million in taxable and tax-exempt bonds for a new Yankees baseball stadium, state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said.

“Everything is being done in a bum’s rush,” Brodsky said of IDA hearings set for tomorrow and Jan. 16 at which the agency is scheduled to vote on the financing. “The actions of the IDA on Friday are patently illegal.”

The administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, which supports the project, should have to win City Council support for the bonds, said Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County who heads a committee on public authorities. The new debt would supplement $968 million approved by the IDA and council in 2006. Yankees President Randy Levine and IDA Chairman Seth Pinsky were sent subpoenas requiring them to appear at the hearing.

City Comptroller William Thompson and U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner, two Democrats seeking their party’s nomination to run against the two-term mayor this year, have said Bloomberg didn’t obtain the best deal for the city.

Brodsky has said the administration and the team misled the public and the U.S. government over the stadium’s economic benefits to get the Internal Revenue Service’s approval in July to use municipal bonds to reduce the team’s construction costs. That would make the Jan. 16 IDA vote unlawful, he said.

“Whatever emotional or political benefits result from public financial assistance to the Yankees, the economic benefits are slight or nonexistent, while the public costs, estimated at over $700 million, are enormous, at a time when other pressing capital needs go begging,” Brodsky wrote in a report for the hearing.

Sharing the Costs

Although the team is paying for the stadium facility, the state and city have agreed to fund about $700 million in supporting infrastructure, including a new Metro-North rail station, 28 acres (11 hectares) of new recreation areas, parking and street improvements.

The Yankees will cover the cost of the $1.5 billion, 52,325- seat open-air stadium in the city’s Bronx borough, scheduled to open in April, by paying off the proceeds of about $1.3 billion in municipal bonds, Pinsky and Levine said. The team will invest $225 million of its own money in the project, Levine said.

The Yankees will retire the bonds with payments in lieu of real estate taxes to the city at a rate of $60 million to $70 million annually over 43 years, Pinsky said. The city will transfer those funds to the IDA, which will pay the bondholders, he said.

“From the city’s bottom-line position, the Yankees end up paying amounts that they weren’t previously paying,” Pinsky said.

No Taxes

The team never paid real estate taxes on the old stadium, which sat on city-owned land, so the city isn’t giving up any revenue, Pinsky said.

The agency calculates a net benefit of about $60 million to the city, according to a cost-benefit analysis the IDA prepared for this week’s public hearing and financing vote.

The Yankees have also agreed to take over the $35 million-a- year cost of maintaining the facility, a city obligation in the old stadium, he said.

Uncertainty in the credit markets “would cause serious problems” for the team’s ability to complete the stadium should the lawmakers shut the Yankees out of the municipal bond market, Levine said.

Yankee Stadium bonds set to pay 5 percent and mature in 2046 traded at 73.6 cents on the dollar this week to yield 7 percent, compared with 4.51 percent at issue with insurance from FGIC Corp. in 2006.

Extra Costs

Cost overruns, which Thompson criticized yesterday, resulted from construction delays due to a lawsuit, security changes ordered by the city’s police and parks departments and possible wrongdoing in concrete testing on the site, Levine said.

Other added costs have come in an effort to improve the stadium’s safety railings, access and broadcasting facilities, Levine said. The team had to pay more to revise its scoreboard and sound system, and it wanted to increase year-round use by adding a museum and conference center, he added.

“The only way for us to grow our way back to economic health is by ‘priming the pump’ through a combination of public infrastructure investment and targeted governmental assistance to encourage private investment,” Pinsky told the committee members. “The new Yankee Stadium is a textbook example of this.”

In approving the original financing in 2006, the City Council acknowledged the teams might have to return for more money and didn’t make council approval a requirement in the event of a second request, Pinsky said.

The New York Mets are building a new $800 million ballpark in the borough of Queens and are seeking $82.3 million in additional financing at the same hearing. That request hasn’t been criticized, and Thompson said yesterday the amount was much less than the Yankees are asking for and appeared reasonable.

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

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

Last Updated: January 14, 2009 17:08 EST

"Joking, but Also Jabbing, at Yankee Bond Hearing" NY Times 1/16/9

Joking, but Also Jabbing, at Yankee Bond Hearing

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and COLIN MOYNIHAN
Published: January 16, 2009

No fists were thrown, so Day 2 of the chest-puffing, name-calling contest between a corporate-welfare-assailing state assemblyman and officials of the richest team in baseball never quite degenerated into the kind of circus that might have captured the spotlight on a day when other news was far more compelling.

But at a noisy hearing of the city’s Industrial Development Agency Thursday on the Yankees’ request for more than $370 million in additional tax-exempt bonds to pay for its new Bronx ballpark — or, more precisely, for cost overruns and goodies added since a 2006 bond issuance — other critics at least got a chance to vent, while beneficiaries of the project and the Yankees’ charity made sure to put in a good word for the boss.

“An appalling use of public money,” said Joan Byron of the Pratt Center for Community Development, an architect who advocates for the “equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens” across city neighborhoods, according to the center’s Web site.

Equity, though, is a subjective thing. Vinny Rivera, who said his group, Positive Workforce, lobbies for minority jobs in the construction industry and has placed about 70 people at the stadium, said he was on the Yankees’ team because on game days the stadium is a beehive of business.

“Everybody makes money,” he said. “Everybody eats.”

At a hearing he organized on Wednesday, the assemblyman, Richard L. Brodsky of Westchester, the harshest and loudest critic of the Yankee Stadium deal, jokingly challenged Randy Levine, the team’s president, and Seth W. Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, to a “civil, in-your-face fistfight.”

On Thursday, as Mr. Brodsky, now on someone else’s turf, approached a lectern, Mr. Pinsky goaded him good-naturedly: “Would you like me to call my bodyguards, or are we going to refrain?”

“I’m thinking,” Mr. Brodsky replied, to laughter.

But the arguments were fiercer than the kibitzing suggested.

Mr. Brodsky accused city and Yankee officials of “undue and illegal secrecy.” Mr. Levine fulminated against Mr. Brodsky for more than twice his allotted three minutes, calling him a “pathetic” grandstander and likening his having subpoenaed Mr. Levine earlier this week to a “Soviet-style” tactic. Mr. Pinsky, meanwhile, dryly recited the Bloomberg administration’s calculus for why the stadium project would remain “significantly revenue-positive for the city.”

It seemed unlikely that any minds were changed in several hours listening to the occasional hoots of construction workers in the back, the raw words of proponents like Mr. Rivera and the more polished ones of politicians like Deborah J. Glick, a Manhattan assemblywoman who did not attend but had someone read a letter in her absence (one that Mr. Levine said had errors).

“The I.D.A. has no choice but to tell the Yankees it does not have the money to contribute further to its field of high-end dreams,” Ms. Glick’s letter said.

In fact, the Bloomberg administration, which controls the agency’s board, has the votes, and approval of the bond issuance at its scheduled Friday meeting appeared inevitable.

Mr. Brodsky seemed to concede as much in his remarks, telling the agency’s board, “You have simply failed to do the minimum necessary to make the decision tomorrow legal, appropriate and in the public interest.”

A version of this article appeared in print on January 16, 2009, on page A26 of the New York edition.

"City Approves $370.9 Million to Complete Yankee Stadium" NY Times 1/16/9

City Approves $370.9 Million to Complete Yankee Stadium

By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: January 16, 2009

New York City’s Industrial Development Agency approved $370.9 million in primarily tax-exempt bonds on Friday to finish construction of Yankee Stadium with all the upgrades the team had sought, from better security to a new scoreboard to replace one that did not meet its needs.

The agency’s board voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, for the Yankees’ bond issue, which was debated, sometimes ferociously, at a State Assembly hearing on Wednesday and a public hearing held by the agency on Thursday. The Mets’ request for $82.3 million in tax-exempt bonds to complete Citi Field was approved unanimously with little debate.

The sole vote against the Yankees’ bond issue came from the representative for the city comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr. On Tuesday, Mr. Thompson faulted Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the development agency for what he said was “financial incompetence” in their negotiations with the Yankees. He said that they had failed to properly monitor costs to the city like parkland to replace the acreage where the new stadium is built and the demolition of the old Yankee Stadium.

“We know it’s not a fair deal,” said John Graham, the deputy comptroller, who is Mr. Thompson’s representative. Mr. Graham said that the vote should be postponed to renegotiate the terms of the bond issue to force the Yankees to pay more in infrastructure costs.

Randy Levine, the Yankees’ president, said that without the additional tax-exempt financing (the development agency issued $942.5 million in 2006), completing the stadium “would be difficult and challenging, but not impossible.” He did not give details of what would not be finished, or built, if the Yankees did not get the financing.

He said that requests from the police and other emergency services to upgrade security, and from broadcasters to enclose the press box, raised the construction estimate; so did lawsuits that delayed construction and the discovery that the scoreboard and sound system the team ordered did not “measure up.”

“We changed things,” Mr. Levine said. “We had add-ons. We don’t have cost overruns.”

Mr. Levine said the team could not envision two years ago that it would need nearly $400 million more in bonds when it received approval for the first bond issue, which allowed the team to ask for $100 million in completion bonds.

But he said that since the team was using payments in lieu of taxes, or Pilots, to build the stadium, it was willing to bear any extra costs. With the additional bonds, the Yankees’ Pilots will be between $70 million and $76 million annually.

The Yankees will deduct those costs, plus about $30 million in stadium maintenance, from the revenue it is required to share with other major league teams.

Seth W. Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said the Yankees had agreed to pay $2 billion if they leave during the term of their lease of at least 40 years, and to pay $30 million over those years to defray the city’s costs.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 17, 2009, on page A23 of the New York edition.

"A New Yankee Stadium, the Same Old Politics" NY Times 1/13/9

A New Yankee Stadium, the Same Old Politics

By JIM DWYER
Published: January 13, 2009

These may be the last days that officials in New York can make decisions about how much more help the city will give the Yankees baseball company to finish its new stadium in the Bronx — a building with a steakhouse, a museum, more private suites and fewer ordinary seats than the old stadium, protected by moats of garages and privilege.

On Tuesday, the comptroller said the city had made a bad deal, a complaint that the mayor’s office dismissed as “political posturing.”

Without a doubt, politics is part of the invisible cost benefit analysis of the Yankees and Mets stadium deals — not only for those who now criticize them, like the comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., who approved them in 2006, but also for those few who champion them, like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

Such political values may not turn up on any public balance sheet, but it would be unwise to ignore them simply because they are invisible.

Suppose you are Mr. Bloomberg, your hopes of becoming president or vice president all but vanished. You have to step down as mayor in 2009 because a law that you unequivocally supported says you only get two terms.

How handy, then, to have powerful allies, like the developer, Jerry I. Speyer and the lobbyist, Howard Rubenstein, to convince other influential people that term limits will deprive the city of an essential leader during an era of financial crisis.

Mr. Speyer is building Yankee Stadium. Mr. Rubenstein represents the Yankees. Their stated case for Mr. Bloomberg never rested on the mayor’s support for the stadium, but on his qualities as a manager and their view that he would be the most capable steward of the city during hard economic times.

Mr. Bloomberg not only abandoned his own emphatic support for term limits, but his own opposition to corporate welfare for professional sports. After canceling deals made by his predecessor, Mr. Bloomberg has gone on to subsidize the most expensive baseball stadiums in the country.

The balance sheet should reflect that Mr. Bloomberg’s advocacy of the stadiums came well before he revealed that he wanted a third term in office. Moreover, his administration argues that these new deals are different and better than those made by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani — that they will cost the city little and pump money and jobs into the Bronx.

“The Yankees are paying for the entire construction of the new stadium — the plasma television screens and all,” David Lombino, a spokesman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, wrote in an e-mail message that took exception to a column I wrote last week about the deals. “The more expensive stadium they build, the more debt they take on and the more money they must pay back.”

The Yankees are indeed paying off the tax-exempt bonds that will finance the bulk of the stadium construction, but they are doing so instead of paying property taxes.

Moreover, the claims that the Yankees are paying for the entire construction — trumpeted throughout the process — rests on an illusion achieved through precision language.

There is far more to building a stadium than simply its construction. To replace the 22 acres of parkland the city turned over to the Yankees, to build sewers and roads that will support the stadium, the city will spend $325 million — money that will be borrowed by the taxpayers, leaving that much less for other public projects.

With interest, that $325 million could come to $700 million, an aide to Mr. Thompson said. The city must also pay to tear down the old stadium, a cost now put at $27 million. It is contributing $39 million toward a new Metro North station. (The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is paying another $52 million.)

Both Mr. Bloomberg and his predecessor, Mr. Giuliani, even gave the Yankees and the Mets a $5 million annual rebate on rent the teams were paying to the city for their old stadiums — money that could have restored at least some music programs to public schools, but instead was turned back to the baseball teams for the explicit purpose of planning ballparks that the public is paying for.

The Yankees have already received $942 million in tax-exempt financing; the team has come back for another $370 million. A hearing on the latest request will be held on Thursday at the Industrial Development Agency, which is run by nine representatives of the mayor, plus the five borough presidents and the city comptroller.

The city is proud of the deal, officials say, because it will create “1,000 permanent new jobs.” If you scratch into the official filings, it turns out that there are actually only 22 new full-time jobs expected. The rest are seasonal positions — valuable, certainly, but only if they really exist.

And what if the team doesn’t create 1,000 new jobs? Does the city have any mechanism to hold the team accountable, to get back some of its investment?

Asked about this on Tuesday, Mr. Lombino, the spokesman for development corporation, said there is none.

It seems only prudent — honest, even — to move the promise of 1,000 new jobs onto the balance sheet of the invisible.

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

"Democratic Pile-On" Daily News 1/13/9

Democratic Pile-On
January 13, 2009

Yesterday, Rep. Anthony Weiner was criticizing Mayor Bloomberg's fiscal management skills - the core rationale of the mayor's push to extend term limits and seek a third term. Today it's Comptroller Bill Thompson's turn.

Thompson, who says he intends to fight with Weiner for the right to challenge Bloomberg on the Democratic line in November, accused the mayor and the city IDA of "financial incompetence" and "incredible mismanagement" during negotiations on paying for the the new Yankee Stadium.

Since the IDA initially approved stadium deals for both the Yankees and the Mets in 2006, city's capital contribution to the Yankees project has ballooned from $129.2 million to $325 million, Thompson said, adding:

"While our financial review cannot determine intent, this incredible mismanagement begs the question: Was this plain old incompetence or a blatant attempt to mislead the public? Either way, New Yorkers now have a box-seat view of fiscal mismanagement."


"...We cannot continue to let New Yorkers lose in order for the Yankees to win," the comptroller continued. "Next season, more and more families will be priced out of the very stadium they helped to build, as the minimum cost of a box seat alone will at least double from $250 to $500.”

As examples of faulty cost estimates, Thompson cited:

- The demolition of the existing Yankee Stadium was estimated at more than 50 percent less than the true cost.

- Failure to conduct environmental reviews, which would have taken into account the existence of, and necessity to remediate, oil tanks on the waterfront site of a planned new park.

- Underestimation of the cost for a rooftop park and retaining wall resulting in cost escalations of 30 percent; the price tag now stands at $44.5 million.

There's also the question of revenue lost from the agreement to surrender 250 parking spots for the Yankees use (this was negotiated as part of the luxury suite deal, which the city has since walked back).

Thompson is calling on the IDA to postpone a scheduled Friday vote on the new stadium financing plan. A public hearing is to be held Thursday.

Press release from New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr

THOMPSON: CITY MISMANAGED COST ESTIMATES FOR STADIUM FINANCING
* * *

Comptroller Cites Lack of Oversight and
Financial Competency as Cause of Inflated Expenses

New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. today accused Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA) of financial incompetence during negotiations for a new Yankee Stadium, saddling City taxpayers with astronomically steeper costs.

Speaking at a news conference, Thompson highlighted the upcoming IDA Board of Director’s vote on a new stadium financing plan as an opportunity for the City to rectify earlier oversights and errors.

“While our financial review cannot determine intent, this incredible mismanagement begs the question: Was this plain old incompetence or a blatant attempt to mislead the public?” Thompson said. “Either way, New Yorkers now have a box-seat view of fiscal mismanagement.”

In July 2006, the IDA approved a financing package with the Yankees to allow for construction of a new stadium. The debt package totaled $967,555,000: $942,555,000 in tax-exempt bonds and $25 million taxable. Direct capital costs to the City for related infrastructure projects, such as new parkland, were estimated at the time to be $129.2 million. These costs do not include the construction of new parking facilities, for which the City is also responsible

“The original City capital contribution now has ballooned to $325 million, two-and-a-half times the amount we were told in 2006,” Thompson said. “With this deal, New Yorkers lose. At a time when we can least afford it, the Administration is bending over backwards to subsidize an enormously profitable corporation, one that just signed three players to contracts worth a total of $423 million.”

Thompson cited the following as examples of faulty cost estimates:

· The demolition of the existing Yankee Stadium was estimated at more than 50% less than the true cost.
· Failure to conduct environmental reviews, which would have taken into account the existence of, and necessity to remediate, oil tanks on the waterfront site of a planned new park.

· Underestimation of the cost for a rooftop park and retaining wall resulting in cost escalations of 30%; the price tag now stands at $44.5 million.

“We cannot continue to let New Yorkers lose in order for the Yankees to win,” Thompson said. “Next season, more and more families will be priced out of the very stadium they helped to build, as the minimum cost of a box seat alone will at least double from $250 to $500.”

Thompson’s review also examined the City’s lost revenue, such as an agreement to surrender use of 250 parking spots to the Yankees as part of its negotiations for a luxury suite, resulting in a loss of $500,000 in revenue per year. These ongoing negotiations likely will result in an additional loss of $750,000 in annual revenue from three billboards, on which the Yankees want the rights to advertise.

Similarly, the cost to the City for a luxury suite will total $1,250,000 annually, while other luxury suite purchasers will pay between $600,000 and $850,000. Under terms of the new agreement, the City has agreed to let the Yankees market the suite with a minimum payment of $100,000 per year.

“Anybody can see that this is simply a bad deal for New York,” Thompson said. “Yet it is the kind of financial incompetence that the Administration has consistently demonstrated when it comes to the new Yankee stadium. And incredibly, the Yankees are asking for more money and the Administration wants to give it to them without getting anything in return.”

Thompson’s office has held meetings with IDA staff to discuss the new financing plan and the status of related projects. This Thursday, the IDA Board of Directors will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed issuance of $371.8 million of new bonds, including both tax-exempt and federally taxable, together with a $60 million refunding of the existing bonds to move debt service out to later years. The IDA Board will vote on the plan Friday.

Some elements of the $371.8 million are said to include:

· $40 million in extra costs to accelerate construction.
· $60 million additional security costs at the behest of the New York Police Department.
· $92 million in scope modifications.
· $75 million in true cost increases.
· $65 million in “soft costs.”

“For all these reasons, I am calling for the vote to be postponed so that the City can negotiate a better deal,” Thompson concluded.

In November 2008, an audit conducted by the Comptroller’s office found that the Yankee’s underpaid the City more than $11 million in rent over a two-year period. As a result, the Yankees have since paid the City $7,352,519 plus interest of $635,132. The Yankees still owe the City another $4,035,636.

The full audit report can be viewed at www.comptroller.nyc.gov.

"At the New Yankee Stadium, Sanity Rides the Bench" NY Times 1/9/9

At the New Yankee Stadium, Sanity Rides the Bench
By JIM DWYER
Published: January 9, 2009

Suppose a public school wanted some nice new things.

Things like a 60-inch plasma television for every class, a dining room outfitted with leather banquettes and linen tablecloths, and an emerald green playing field.

Suppose, also, that the school already had working televisions, a lunchroom with folding tables that could be cleaned with a sponge, and a big asphalt play yard.

The only sane response, of course, is that buying the deluxe items should be postponed until the day every school had textbooks less than 20 years old, or when high schools did not have to drop history electives because of budget cuts, or that science labs and band rooms were equipped with the right tools and teachers.

Even in times of great prosperity, the city could scarcely provide these modest basics. Now, beyond all sense or sensibility, the New York Yankees have appeared with a request for $370 million in new taxpayer-backed financing for a new baseball stadium that will open in April.

This is more. New. In addition to. On top of the $942 million in previous financing, and $660 million that the city is pitching in to replace parkland sacrificed for the new stadium and transportation improvements.

What is the team going to spend the new $370 million on?

Here are some items on the submission filed with the city’s Industrial Development Agency: $10.5 million for “suite level upgrades,” and $5 million more for “public washroom upgrades,” and $1.1 million to “upgrade suite seats, field seats” and areas where disabled fans will sit.

For a better sound and television system in the building, new mounts and screens, a video system and scoreboard, they want $34 million. And $3.9 million for “extensive cabling necessary to accommodate multiple, domestic and international broadcasters.”

To enclose the press box and build a dining room for employees, they’re going to spend $3 million. They also plan to spend $137 million for “food and beverage build out.”

“The new Yankee Stadium will house a prime steakhouse, a Hard Rock Cafe, a baseball-themed museum, various retail stores and a banquet, conference and business center,” the Yankees said in the filing.

In 2002, soon after Michael R. Bloomberg became mayor, he announced that he was canceling stadium deals made in the last hours of the Giuliani administration.

“At the moment, everybody understands that given that the lack of housing, given the lack of school space, given the deficit in the operating budget, it is just not practical this year to go and build stadiums,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“You have to set priorities, and the priorities this year do not allow for the construction of sporting stadiums.”

The city is now in much worse shape. Every agency that serves the public is being cut.

How is it that Mayor Bloomberg wants the public to help a professional sports team — which just announced that it has given three ballplayers contracts worth about $500 million — pay for a Yankee steakhouse and televisions in luxury suites using bonds that will save the team tens of millions of dollars in interest?

The Yankees and the city argue that the public will ultimately clear $280 million from the entire deal, a figure questioned by many economists. “The construction of the new Yankee Stadium is a huge triumph of public policy and private sector initiative,” a spokeswoman for the team owners said earlier this week.

The city’s central rationale is that the Yankees are going to pay off the bonds issued by the development agency. But they are doing that instead of paying property taxes.

“It’s like building a new house and telling the local tax collector that you’ll pay him, but the money has to go to pay off your mortgage,” said Richard L. Brodsky, an assemblyman from Westchester who has pried open many details about the stadium deal. “It’s an upper-class Ponzi scheme.”

Members of Mr. Bloomberg’s administration fought like tigers to get a free luxury suite with 12 seats for the use of city officials, haggling so that chicken wings were included. In exchange, the team demanded, and got, 250 additional parking spots and the income from three highway billboards.

With that part of the deal done, a team lawyer, Steve Lefkowitz, issued an invitation for opening day to Seth W. Pinsky, the head of the city agency in charge of the negotiations.

“Yes, I think I’ll be sitting in a box seat!” Mr. Pinsky wrote on Aug. 25, 2006. The city and the Yankees undid the suite deal, a little bit, last week.

When New York goes through a drought, it is the custom to shut down public fountains, like those in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art — not because they use all that much water, but because the dancing towers of water give the illusion of abundance.

They just turn off the spigots.

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

"Brennan and Brodsky Convene Hearing on Yankee Stadium" Yonkers Tribune 1/9/9

(Click the title above to read the article with hyperlinks)

Brennan and Brodsky Convene Hearing on Yankee Stadium

Brodsky_AssemblymanRichard92AD Legislative Committees Seek Information from New York City, NYCIDA, and Yankees

New York, NY -- Chairman James Brennan (D-Brooklyn) of the Committee on Cities, and Chairman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) of the Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee today announced that their respective committees would convene a hearing next week to inquire into circumstances surrounding the provision of close to $2 billion in taxpayer money for construction of the new Yankee Stadium with particular focus on the City's attempt to add over $400 million in such assistance next week. The hearing is being called next Wednesday, January 14 in the face of the refusal by New York City to postpone a final decision until a full understanding of the law and the facts could be brought forward.


"The City's attempt to ram through this complicated project without disclosure of its implications is not acceptable as the Legislature considers what changes in State law it ought to be making," said Assemblyman Brodsky. "The hearing will provide info necessary for the Legislative process."


"I'm concerned about the consequences of diverting property tax revenue to repay these bonds for such a lengthy period of time for the benefit of a wealthy company," Mr. Brennan said.

Witnesses invited include:

Randy Levine President, New York Yankees ( Download Randy Levine )
Harold Steinbrenner Owner, New York Yankees ( Download Harold Steinbrenner )
Seth Pinsky President, New York City Economic Development Corporation ( Download Seth Pinsky )
Derek Park, Vice-Chairman of the New York City Industrial Development Agency ( Download Seth Pinsky )
Martha Stark, Finance Commissioner, New York City ( Download Martha Stark )
Maurice Kellman, Property Assistant Commissioner, Finance Department, City of New York ( Download Maurice Kellman )
Background Info:
In 2006 the New York Yankees were given about $1.5 billion in $1.5 billion in tax benefits and public funds for the building of a new Yankee Stadium. Over $500 million was direct cash and tax relief. The additional $950 million came in the form of low-interest bonds whose principal and interest were repaid with tax dollars, as the City freely admitted in sworn filings with the IRS: “The City has determined to use its property taxes (in this case PILOTs) to finance the construction and operation…of the Stadium.”
The Yankees are now seeking, with the support of the Bloomberg Administration, an additional $430.9 million. The largest single use of the money seems to be for a new television, video-audio system at the Stadium. Other notable uses include monies to replace concrete ramps with granite ones, to cover legal and financial fees, and to pay for a museum and conference center, Yankee administrative offices, concessions, and suite upgrades.
It should be noted that $123 million of the actual cash proceeds of the bonds will be paid directly to the Yankees as repayment for money they have already "advanced" to the project, apparently always anticipating the additional taxpayer monies would eventually be received.[1]
The City calculates a net economic benefit of $59.7 million.[2] They do this by ignoring the cost to taxpayers of repaying the bonds. If these costs were included as they properly should be, the actual economic cost to the City of these additional bonds alone, would be about a minus $500 million.
The process being used by the City is limited to a single public hearing now scheduled for January 15, and a final vote now scheduled for 9 a.m. the following morning. Documents and information needed to analyze and understand this proposal have been withheld from the public and the Committee.

[1] Core Application, “Additional Bonds (PILOT and Rental) Sources and Uses Table,” footnote 1.

[2] NYCIDA Project Cost/Benefit Analysis, page 2.

SOURCE: Corporatons, Authorities and Commissions Committee

"Yankees want us to pay for fancy johns" NY Daily News 1/8/9

Yankees want us to pay for fancy johns

Thursday, January 8th 2009, 11:38 PM
Sabo/News

Less than three years after they got $942 million in tax-free bonds for a new Bronx stadium, the Yankees are at the public trough again.

With our city facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and more than 200,000 people expected to lose their jobs by the end of the year, baseball's richest team wants another $260 million in tax-free bonds to help cover a stadium cost overrun of $370 million.

Even worse, the city's Industrial Development Agency, which Mayor Bloomberg controls, is set to approve the bonds next week.

The itemized list of extra stadium costs that city officials released this week is truly astounding.

There's $137million to pay for concessions at the new stadium - including a swank new Yankees Steakhouse, a Hard Rock Cafe, a museum and a conference center. The Yankees added most of those items to the stadium budget after the city approved the original financing plan.

Other enhancements include:

- $14.2 million for various scoreboard changes.

- $5 million for fancy public- bathroom improvements, including "burnished and glazed block" and "solid surface countertops."

- $10.5 million for new "suite level upgrades."

- $10.7 million for a huge new "video board."

- $8.7 million for the team's administrative offices.

The financial details that the team submitted list such a complicated split between public and private funding for those costs that it's almost impossible to separate them.

"This is bizarre," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), a longtime critic of the stadium deal. "We don't have enough money for our schools or the subways, yet they want to give the Yankees money for a steakhouse and granite ramps?"

Brodsky joined Assemblyman Jim Brennan (D-Brooklyn) to call an emergency public hearing for Wednesday to review the Yankees' new request.

Team officials, it seems, are sparing no expense to make this the most luxurious, high-tech structure ever imagined. They have a perfect right to splurge in any way they wish - with their own money. When they're getting a tax break, it's another matter.

This is a team, after all, that just doled out $435 million to sign three ballplayers, Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett.

All you have to do is look at what the Mets are doing with their new stadium in Queens to see the outlandishness of the Yankee request.

Yes, the Mets also want some $80million in additional funding for their new Citi Field, but there are some big differences.

The City Council authorized the Mets to use that money, but the team never borrowed the full amount. The cost of Citi Field, including parking facilities, has increased by only about 15% above original projections - to a total of $700million.

Yankee Stadium, on the other hand, has zoomed from an original price tag of $800 million in 2005 to $1.3 billion today.

And that's not counting the Yankee parking garages, which are being built by a separate nonprofit. They also have jumped in price to more than $340million.

The Mets are in the same town and are using the same unionized labor force. Yet Yankee Stadium will end up costing about twice as much as Citi Field.

The Mets long ago reached a deal with the city for a split of revenues from the sale of memorabilia from publicly owned Shea Stadium.

The Yankees are still bickering over how much money they will get from souvenir sales from the old Yankee Stadium. They have plans to make a financial killing on everything from stadium seats to infield dirt to pieces of stadium facade.

No matter how you slice it, the Yankees have shown themselves to be more greedy, more arrogant and more wasteful than the Mets.

They do not need, nor do they deserve, more subsidies.

Bloomberg keeps telling ordinary New Yorkers we need to tighten our belts in hard times. He needs to tell it to the Yankees.

jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

"$2 Billion in Taxpayer Money to Yankees to Yield 22 New Permanent Jobs" Yonkers Tribune 1/8/9

$2 Billion in Taxpayer Money to Yankees to Yield 22 New Permanent Jobs

Brodsky_AssemblymanRichard92AD New York City Proposes to Give Yankees $430 Million For Television/Audio-Visual System, Concession, and Other Stadium Additions

Brodsky Committee Continues to Seek Data in Face of Stonewalling by NYCIDA and City

New York, NY -- After weeks of stonewalling, New York City released two of dozens of documents sought by the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions that relate to the City’s attempt to give the Yankees an additional $430 million of taxpayer money for the construction of the new Yankee Stadium.[1] The Yankees have already received an excess of $1.5 billion of taxpayer money.

These two documents are the Yankees’ application to the NYCIDA, which the City and the NYCIDA have had since December 11, 2008,[2] and had previously refused to release, and a cost-benefit analysis which is part of the NYCIDA process. The documents reveal that the $2 billion in taxpayer subsidy will yield an total increase of full time employment at the new Stadium of only 22 jobs,[3] that the average wage of employment at this subsidized project is $34 million per year,[4] that the largest single uses of the new monies are for a large television and audio-visual system, concessions, Yankee’s administrative offices, and other accoutrements.[5]

The City is still stonewalling in its refusal to provide other documents related to its attempt to give new taxpayer money.

The approval process being used by the City at the NYCIDA is limited to a single public hearing now scheduled for January 15, and a final vote now scheduled for 9 a.m. the following morning. Documents and information needed to analyze and understand this proposal have been withheld from the public and the Committee. They City and the NYCIDA have apparently refused a request from Assemblyman Richard Brodsky to delay the vote.
<>The Committee will continue to seek and make public data that will explain the reasons for and uses of this additional $430 million in taxpayer money. A more detailed summary of the two documents released follows.

Summary of the Yankee IDA Application and Cost-Benefit Analysis

In 2006 the New York Yankees were given about $1.5 billion in taxpayer money for the building of a new Yankee Stadium. Over $500 million was direct cash and tax relief. The additional $950 million came in the form of low-interest bonds whose principal and interest were repaid with tax dollars, as the City freely admitted in sworn filings with the IRS: “The City has determined to use its property taxes (in this case PILOTs) to finance the construction and operation…of the Stadium.”

The Yankees are now seeking, with the support of the Bloomberg Administration, an additional $430.9 million. The largest single use of the money seems to be for a new television, video-audio system at the Stadium. Other notable uses include monies to replace concrete ramps with granite ones, to cover legal and financial fees, and to pay for a museum and conference center, Yankee administrative offices, concessions, and suite upgrades.

It should be noted that $123 million of the actual cash proceeds of the bonds will be paid directly to the Yankees as repayment for money they have already "advanced" to the project, apparently always anticipating the additional taxpayer monies would eventually be received.[6]

The City calculates a net economic benefit of $59.7 million.[7] They do this by ignoring the cost to taxpayers of repaying the bonds. If these costs were included as they properly should be, the actual economic cost to the City of these additional bonds alone, would be about a minus $500 million.

The process being used by the City is limited to a single public hearing now scheduled for January 15, and a final vote now scheduled for 9 a.m. the following morning. Documents and information needed to analyze and understand this proposal have been withheld from the public and the Committee.

Information newly released in the Yankees application for the additional public financing on the new jobs to be created as a result of the new Stadium are described below, as are the uses of the additional taxpayer money and subsequent legal issues that have arisen.

New Jobs Created As A Result Of The New, Taxpayer Financed Yankee Stadium

FULL TIME EMPLOYEES

The Yankees now assert that there will be a total of 22 new permanent full time jobs created as a result of the new Yankee Stadium project.[8] This is an increase of their original statement that 15 new permanent full time jobs would be created. The Yankees now assert that there will be no increase in non-permanent full time jobs.[9] These are the players, coaches and scouts. The total amount of full time jobs at the Stadium is now estimated to be 174.[10]

PART TIME EMPLOYEES

The Yankees estimate that 253 new non-permanent, part-time jobs will be created.[11] The largest single part of that increase in for sweepers, supplemental police, night watchmen, electrician and maintenance workers. This is a substantial decrease from their original statement. The Yankees calculate the reduction in total part time employment as follows: a reduction from 879 to 522 total part time employees in year one, and a reduction of total part-time employees from 950 to 775 in year two.[12] No yearly or hourly salary numbers are provided.

The Yankees additionally report that the number of part-time contract employees will increase by about 1,100 jobs, with the bulk of these in the area of concessions, food and beverage.[13] No yearly or hourly salary numbers are provided.

AVERAGE WAGE / SALARY RECEIVED BY EMPLOYEES

The Yankees assert that the average annual wage/salary received by employees is $34 million.[14] It is unclear if this is for permanent employees alone, or includes the part-time employees.

The Uses Of The New Taxpayer Money

The single largest use of the additional public financing appears to total about $57 million for a large screen television and audio-visual systems.[15]

Other big ticket items include $10.4 million for “suite upgrades,” including the addition of press suite lounges,[16] as well as $1.6 million to enclose the press suite.[17]

The new taxpayer money will also be covering $40 million in construction delays,[18] and $1.6 million to replace concrete ramps with granite ramps.[19]

The additional public financing will also provide $137.4 million for concessions,[20] $12.5 million for Yankees administrative offices,[21] $8.4 million for a museum and conference center,[22] $1.3 million for City inspections and permits,[23] and $384,000 in legal fees.[24]

The Yankees’ application for the new taxpayer money also notes that the Yankees will be subleasing 6,500 square feet in the new stadium to Hard Rock Café, and 6,500 square feet to the Yankees Steak LLC, a steakhouse.[25]

Legal Issues

The City's attempt to railroad this IDA grant has been marked by secrecy and a continuing refusal to make relevant documents public in advance of the vote now scheduled for 9 a.m. the morning following the sole public hearing or opportunity for public comment. A series of legal questions arise that are shrouded in mystery, again because of the refusal of IDA officials to respond to questions. These include: Does the IDA will again need a "Deviation Letter", as did the first round of taxpayer assistance, because the Yankee Project does not meet economic development standards? Can the IDA avoid all other approvals, such as ULURP, IRS, and tax assessment assurances by attempting to rely on the 2006 approvals?[26] How can the funding be justified, since the earlier financing was justified on the purported Yankee threat to leave the City, but the Yankees have since signed a Non-Relocation Agreement barring them from leaving. In other words, how can they rely on a threat to leave when there is now a Non-Relocation agreement in place?



[1]Core Application, “Additional Bonds (PILOT and Rental) Sources and Uses Table.

[2] The Core Application is signed and dated by Lonn Trost on December 11, 2008 in several places, including on the “Request, Certification, etc.”

[3] Core Application, Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table.

[4] Core Application, Employment Questionnaire, page 7.

[5] Core Application, “Scope Modification, Funding Modifications, Trade Costs and Contingencies – Detail” table and “Total Project Net Sources and Uses Table.”

[6] Core Application, “Additional Bonds (PILOT and Rental) Sources and Uses Table,” footnote 1.

[7] NYCIDA Project Cost/Benefit Analysis, page 2.

[8] Core Application, Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table.

[9] Core Application, Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table.

[10] Core Application Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table.

[11] Core Application, Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table.

[12] Core Application, Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table, * number 1.

[13] Core Application, Annex 4-9 to Employment Questionnaire, “Comparative Employment Information” table.

[14] Core Application, Employment Questionnaire, page 7.

[15] Core Application, “Scope Modifications, Funding Modifications, Trade Costs and Contingencies – Detail” table and “Construction Estimated Cost to Complete” table.

[16] Core Application, “Scope Modifications, Funding Modifications, Trade Costs and Contingencies – Detail” table.

[17] Core Application, “Scope Modifications, Funding Modifications, Trade Costs and Contingencies – Detail” table.

[18] Core Application, “Additional Bonds (PILOT and Rental) Sources and Uses Table.”

[19] Core Application, “City/NYPD/FDNY and Other Governmental Expenses – Detail” table.

[20] Core Application, “Total Project Net Sources and Uses Table.”

[21] Core Application, “Total Project Net Sources and Uses Table.”

[22] Core Application, “Total Project Net Sources and Uses Table.”

[23] Core Application, “Soft Costs Estimated Cost to Complete” table.

[24] Core Application, “Scope Modifications, Funding Modifications, Trade Costs and Contingencies – Detail” table.

[25] Annex 3 to Core Application.

[26] Annex 1(g) to the Core Application states that the “ULURP approval for the Project was obtained in connection with the New York City Industrial Development Agency’s issuance of bonds in respect of the Project in August 2006.

"Yankees swing for bling in new plan" NY Daily News 1/8/9

Yankees swing for bling in new plan
BY GREG B. SMITH and GLENN BLAIN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Thursday, January 8th 2009, 1:34 AM

More than a quarter of the $370 million in taxpayer financing in the Yankees' latest demand would go to shiny new toys like giant video screens and upgraded luxury suites, documents show.

Nearly $95 million is for "scope modifications" - items not in the team's original plan when it got $942million in tax-exempt bonds via the city.

The city says the project will more than pay for itself by revitalizing a rundown area of the Bronx.

Yesterday, critics of the stadium's public subsidy, including Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, (D-Westchester) struck out at the baseball team's latest demand. It comes as tax revenue is dwindling and Mayor Bloomberg has ordered all agencies to trim their budgets.

"When we're broke and we can't fund the MTA and we can't fund schools, to give the Yankees another $400 million is bizarre," Brodsky said.

Bloomberg testily refused to respond to the criticism. "I just don't have enough time to answer every one of Brodsky's complaints," he said.

On Tueday, the city released documents detailing why the Yankees and Mets want more taxpayer money and how they plan to spend it. The requests face a hearing Wednesday. If they pass, the Yankees will be in line for $1.3 billion in tax-exempt financing.

The Mets also have requested another $82.2 million on top of the $612 million in tax-free bonds they've already received. They are seeking about $13million for new goodies, including more restaurant space, high-definition scoreboards and security upgrades.

The Yankees' $95 million in extras includes $14.2 million for a scoreboard, $10.7million for a giant video board and $10.4 million in luxury suite upgrades.

The team wants more money to make room for two restaurants, a New York Yankees Steakhouse and a Hard Rock Cafe.

"It's terrific that they want to have a Hard Rock Cafe and a steakhouse there, but why should the taxpayer pay for that?" Brodsky asked.

gsmith@nydailynews.com

"City Trades Its Yankee Stadium Suite for Cash" NY Times 1/6/9

City Trades Its Yankee Stadium Suite for Cash
Uli Seit for The New York Times


Published: January 6, 2009

After intense criticism, the Bloomberg administration has given up a perk it worked fervently to secure: a free luxury suite at the new Yankee Stadium.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Yankee Stadium

The city will relinquish use of the 12-seat box in exchange for whatever revenue the Yankees generate by selling the seats, minus the cost of marketing them. Although neither the city nor the Yankees have publicly disclosed the market value of the suite, similar suites at the new stadium are being sold for as much as $600,000 a year.

The city’s acquisition of the Yankees suite had drawn scrutiny, especially after e-mail messages surfaced in November showing that aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg had zealously pursued the luxury box, as well as free food and access to post-season games.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Queens Democrat who publicly demanded that the city give up the suite, said, “This is something that they never should have negotiated in the first place.”

“And,” he added, “it was only after the public found out about it that they did the right thing.”

The e-mail messages revealed that after the Yankees made concessions over the size of the suite and the food, the team received an additional 250 parking spaces, as well as the rights to three new billboards along the Major Deegan Expressway and whatever revenue they generate.

The messages contrasted with earlier public statements from Seth W. Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, that the suite was not a big issue and that the city had received it simply as a matter of course. One message said that the acquisition of a suite in the Mets stadium was “a big issue to the mayor.”

Under the new arrangement with the city, the Yankees will be allowed to keep the parking spaces and use of the billboards, and the city will be guaranteed at least $100,000 for each baseball season, even if no one buys the suite. The deal was formalized last month in a letter from Mr. Pinsky to the Yankees president, Randy Levine, that was made public on Tuesday. A similar arrangement is being negotiated with the Mets, which also gave the city free use of a suite in its new ballpark, Citi Field.

Aspects of the stadium negotiations slowly came to light as state and federal lawmakers began raising questions about the deals.

The letter from Mr. Pinsky to Mr. Levine said that the main motivation for the agreement was the term limits extension approved by the City Council, which could allow Mr. Bloomberg to remain in office “for several seasons.”

It had not been clear who was to have access to the luxury suites at the two stadiums, or whether the names of the people who used them would be recorded.

The e-mail messages showed that, after inquiries from a reporter, Bloomberg aides said they would use the perk to reward outstanding employees, but that idea had not been mentioned in the aides’ earlier correspondence.

Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who had sought details about the deals the city was making, described the city’s about-face over its use of the suites as “a terrible embarrassment.”

“The taxpayers who are paying for the construction of Yankee Stadium cannot afford to buy tickets for the games, but the mayor was getting a luxury box, so he had to back off,” he said in an interview on Tuesday.

“But the reason he backed off,” Mr. Brodsky speculated, “is because next week, the city is going to give the Yankees more taxpayer money.”

On Jan. 15, the Industrial Development Agency will hold a hearing over a recent request by the Yankees and the Mets for about $400 million in municipal bonds and other money to pay for the final construction stages at their stadiums. In 2006, both teams received about $1.5 billion in bonds and subsidies to help them build the ball parks.

“Does the Bloomberg administration really think that giving up a suite at Yankee Stadium is going to soften the blow that this project has had on city taxpayers?” said Bettina Damiani, director of Good Jobs New York, a civic organization that has closely scrutinized projects subsidized by the city, including the new baseball stadiums.

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “Other cities get boxes and through our negotiations we made sure New York got no less, but we’ve decided to take the value in cash payments to return it to the community.”

The city did not have a suite at the original Yankee Stadium. It had one at Shea Stadium and at the ballparks for the minor-league Brooklyn Cyclones and Staten Island Yankees. The new stadiums are scheduled to open in April. As part of the deal struck by the Bloomberg administrations, future mayors can choose to use the seats in the suite or continue to receive money for their use.

"The Yankees' latest request for cash is yanking N.Y.'s chain" Daily News 1/4/8

The Yankees' latest request for cash is yanking N.Y.'s chain
By Paul Weinstein

Sunday, January 4th 2009, 11:06 AM

Christmas came early for Yankee fans this year. In a period of about a month, the Bombers spent $423 million for arguably the three best players on the free agent market, possibly putting themselves smack back into World Series contention.

Unlike those in Beantown, I don't begrudge the Steinbrenner family's attempts to put a winning product in pinstripes. As a fan of baseball, I wish every owner would put their team's profits back onto the field.

Unfortunately, it's not the Yankees' money that will be paying for CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira. Rather, it's yours.

That's because while the Yankees were preparing their record-breaking spending splurge, they were at the same time holding their hat out and asking for hundreds of millions in additional taxpayer dollars for the soon-to-be-completed Yankee Stadium.

And as we speak, the team is asking for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds (and $111 million in taxable bonds), on top of $940 million in tax-exempt bonds (and $25 million in taxable bonds) already provided for the $1.3 billion project.

According to an estimate by the New York City Independent Budget Office, the request for more bond authority will cost city, state and federal governments more than $80 million in lost revenues.

This is happening, remember, at a time when the city can ill-afford to waste a single dollar.

It's not just the literal dollars being spent that hurts; it's the opportunity cost. New York City will lose $259 million in tax-exempt debt that could be used to fund other important projects - such as building more affordable rental housing or a new Moynihan Station. In 2009, according to the IRS, New York State will receive roughly $1.7 billion in tax-exempt bond authority for joint public and private ventures. If the Yankees' request is approved, it will use about 15% of that allotment.

Most economists will tell you public support for stadiums and arenas is not efficient. While that is true as a general rule, it is not always right. Public financing of sports arenas can make sense when the venues can be used for multiple purposes (concerts, conventions, as well as sports); a project is the foundation for the rebuilding of a distressed area (see the Verizon Center in Washington); fans from other states get drawn into the city; the team that uses the facility is an integral part of the community (e.g. the Green Bay Packers), and team owners are paying a fair share of the cost of the project.

Because the new Yankee Stadium project met several of the above criteria, city government was right to provide public funding for the initial project. By all measures, it's going to be a beautiful and economically important addition to the Bronx.

But it is never a good idea to use public funds to cover costs not projected in the initial plan, as in December a number of media outlets reported the Yankees now intend to do. Doing so encourages government officials and sports franchises to hide the true cost of the projects and contractors to overcharge for their work.

Worst of all, that $259 million in extra bonds will not create a significant number of new jobs at a time when New York is facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

With the Yankees' spending spree apparently proving the team to be recession proof, it's time for the team to take one for its fans, step up to the plate, and pay for finishing the stadium.

If they can hand out $400 million for three players, then surely the Steinbrenners can root around in their couches and find the money to finish a stadium that will reportedly have projected ticket-and-suite revenues exceeding those at the House that Ruth Built by $250 million a year.

And if they can't, they can always ask Alex Rodriguez for a loan.

Weinstein, a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and Johns Hopkins University.

´`Brodsky Seeks Delay in Yankee Stadium Vote`´ Yonkers Tribune 1/2/8

Brodsky Seeks Delay in Yankee Stadium Vote
Seeks Disclosure of Yankee Stadium Information

Elmsford, NY -- Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), Chairman of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, today released a letter to the members of the New York City IDA asking them take two immediate steps with respect to the request for an additional $454 million in public funding for Yankee Stadium and Citi Field Stadium. The first request is to immediately make public secret documents bearing on additional funding requests and the role of City officials in the process. The second request is to delay the scheduled final vote until questions and concerns raised by the public can be answered. The final vote is now scheduled for 9 a.m. the day following the public hearing, after originally being scheduled for Inauguration Day, January 20.

"At a time when we can't fund the MTA or schools, the Bloomberg administration's insistence on an additional $454 million of corporate welfare makes no sense. The IDA is an independent State agency which is not supposed to be under the thumb of the Mayor's office. We are asking IDA board members to allow for a deliberate and open process to ensure that all points of view are heard and that New Yorkers are protected from more corporate welfare for the wealthiest corporations in our area. The spate of taxpayer bailouts of large corporations was at least justified by the threat that they would otherwise go out of business. There is no reason to provide public assistance to these hugely successful businesses at a time when taxes are rising, services are being cut, and jobs are being lost. We call on the IDA to do the right and legal thing."

A public hearing on the funding is currently scheduled for Thursday, January 15, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. at the NYCIDA offices at 110 William Street, 4th Floor, in New York City.

Assemblyman Brodsky has also provided to the board members copies of documents about the legal failures of the initial funding for Yankee Stadium and is seeking documents that clarify and explain the request for additional funding, the role of the IDA, and the role of other parties in the decisions that have brought us to this point, and has not received that information. The actual use for these additional millions of dollars remains unclear. It appears that any such information will be made publicly available only on Friday, January 9, 2009, and apparently only if inspected on-site at IDA offices, leaving only three business days to review the information.

"The lack of public information, the controversial nature of the proposal, the undue haste and secrecy surrounding this deliberation are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the state laws governing IDA procedures," said Assemblyman Brodsky in his letter. "...We are particularly interested in the justification for the new funding, inasmuch as the initial funding was justified on a supposed Yankee threat to leave the City. Since the Yankees have signed a non-relocation agreement, it is unclear what justification can be made for the additional funding."

Please find below a copy of the letter sent to the following members of the NYCIDA Board of Directors:

Derek Park
Amanda Burden
Albert DeLeon
Steven Devereaux
Joseph Douek
Kevin Doyle
Andrea Feirstein
Bernard Haber
William Thompson
Albert Rodriguez
Robert Santos




THE ASSEMBLY
STATE OF NEW YORK
ALBANY

RICHARD L. BRODSKY CHAIRMAN


Committee on Westchester County Corporations, Authorities and Commissions



December 31, 2008

Dear Ms. Burden,

I'm forwarding to you a copy of Reports and Memoranda that resulted from our examination of the decisions to provide public assistance for the construction of the New Yankee Stadium, which you may find of interest in your consideration of additional funding.

With respect to that decision, please note that the Committee has sought information and documents that would clarify and explain the request, the role of the IDA, and the role of other parties in the decisions that have brought us to this point. We have not received that information.

It appears that any such information will be made publicly available only on Friday, January 9, 2009, and apparently only if inspected on-site at IDA offices. This leaves only three business days to review the information.

Furthermore, it appears that a final vote on the additional funding has been scheduled for 9:00 a.m. the following day, rather than the vote previously scheduled for January 20, 2009, which, as you may know, is the date of the Presidential Inauguration.

The lack of public information, the controversial nature of the proposal, the undue haste and secrecy surrounding this deliberation are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the state laws governing IDA procedures. As you can see from the Interim Report, the manipulation of the IDA process including the use of a Deviation Letter and an Inducement Resolution inconsistent with each other, the artificial inflation of property tax assessments by the City, the successful pursuit of a luxury suite for City officials, the failure to consider the affordability of stadium tickets, the lack of permanent job creation, the uncertainty about the Community Benefits Agreement and the parkland replacement are issues that must be considered as the additional funding is advanced. We are particularly interested in the justification for the new funding, inasmuch as the initial funding was justified on a supposed Yankee threat to leave the City. Since the Yankees have signed a non-relocation agreement, it is unclear what justification can be made for the additional funding.

Given these important unresolved matters, and the secrecy surrounding the information and decision making process, and given that the IDA is, as you know, supposed to be an independent state authority subject to the laws of the state, we ask that you require immediate publication of all relevant documents and postpone the actual vote to a time after answers to legitimate concerns and questions are provided. The integrity of government processes themselves is at stake, as much as the correctness of any decision to provide public assistance to the Yankees at a time of economic distress. I look forward to an early reply.

Best Wishes,

Richard Brodsky