why stadium deals are so secretive

[Millhouse]

Yeah, why is that?

 

[Millhouse]

The numbers in these deals get totally overlooked. For example in ATL the total cost is like 675 million while completely ignoring the 500 million plus in infrastructure and surroundings that the muni will finance.

Nothing to say that the braves play in a facility less than 20 years old whih was constructed for like 230 mil (or 320 mil or so in 2014 dollars). Why is the cost more than doubled?

i'd love to see the projections for that stadium. i doubt they only projected out 20 years

 

[cuseinchina]

politicians don't make business deals. they make political deals.

if it involves other people's tax dollars it's not a business deal

Public / private partnerships are inherently a mix of both. The public gets a resource, and private financing pays for part of it and thus requires a return. That is very much a business deal...only difference is one party (the taxpayers) have appointed a third party (elected officials) to negotiate in their behalf. And their return is intangible not financial, but no less real. If we want our tax dollars used differently we can elect other representation

 

[Millhouse]

Public / private partnerships are inherently a mix of both. The public gets a resource, and private financing pays for part of it and thus requires a return. That is very much a business deal...only difference is one party (the taxpayers) have appointed a third party (elected officials) to negotiate in their behalf. And their return is intangible not financial, but no less real. If we want our tax dollars used differently we can elect other representation

in a real business deal, you can walk away. if you don't like a stadium, in a few years, you have a one in a billion shot of casting the deciding vote for the deciding representative that you want to replace.

ridiculous.

by your ridiculous logic, everything politicians do is a business deal.

 

[CusefanATL]

why do they want to build a major league park out in the middle of nowhere? I understand the current location sucks...but why not do a RE deal and bring in some retail/hotels etc. Atlanta is booming.

its not in the middle of nowhere... the city was "out of money" to help the braves and claimed they didnt have the power to allow them to develop the area.

they moved to a new county (the area is maybe not "booming" but certainly "hot"), got the money and kept an Atlanta address. and moved to the heart of their fans at an intersection of 2 main highways and a huge boulevard like street. And the logistics are already in the process of a hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades.

win, win, win.

 

[Millhouse]

http://deadspin.com/opponents-barred-from-speaking-as-cobb-county-approves-1582556255

 

[SWC75]

So they are replacing a stadium built for the 1996 Olympics. In 2014. Amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Field

 

[cuseinchina]

its not in the middle of nowhere... the city was "out of money" to help the braves and claimed they didnt have the power to allow them to develop the area.

they moved to a new county (the area is maybe not "booming" but certainly "hot"), got the money and kept an Atlanta address. and moved to the heart of their fans at an intersection of 2 main highways and a huge boulevard like street. And the logistics are already in the process of a hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades.

win, win, win.

I don't know the details. I just know that I was recently driving through Atlanta with a friend and stopped off at the home of some acquaintances in Grant Park who are big democratic party fundraisers/activists in the city - they were pissed and suggested that many many other people were pissed. Again I don't know the details but their description of it did not sound particularly good for the city. They did stipulate that most of the season ticket holders were from the county where they are moving and that on some level that made sense...but beyond that there was a lot of negative. Sorry for lack of detail here, I really don't remember the specifics, just that people were not happy at all.

 

[cuseinchina]

in a real business deal, you can walk away. if you don't like a stadium, in a few years, you have a one in a billion shot of casting the deciding vote for the representative that you want to replace.

ridiculous.

by your ridiculous logic, everything politicians do is a business deal.

stop using ridiculous words like ridiculous and extrapolating things to the nonsensical.

In the private sector the stakeholders are the shareholders, management, and employees. The first and the third of those are at the mercy of the ability of management (who are in a sense elected) to make good business decisions. The same applies to politicians involved in public private partnerships - we select representatives to act on our behalf.

And your walk away argument doesn't hold weight - their are significant costs to not fulfilling a contract.

Public private partnerships are business deals, full stop. You can disagree and you'll be wrong, that's your prerogative.

 

[Millhouse]

stop using ridiculous words like ridiculous and extrapolating things to the nonsensical.

Public private partnerships are business deals, full stop. You can disagree and you'll be wrong, that's your prerogative.

what is an example of something a politician does that isn't a business deal by your definition?

as long as appointed politicians can talk about intangible benefits, anything would qualify

you can walk away before signing the contract. i shouldn't have to point that out duh

 

[TheCusian]

Not sure how this relates to Syracuse and the Dome. You can be mad about a private/public deal done in secret - when the owners have gobs of money. But by all accounts, the University doesn't have a billionaire owner and needs some sort of deal with the public to move forward on building something new.

If the dome is just getting an upgrade as suggested as an option, it would be on it's own dime - and may or may not stave off the inevitable 10-15 years from now.

 

[Millhouse]

Not sure how this relates to Syracuse and the Dome. You can be mad about a private/public deal done in secret - when the owners have gobs of money. But by all accounts, the University doesn't have a billionaire owner and needs some sort of deal with the public to move forward on building something new.

If the dome is just getting an upgrade as suggested as an option, it would be on it's own dime - and may or may not stave off the inevitable 10-15 years from now.

i thought the secrecy was interesting considering how few details were made public here

 

[AZOrange]

Public / private partnerships are inherently a mix of both. The public gets a resource, and private financing pays for part of it and thus requires a return. That is very much a business deal...only difference is one party (the taxpayers) have appointed a third party (elected officials) to negotiate in their behalf. And their return is intangible not financial, but no less real. If we want our tax dollars used differently we can elect other representation

What "intangible, not financial return/resource" does the public get here exactly? That wouldn't be provided if the owners/leagues didn't finance the stadiums themselves?
If you want me to pay for a stadium, Fine, but I better get the economic benefit of it.

 

[AZOrange]

So they are replacing a stadium built for the 1996 Olympics. In 2014. Amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Field

Yeah...for twice as much to build!

 

[TheCusian]

i thought the secrecy was interesting considering how few details were made public here

I'm not privy as to how far along the deal was when it leaked. It struck me as not that far and that there would be a public vetting.

Could be wrong.

 

[cuseinchina]

What "intangible, not financial return/resource" does the public get here exactly? That wouldn't be provided if the owners/leagues didn't finance the stadiums themselves?
If you want me to pay for a stadium, Fine, but I better get the economic benefit of it.

The financial benefit is case dependent and has a lot to do with the intangible benefit of having a stadium - civic pride, national notoriety, etc which drive development, tourism, dining and lodging, traffic in adjacent attractions etc.

The people you elect should be acting on your behalf to figure out what the benefits are relative to costs. But as is always the case with a public good, some of the benefit is difficult to calculate because it does not involve direct cash flow. That does not mean it doesn't make economic sense, intangible assets have significant value - think of a strong brand name which is physically nothing but economically very valuable but nearly impossible to pin down to a specific number. Again you are electing people to make those decisions on your behalf. If people don't like it, elect new leaders. When shareholders don't like management, they team up and kick them out at the annual meeting.

What is the benefit for example of allocating land, tax breaks, and tax dollars to something like an art museum that is necessarily going to lose money and rely on donations and ongoing help from the city to continue operating? it's the stuff around it, and it's the 'branding' it provides to the city. Better to have a noteworthy museum than to not, for various reasons. Look at Milwaukee -- that city was left for dead many years ago. Then they built a world class art museum and all of a sudden people from Chicago are moving there and buying luxury condos on the lake.

 

[Millhouse]

The financial benefit is case dependent and has a lot to do with the intangible benefit of having a stadium - civic pride, national notoriety, etc which drive development, tourism, dining and lodging, traffic in adjacent attractions etc.

The people you elect should be acting on your behalf to figure out what the benefits are relative to costs. But as is always the case with a public good, some of the benefit is difficult to calculate because it does not involve direct cash flow. That does not mean it doesn't make economic sense, intangible assets have significant value - think of a strong brand name which is physically nothing but economically very valuable but nearly impossible to pin down to a specific number. Again you are electing people to make those decisions on your behalf. If people don't like it, elect new leaders. When shareholders don't like management, they team up and kick them out at the annual meeting.

you don't have to buy the stock in the first place and you can sell anytime after you buy

aside from that, they're totally alike!

 

[Millhouse]

What "intangible, not financial return/resource" does the public get here exactly? That wouldn't be provided if the owners/leagues didn't finance the stadiums themselves?
If you want me to pay for a stadium, Fine, but I better get the economic benefit of it.

that's for your appointed leaders to know and you to never find out

 

[cuseinchina]

you don't have to buy the stock in the first place and you can sell anytime after you buy

aside from that, they're totally alike!

this is more like a private equity deal - longer time horizon. Most capital is private btw.

 

[AZOrange]

The financial benefit is case dependent and has a lot to do with the intangible benefit of having a stadium - civic pride, national notoriety, etc which drive development, tourism, dining and lodging, traffic in adjacent attractions etc.

The people you elect should be acting on your behalf to figure out what the benefits are relative to costs. But as is always the case with a public good, some of the benefit is difficult to calculate because it does not involve direct cash flow. That does not mean it doesn't make economic sense, intangible assets have significant value - think of a strong brand name which is physically nothing but economically very valuable but nearly impossible to pin down to a specific number. Again you are electing people to make those decisions on your behalf. If people don't like it, elect new leaders. When shareholders don't like management, they team up and kick them out at the annual meeting.

First, shareholders elect directors, not management. Directors then select management, who are delegated specific authority to do certain things. But generally most corporations major decisions require board (and sometimes even shareholder) approval...just like what were talking about here...a vote.

 

[Millhouse]

this is more like a private equity deal - longer time horizon. Most capital is private btw.

you can still choose to buy and sell duh

 

[cuseinchina]

Millhouse - the long-run result of your vision of the world would be that very northern city would look like Detroit, and every southern city would be a sprawling unplanned strip-mall and stripper laden cess pool like Houston, charmless cultureless and sad.

 

[cuseinchina]

you can still choose to buy and sell duh

You don't know much about liquidity do you?

 

[cuseinchina]

First, shareholders elect directors, not management. Directors then select management, who are delegated specific authority to do certain things. But generally most corporations major decisions require board (and sometimes even shareholder) approval...just like what were talking about here...a vote.

representation is representation - whatever it looks like. and when you control even by consortium more than 50% of the voting shares of a company you can do as you please with management.

 

[CusefanATL]

I don't know the details. I just know that I was recently driving through Atlanta with a friend and stopped off at the home of some acquaintances in Grant Park who are big democratic party fundraisers/activists in the city - they were pissed and suggested that many many other people were pissed. Again I don't know the details but their description of it did not sound particularly good for the city. They did stipulate that most of the season ticket holders were from the county where they are moving and that on some level that made sense...but beyond that there was a lot of negative. Sorry for lack of detail here, I really don't remember the specifics, just that people were not happy at all.

The city of Altanta has about 475,000 people (give or take). ITP (inside the perimeter, 285) has about 800,000 (give or take). The metro Atlanta area as a whole has 5.5 million.

There are a lot of moving parts here. Demographics playing a big part. Some areas are getting screwed. Grant Park is absolutely 1 of them. So I do feel bad for your friends. But the majority of Braves fans are in favor of this move - just the opposition is a very vocal minority.

They are vocal for 2 main reason in my opinion - and neither are rational.

1. It is a black eye for the city of Atlanta that they will no longer be in the city proper of Atlanta. but it is literally in a 10x better location than the current Turner which is south of Downtown and West of Grant Park literally in a wasteland of poverty. By being south of Atlanta, the core fan base (who overwhelmingly live north of Atlanta) had to deal with the connector (75/85 merge) which causes some of the worst traffic in the country.

2. it is moving to Cobb County. ITP'ers HATE Cobb County because it is conservative, somewhat anti-gay, religious, and has 1/2 the taxes of Atlanta and Fulton County. Some of the hate is legit in my opinion, some of it is crazy.

edit: going to add a 3rd and it is the most irrational: they are vocal because of the taxpayer money being spent. But the majority of Cobb County and more specifically Smyrna and Marietta residents are for it and those are the people "paying" for it.

For the record, I lived in Inman Park for 5 years and Brookhaven for 1 year (both ITP) and now live in Smyrna about 2.5 miles from the new stadium. I wasn't really pro-smyrna move. But i was without a doubt pro-get the hell out of the current turner field area. It was a dump with NOTHING to do other than drink next to your car and try to avoid homeless people trying to sell you stuff or beg for money. It was not a nice place to bring out of town friends/family.