July 22, 2004

TOUCHDOWN!

By James Eugene*

You have not heard me comment on the West Side Stadium. And for good reason. In some respects, I cannot make heads or tails of the issue. And I generally oppose the use of public funds for sports stadia (all the negative studies are right). But I am always willing to listen to anything on a case-by-case basis and not let philosophy get in the way.

I think the following represents the Administration's position. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.

The total cost of the project will be $1.4 billion. The Jets will pay $800 million and the City and State will pay $600 million and the governmental expense is supposedly capped at the $600 million. The City claims that the increase in tax revenue due to the increase in property values on the West Side will generate sufficient revenue to pay off the $600 million. And part of the site can be used for conventions.

Opponents claim that the $600 million could be better spent on schools, roads, etc…. They worry over traffic nightmares and the like.

First, I do not buy the traffic nightmare argument. There will be no more than twelve football games by the Jets during the year (two preseason, eight regular season and a maximum of two postseason games). Most football games take place on Sunday afternoons, not exactly prime traffic time in Manhattan.

As for the $600 million, if the stadium is the revenue generator that the City projects, then the $600 million should not be an obstacle (and remember also that the Jets are agreeing to pump $800 million into the City economy… a very nice figure).

But I must confess that I am still troubled by spending $600 million on a football stadium on a theory of increased property taxes from increased property values. It is a theory and not a fact. If the City rezones the West Side, how do I know that the increase in value would not have occurred anyway? And why should all of the money go right back into the stadium just for the sake of the Jets? (FYI, I am actually a Jets fan, have been all my life and have even attended a few games at both Shea and the Meadowlands. So this is not a disgruntled Giants fan you are reading.)

So I say let's ask the Jets to back up the theory. If the property values are supposed to lead to more revenue, let's have the Jets guarantee that revenue as well, subject to the vagaries of City politics. Under my scenario, the Jets would guarantee the increase property tax subject to certain conditions. What are those conditions? First, the area around the stadium needs to be rezoned. Rezoning is subject to community review. If the community review limits the rezoning that in turn would limit property values. So the rezoning must be to a certain level (at least that in the City's projections). If the zoning comes low, then the Jets could not be asked to guarantee the entire $600 million.

Second, the City cannot take stupid positions designed to limit the value of the area. Here is an example. The West Side has an old elevated rail spur called the "High Line". It has been rusted and defunct for ages. It was owned by a railroad with easements (dating back from the early 1900's) from property owners in the area. A few years back, the property owners banded together to buy back the easement, tear down the High Line and allow for development of the areas near the High Line. That's when community activists came in to save this rusted piece of garbage (and trust me, it is ugly). They wanted to make the rail spur into a park. And of course, the City (you and me as taxpayers) would have to pay for this park. A few people asked me my opinion at the time, and I called it one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Well, this is New York City and idiot things happen and the High Line is going to be a park. Serious. You don't believe me, do you? Check it out: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/about/pr092403.html. Only in New York City! By the way, you can see a picture of the rusted metal at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/westchelsea/westchelsea1.html.

I'm betting the High Line Park will lower property values. And the truth is the local advocates weren't trying to save the High Line, but rather curtail development. Pandering such as this can lower property values and the Jets should not be guarantors of inanity.

Finally, the Jets should not need to guarantee against a future terrorist attacks, etc.

If these conditions are met, then I support the stadium. I don't love it (I know Jets season ticket holders on Long Island who oppose it because they like tailgating and can't see tailgating in Manhattan), but I can live with it since it does not hit anyone in the pocket book.

I know that there are some holes in my argument. However, every so often the City needs to have a large project to rejuvenate itself. New York City has not had one in awhile, and this one comes with a lot of private sector money. I'm in if the Jets give the guaranty.

Besides, anything that the Dolans, owners of Madison Square Garden and the architects for ruining my Knicks, oppose can't be all bad.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.