Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Public Cheers for "Taxpayer's Field," Proponents Say(Citifield-New Mets Ballpark)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 10:45 AM
Original message
Public Cheers for "Taxpayer's Field," Proponents Say(Citifield-New Mets Ballpark)
Source: ABC News

Huzzahs are being raised for a proposal by two New York lawmakers that Citibank share naming rights to the New York Mets' ballpark, according to the men who advanced the idea.

The park is known as "Citi Field" under a 20-year, $400 million deal between the Mets and the now-shaky bank. New York City Councilmembers Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo recently suggested changing the name to "Citi/Taxpayers Field," after the federal government agreed to a $300 billion "backstop" plan to keep the bank from going under.

The two Republicans represent Long Island districts and the stadium is in Queens. But the duo's proposal has garnered praise from citizens from all over, their spokesmen told ABCNews.com Monday.

As evidence, a spokesman for Oddo shared with ABCNews.com emails his boss had received from the public.

"I totally agree with your desire to deny Citicorp naming rights at the new stadium," reads one, claiming to be from a resident of Queens. "It might be more appropriate to rename it, 'Citizen's Field."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6370971&page=1



I agree. That Citi wants to go on with their naming rights after taxpayer bailout just frosts me! And does anyone remember Enron Field?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
VPStoltz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent idea. Washingtonians coughed up hundreds of millions for a baseball field
that had been voted down. The legislature didn't want to hurt the feelings of the Mariners so they bought them a field on our dollar: $450 mil.
Never got so much as a thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Same with Philly and Pittsburgh. At least you use a bb stadium a good 3rd of the year...
the football-specific stadiums sit idle over 300 days a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nyc 4 Biden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. "The two Republicans represent Long Island districts"
Edited on Tue Dec-02-08 11:33 AM by nyc 4 Biden
Wrong.

Vincent Ignizio's District is in Staten Island and James Oddo's district is Staten Island and Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights and Bath Beach in Brooklyn.


ETA: The re-naming idea is funny though. I always thought the sponsorship should have went to MetLife or Apple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadmessengers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. I love this idea.
Just calling it Citi/Taxpayer's Field would be a beautiful kick in the teeth for Citibank - reminding tens of thousands of people every day of their screwup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. I say they ought to call $#!tty Field "Jackie Robinson Memorial Stadium"
in honor of Jackie Robinson's contribution to baseball in Brooklyn and Queens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyrone Slothrop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. I fully support this
Edited on Tue Dec-02-08 12:16 PM by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm a Mets fan; I usually make it out to 5 or 6 games a season.

I was really sad that Shea was closing down, but I thought it was cool that they were going to name the new park "City Field". It seemed very appropriate for a NYC ballpark, and I was happy that the park was going to continue unsubsidized.

Imagine my horror, when I finally saw the logo on the side of the new park and realized that "City Field" was actually "CitiField"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. I've been referring to it as the new Shea.
Never did care for corporations buying naming rights.

Regards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark Baker Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Nor does anyone else
My local football (soccer) stadium was known as "Friends Provident St Mary's Stadium", Friends Provident being the main club sponsor and St Mary's being the area it's in. I find this far less offensive than where there's only a corporate name: everyone could just ignore the corporate name and call it "St Mary's Stadium".

A couple of years ago, FlyBe became the new club sponsor. As before, the sponsorship package included stadium naming rights. And the name they chose was... "St Mary's Stadium". They obviously felt the good PR they'd get from choosing a name that the fans wouldn't be annoyed with was worth more than the extra advertising the name would get them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. out of curiosity - who actually paid for the stadium to be built?
The Mets or taxpayers? And who gets the $400,000,000 from Citibank - the Mets or those who built the stadium?
And one more question - if the city built the stadium is the money being paid back through rent? Or is this a situation where the public built a place of business for a company and gets no compensation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Citi Field...
In a nutshell, the Mets and Yankees nominally pay the costs of building their new ballparks, but both get heavy subsidies in the form of cheap bonds backed by New York, city and state, and in infrastructural investment (transport hubs and parking lots) carried by taxpayers. Plus both are cutting the number of seats so they can sell out season tickets and boost the prices (the Fenway Park model). Their plan will make baseball unaffordable to all but the rich. On top of this, Bloomberg invoked eminent domain to expropriate the Willets Point area near Citi Field and give it over to a fancy $3.3 bn development plan.

You should have seen what Giuliani tried to pass off, though - more than a billion straight up for construction of each new park. This parting gift of his administration was killed, however. Among other things, the big Yankee fan G. got his own personalized official World Series rings from the Yankees for just $2500 a pop (they'd be worth like $100,000 or more on the market), and claimed this was normal since he paid for them "like anyone else."

Oh, really? Where can I buy my own official WS rings?!

Look up Kucinich's House subcommittee hearings on the matter for more. Village Voice has also done good coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. A Closer Look at Stadium Subsidies
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/a-closer-look-at-stadium-subsidies



<snip>
The 2008 Major League Baseball season will be the last one played in Yankee Stadium. After 85 years, the most storied venue in American sports will be torn down. Starting in 2009, the New York Yankees will play in the “new” Yankee Stadium, built right next to the old one. Across town in Queens, another New York baseball stadium, much less famous and hallowed, will also shut its doors after 2008. The close of Shea Stadium, home to the New York Mets since 1964, will make way for Citi Field. Both projects have been in the works for some time. While the new Yankee Stadium has been heavily subsidized by New York taxpayers, Citi Field is entirely a private endeavor—which, as modern sports stadiums go, makes it somewhat unusual.

Since 1990, construction of stadiums and arenas for professional sports franchises has occurred at an incredible pace. In that time, Major League Baseball (30 teams) has opened 19 new stadiums and has three more currently under construction. The National Football League (32 teams) has opened 17 new stadiums; done major renovations to four others; has three under construction; and has four more projects at various stages of planning and negotiations. The National Basketball Association (30 teams) has opened more than two-thirds of its 30 arenas since 1990, and at least three NBA franchises are actively seeking new arenas.

In most cases, state and local governments have been closely involved in the financing, design, construction, and management or ownership of professional sports facilities. Even Washington has played a role: the local and state bonds used to fund new stadiums and arenas typically are exempt from federal income tax. This has been the subject of hearings before the House Oversight Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, with some lawmakers questioning whether subsidizing stadiums for private gain is consistent with the goal of aiding “public” infrastructure projects. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are at stake, so it is important for business leaders and elected officials to understand the costs and benefits of publicly financed stadiums.
<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. FedEx Field privately built and owned. Ravens Stadium a waste of taxpayer $. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. This is untrue.
"While the new Yankee Stadium has been heavily subsidized by New York taxpayers, Citi Field is entirely a private endeavor—which, as modern sports stadiums go, makes it somewhat unusual."

You really think the Mets would stand for that? Both stadiums are being subsidized in the same way: low-interest bonds backed by the state, surrounding infrastructure provided by the city. The Yankees are getting a heftier slice, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Another version
Edited on Tue Dec-02-08 07:34 PM by BrklynLiberal
http://neverforget69.metsblog.com/blog/_archives/2008/6/5/3730113.html


<snip>
New York City desperately wanted to land the Olympics for 2012. In order to do so, the city would have to build an Olympic Stadium. Plans were laid to build a stadium in the heart of Manhattan over the west side rail yards, a site that, at one time, George Steinbrenner wanted to build a new Yankee Stadium. The Olympic stadium would be grandiose in scale and ultimately would become the new home of the New York Jets who still shared a stadium with the NFC Giants in New Jersey. One problem, the opposition to such a facility by those who have businesses and live in the area was enormous. Even though the Jets were to invest 850 million of their own money, it would still cost the city half a billion in infrastructure including a huge slab to cover the rail yards. Lawyers were hired and the fight was on. The odds of New York landing the Olympics were a long shot to begin with. Many felt the purpose was really nothing more than for billionaires to become even richer. To make a long story short, the stadium referendum was voted down. New York had no stadium and its chances of landing the Olympics now became more remote.



Another announcement was made prior to the 2005 baseball season. The Yankees planned to build a new ballpark at their own expense next to the current stadium. The only money needed from the city would be for improvement of roads, parking, and a new Metro North rail station. The Yankees would pay for the rest. The Mets who planned a new stadium for almost 10 years were strangely being ignored or at least it seemed that way. The Mets stadium group had performed site work including environmental impact studies, had architectural plans that were revised time and again yet the city was hot to build a stadium on the west side of Manhattan for the Jets and build infrastructure for the Yankees in the Bronx.



After the West Side Stadium deal was voted down, a week later in June of 2005, the Mets brass and Mayor Bloomberg put together a plan that guaranteed the Mets would get a new stadium. The Mets committed to paying for a new stadium and the city of New York would commit to pay for infrastructure and the cost of converting the new Mets yard to an Olympic size (80,000 attendance) stadium in a last ditch attempt to land the Olympics. The Mets would build the new ballpark next to Shea Stadium. The one stipulation to the deal was that the Mets would get their infrastructure money regardless of the Olympic committee’s decision. And it was a one time offer. In other words, if the Olympics were not awarded to New York for 2012, the Mets would not be obligated to renovate their baseball only yard years later for some future Olympic bid. New York was running out of time, building a new stadium with no plans anywhere else in New York was simply not feasible. So the Mets who had plans for a new park longer than any other New York team since 1998, and were overlooked as the Jets and Yankees got all the attention leaped in front of the pack.



Three weeks later the Olympic Committee awarded the Olympics to Paris. New York would not need an Olympic Stadium. The Mets got the money they would need for infrastructure improvements and shortly would announce final plans to replace aging Shea Stadium. In the early spring of 2006, the New York Daily news published a rendering of the new Mets stadium temporarily named Mets Ballpark. The press conference to reveal and announce the new ballpark occurred in the first week of the 2006 season at Shea Stadium. By the middle of summer, work had already begun.
<snip>


Wikipedia seems to have different stories in the same article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citi_Field


It has been designed by HOK Sport. The $850 million Citi Field is being subsidized with $450 million in public funds <1>



The Olympic stadium project was estimated to cost $2.2 billion with $180 million provided by New York City and New York State. If New York had won the bid, the stadium would have been expanded to host the opening and closing ceremonies, as well as other sporting events.



The projected cost of the new stadium and other infrastructure improvements is $610 million, with the Mets picking up $420 million of that amount. The agreement includes a 40-year lease that will keep the Mets in New York until 2049.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. I say it should have a more dignified name...Like
Indentured servants field. That would ring down through history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. I like "Citizen Field"
Gets the point across & sounds nicer than "Taxpayers Field"

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazyriver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. While I agree "citizens" is a nicer way to refer to people,
I like "taxpayers" in this case because it drives home a sharper point. My own pick would be "Citi/Credit Slave Park".

Slogan: "Home of the Mets, Now Hand Over Your Money or The Economy Gets Two In The Back Of The Head".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. For more than a year I've been calling it...
Resolution Trust Corporation Park.

This was before the bailout/plunder plan got its current name of TARP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazyriver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I like that. Maybe even Plunder Field at RTC Park.
A NJ based Mets fan friend of mine offered "Third Generation Park" because at least three generations will be paying back the plunder costs in taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great Idea! K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. Mookie loves this! AND - same for Manchester U since it's owned by the US treasury now.
Isn't it ManU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadmessengers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. ManU is owned by Malcolm Glazer
not sure where you got the US Treasury bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. One of the teams is majority owned by AIG, which we now own. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadmessengers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. ManU has a sponsorship deal with AIG
Was that what you were thinking about? AIG's corporate logo is on the front of ManU's shirts, but they don't own the team, or any other sports team as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yep
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
15. That would get my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. When Prince Talal buys it out, he can call it GID Stadium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
29. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC