The New Yankee Stadium: A Giant Pork-Barrel Project
I’m not in a position to say where the pork and the subsidies are coming from, but suffice it to say that the most valuable team in Major League Baseball ($1.026 billion), its owner (estimated personal net worth in 2004: $225 million, and certainly higher now), and its players (Yankees’ 2006 payroll: $194.7 million) are feeding at the public trough outrageously (NY Times link appears to be free for now):
Declaring the start of a new era for the Yankees and for the Bronx, officials from the state, the city, the team and Major League Baseball broke ground today on a, 51,000-seat replacement stadium, as throngs of police officers cordoned off protesters who have opposed the project because it will eliminate most of two popular parks and require $400 million of public subsidies, on top of the $800 million in construction costs that the Yankees will pay.
If you don’t understand why players salaries are a lot higher than they would be if it weren’t for massive public subsidies, go here (”Pro Sports Owners and Athletes: Supersized Welfare Queens”).
____________________________________
UPDATE: Commenter #3 “cornfed” makes excellent points about party bias in the article, and yours truly elaborates a bit.
I’m sure that only the most honest contractors will be involved. Kinda like the Big Dig.
Comment by Weapon of Mass Disturbance — August 17, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Oh, George may actually keep the waste down to avoid public embarrassment if the project overruns too much.
Comment by TBlumer — August 17, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
This is the part I noticed: “…officials from the state [REPUBLICAN Gov Pataki], the city [REPUBLICAN Mayor Bloomberg], the team and Major League Baseball …”
For equal time, from the article: “the ceremony was also an occasion for four Bronx politicians, all Democrats, to explain their decision to support the project in the face of intense community opposition.”
In need of a glass-of-full positive aspect, a community that (a) elected at least four local Democrats and (b) contributed to elected two big-spending, excuse me ‘investing in growth’ Republicans feels (c) “intense opposition” to this project. Also, “a coalition of environmental groups challeng[ed] the stadium”. Nationwide sentiment against eminent domain should also help curb politician support of new sports complexes.
Comment by cornfed — August 17, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
#3, awfully good catch. They even have a link to “Democrats” within the story, while “Republicans” doesn’t appear. The Dems get their detailed positive quotes and explanations in, while Pataki and Bloomberg are only described as “dismissing complaints.”
It’s clear that The Times is in favor of the project, and wants the Democrats associated with it, though Bloomberg-Pataki certainly did most of the dirty work to make it happen.
Comment by TBlumer — August 17, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
#3, your point re eminent domain — that WILL be a huge test at some point, in some city, somewhere down the line.
The Times certainly felt compelled to give the coalition opposing the stadium equal time in its piece, but you must recall that The Times is supported Kelo and had em-dom invoked in its name to get the land for its headquarters building.
Comment by TBlumer — August 17, 2006 @ 11:25 pm