CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Truthful James — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:31:51 -0000

As a person responsible for organizing and selling TIF bonds supported by in excess of $1.6 Billion in private sector investment, all I can say is a Redevelopment District surrounding Wiggily Field would be a breathtaking misuse and might not even be supportable from increases in property tax revenue at Wiggily.

By the way, as I undertstand it (and I had nothing to do with that issuance) the sweetheart Reinsdorf lease (dependent on revenues from increased rentals based on increased attendance) forced the Sports from the Authority to go after other revenues which had been put up almost as an afterthought -- it almost was the knell for the Cell which was not well.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Arthur Andersen — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:09:43 -0000

Michele, most "hotel taxes" aren't paid by the innkeepers. They are paid as occupancy taxes by everyone who stays in a hotel in the city. Chicago already has a relatively high tax, in part to pay for McPier. Raising the tax for anything, especially the Flubs, ick, makes Chicago harder to market to conventions/tourist groups. AA agrees with YDD. Quicktake the real estate and rezone it. I was thinking the Channahon Cubs had a nice ring to it, personally.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

steve schnorf — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:51:57 -0000

If the deal was done thru revenue bonds, with the revenue stream coming from rents paid by the team, and the lease was for the period of the bonds, then I don't see any problem with it at all; I don't even think it would matter whether the State owned it or not. Key would be what coverage the investors wanted, and whether the revenue stream covered that, and who would be on the hook if it fell apart. You could cover that with a TIF for the limited purpose of covering any shortfall.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

A Citizen — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:02:55 -0000

- Gene Parmesan -
It could mean job security for Fitz until he retires.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Gene Parmesan — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:45:33 -0000

A Citizen, you've got to stop joking around about this stuff, someone might start seriously thinking about the city owning the team. Think of all the contracts city hall could sell out for beer vendors, licenses, etc. The kickback potential is through the roof. Imagine all the patronage employees slinging brews at the speed of snails. This could be a gold mine. You could even have patronage workers on the infield. I can just see a Daley cronie manning third base for $14 million a year.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

A Citizen — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:33:29 -0000

-Bill-
Condos, okay. But doing that to Wisconsin could lead to a war between the two states.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

A Citizen — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:17:05 -0000

- Gene Parmesan - Friday, Dec 14, 07 @ 11:21 am:
A Citizen, are you kidding?
Gene, Of course I am kidding. I would much rather invest in Ryan. :.) But seriously if we are going to own casinos, or Chicago is, why not baseball teams? Why stop at just the ballpark?

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Leigh — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:17:37 -0000

I think I need a drink, I agree with Bill!

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Rich Miller — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:09:51 -0000

Wrong again. This bond thing intrigues me. CS-T reported that Zell would get the money. If they're wrong, then he's in line for a huge tax break. That's also a subsidy.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

GoBearsss — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:58:55 -0000

It is only your White Sox pride that sees Wrigley as a liability. Everyone else values it in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Look - your premise is wrong. Zell could get hundreds of millions more by selling Wrigley with the Cubs.

The argument of whether the State should buy it is separate.

In the end, this is a maneuver for MLB to get a preferred ownership group selected. That is the point I am opposed to, and that's why I don't like this deal.

But that still means your premise is just incorrect.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Snidely Whiplash — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:57:14 -0000

Big Jim Thompson, former Republican governor of Illinois, bequeather of free defense to now imprisoned former Republican governor of Illinois, great pal of and spokesman for current Democrat governor of Illinois. To think this guy got his start investigating and prosecuting the sacrificial lambs among many corrupt public officials ...

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Rich Miller — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:50:33 -0000

Sure you can. Especially since the state will be on the hook for repairs and upgrades.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

GoBearsss — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:48:45 -0000

Reading is FUNdamental.

The following sentence:

"If the State were to purchase it for $200-$300 million, that could be seen as subsidizing the Canning Group. But if the State gets it for $1, then you canâ€™t make the same argument."

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

The Mad Hatter — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:48:40 -0000

One more thing. I'm looking for investors to help me buy the Cubs. We'll be moving the team to South Dakota so (Unindicted Official) A-Rod will still be able to watch live games from his prison cell in Yankton.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Rich Miller — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:46:05 -0000

===It is taking Wrigley Field out of the sale, transferring it over to the State. This allows the price for the Cubs to be lowered to the point that the Canning group can buy it cheaper.===

That would be a subsidy.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

The Mad Hatter — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:43:35 -0000

Now, seriously. Isn't this plan coming from the same guy who previously tried to sell such state assets as the Thompson Center and Tollway headquarters? Is our beloved King Rod actually thinking about the good of the taxpayers of Illinois? Maybe he's thinking about what's good for Cubs fans? Or maybe he thinks he can put wheels on Wrigley Field and use it to transport the thousands of people who will need some way to get downtown when the CTA cuts all those bus routes in January? More likely he's thinking about what's good for (Unindicted Official) A-Rod, since he loves wearing his mitt and Cubbie hat and sitting right near the dugout so he might catch a foul ball.
I just don't know. What is HE thinking?

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

NimROD — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:41:22 -0000

Why bother rolling up the paddy wagons?

The number of Super Rods cronies, flunkies, mob buddies, illegal campaign donors, ghost payrollers and other assorted detritus could easily FILL Wrigley Field. Just fill, build a 12-foot razor ribbon fence around it and guard towers at all four corners. You improve the value of the property by turning it in to something useful and you get all of the Chicago criminals in one place. In return the Cubs can go play at some AAA park commensurate with their overall quality.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

GoBearsss — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:41:20 -0000

It's not the State's decision to subsidize. And I don't think it is subsidizing.

It is taking Wrigley Field out of the sale, transferring it over to the State. This allows the price for the Cubs to be lowered to the point that the Canning group can buy it cheaper.

If the State were to purchase it for $200-$300 million, that could be seen as subsidizing the Canning Group. But if the State gets it for $1, then you can't make the same argument.

Like I said, I don't like this because I would prefer to see Cuban as the owner. It reminds me of when the Red sox sold a few years ago for $700 million. There were higher bids. But the owners have to approve any new owner, and many suspect Selig tried to steer it to the right person.

That looks like that is what is happening now.

Does it harm the State? If the State can get Wrigley for $1, then it seems that the State comes out the winner.

But I would still prefer Cuban to own it.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

wordslinger — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:39:05 -0000

There's something missing here. What's in it for Blago and Thompson? Of course, there are fees to be made from the issuance of bonds, and contracts for the renovation projects themselves. Those are nice -- but motivation enough for an absurdly controversial proposal, at this time? You could issue bonds for schools and get those.

Other work/support from Zell/Tribune in the future, perhaps?

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

HappyToaster — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:36:05 -0000

Tom Cross would change his tune in a heartbeat if they were looking at a site in his district.

Daley highballed the Fire for the Comiskey parking lot site on the premise there is some inherent value in being inside the city limits. AEG passed and went with the Madigan deal in Bridgeview. Serving the geographic distribution of the Fire's fanbase catchment was an important factor.

The problem with rehab is it will knock all the "charm" out of the place but still not equal the economic return or fan amenities from a new site. See Yankee Stadium. Nobody is complaining after the crappy 70's rehab about saving "the House That Ruth Built".

Skyboxes, parking, more seats, naming rights and night games all add up to a big pile of money.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

The Mad Hatter — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:32:17 -0000

I'm 100 percent in favor of (Unindicted Official) A-Rod buying Wrigley Field. We can have "A-Rod Day at the Park" and invite his cronies, flunkies, mob buddies, illegal campaign donors, payrollers and all the other bottom-feeders with whom he has surrounded himself to come out for a nice day at the Friendly Confines. While they're there, Mr. Fitzgerald's crew can just roll up the paddy wagons and begin processing them enmasse for their upcoming stays at the Federal Hilton.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Rich Miller — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:31:58 -0000

That's an old estimate. Since then, by all accounts, the bidding has intensified. Also, you claim that the estimate was "linked" to the Canning offer. Where?

Plus, why should the state subsidize the Canning Group's bid? It's billionaire welfare.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

GoBearsss — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:25:54 -0000

On the internets.

Anderson Economic Group valued the Cubs at $600 million, and some reports have put it higher than that. That number has been linked to the Canning Group's projected offer.

Cuban has said he would pay over $1 billion for the package.

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Gene Parmesan — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:21:02 -0000

A Citizen, are you kidding? The Cubs are a great investment. You don't have to win and people still flock to your stadium to buy tickets and all the other junk at the game. Most fans barely watch the game, and you provide an enormous amount of economic activity to the city. You can run the team into the ground, and charge the second highest ticket prices in the league!

Re: Billionaire subsidy whacked, explained

Michelle Flaherty — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:20:48 -0000

It wouldn't be hard for the governor to explain away again relying on Loop hotel taxes to pay for Wrigley. That's not a tax on people. That's a tax on the multi-billion dollar companies that run hotels in Chicago and don't pay their fair share for the amenities that make the city great.