MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[tBBP]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

So this dropped today…

 

 

https://ballparkdigest.com/2023/05/26/draft-of-as-ballpark-funding-bill-released/

 

Now that I've been there and seen that (supposed-to-be) potential site for myself—the plot on which The Tropicana currently sits—I can better orient myself in these photos. So, with that said...on the one hand, opening the stadium that way does ensure a good view of a chunk of the strip. On the other hand, though...that opening faces northwest, meaning the evening sun would be setting—and dropping—right in spectators' faces (and that's to say nothing of all that hot out there)...

[bosrs1]

16 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

Now that I've been there and seen that (supposed-to-be) potential site for myself—the plot on which The Tropicana currently sits—I can better orient myself in these photos. So, with that said...on the one hand, opening the stadium that way does ensure a good view of a chunk of the strip. On the other hand, though...that opening faces northwest, meaning the evening sun would be setting—and dropping—right in spectators' faces (and that's to say nothing of all that hot out there)...

 

How would the sun be in the spectators faces when it’s always in the southwest?

 

Also I imagine the roof will be closed most of he time.

[Sykotyk]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

How would the sun be in the spectators faces when it’s always in the southwest?

 

Also I imagine the roof will be closed most of he time.

Yeah the batters' eye in center field would be due North. Only a lefty would have the sun opposite of them, but only until it sets far enough below the stadium, which will probably be around first pitch. And most of the time the roof will be closed. And when it's not, will probably be early April or late September, when the sun will lower on the horizon anyways.

[bosrs1]

13 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Yeah the batters' eye in center field would be due North. Only a lefty would have the sun opposite of them, but only until it sets far enough below the stadium, which will probably be around first pitch. And most of the time the roof will be closed. And when it's not, will probably be early April or late September, when the sun will lower on the horizon anyways.

 

Yeah it’s never been an issue in San Diego. I doubt it will be here. Bigger issue is that the stadium as rendered is FAR bigger than 9 acres. This apparent was the same render they commissioned for the site up closer to Sahara with just the background changed. It really is a rushed hatchet job and the real ballpark will likely look nothing like this.

[BBTV]

What’s the big arch thing over the stadium? Doesn’t seem like part of the retractable roof. Are they still doing the clear roof like the Rams stadium has? I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen a retractable roof that uses those types of panels. 
 

also, from the article, Mark Davis opposes the move and may have some sway. So this is still far from done. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

It's probably lame to have a favorite part of the Strip, but Mandalay Bay/Luxor/New York New York is my favorite part of the Strip. I'm shocked they can squeeze a baseball stadium in there, but they did manage to squeeze a basketball arena and a football stadium not there far away, so there you are.

[Sykotyk]

2 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

It's probably lame to have a favorite part of the Strip, but Mandalay Bay/Luxor/New York New York is my favorite part of the Strip. I'm shocked they can squeeze a baseball stadium in there, but they did manage to squeeze a basketball arena and a football stadium not there far away, so there you are.

Arena yes. Allegiant Stadium is on the other side of I-15 from the strip. 

[Walk-Off]

Last Friday (May 26), Brodie Brazil put out four YouTube videos with content and commentary related to the Athletics' Southern Nevada ballpark quest.  In the last of those vids and in a subsequent tweet, he speculated that those renderings might be several months old or even a few years old and, in any case, are extremely likely to have been made well before the A's organization's present understanding with Bally's Corporation and Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc.  At least in the vid, Brazil notes that the renderings not only have the ballpark occupying easily more than its proposed footprint of nine acres, but also lack any of the development that Bally's now wants to build on the remaining 26 acres and that would flank the ballpark to the north (along Tropicana Avenue), northwest (where Tropicana Avenue and the Strip intersect), and west (along the Strip).

[The_Admiral]

 https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2023/05/27/20012/vegas-as-stadium-could-cost-public-500m-counting-property-tax-breaks-and-hidden-renovation-fund/

 

Quote

• Clark County would be “required” to create a mega-TIF district around the stadium kicking back all sales, income, ticket, liquor, and property taxes, as well as any business license or other fees, to pay off an undetermined amount of county stadium bonds. (Clark County officials claim this will be $120 million in stadium bonds plus $25 million for infrastructure and public services, but that’s not actually in the bill itself.) If the TIF proceeds fall short of what’s needed, the state would use general tax money to do so.
• The state would provide the A’s owners with up to $180 million in transferrable tax credits that, when added to the county money, could bring the total public cost on stadium construction up to $380 million. (Though it would only be $325 million if the county claims of a lower bond amount are accurate.) If the tax credits end up being more than $90 million, the state can pay itself back via any leftover TIF funds — but either way, it’ll be public money paying for the tax credits.
• While total public spending on stadium construction is capped at $380 million, there are a couple of additional costs that aren’t included in that figure:
  • If the TIF proceeds are more than enough to pay off the stadium bonds, up to 10% of the excess will be redirected into a capital improvements fund and an infrastructure fund to pay for additional future work.
  • The stadium and the land under it will be entirely exempt from property tax. While property values for tax assessment purposes are notoriously hard to pin down, if we take the previously reported $180 million value of the land plus the $1.5 billion stadium construction cost and multiply by the average Clark County property tax rate of 0.72%, then calculate present value of 30 years of tax breaks at a 5% discount rate, we get an additional $184 million in tax savings for the A’s owners.

So that’s almost certainly well over the $375 million public cost figure claimed in the joint press release issued by the team and state officials on Wednesday, and will possibly amount to $500 million or more, depending on how property tax assessments and those renovation and infrastructure slush funds play out.

And even with the legislation in place, a lot is still to be determined, since an actual stadium lease — which the legislation spells out would be required to include a state-of-the-art clause for future maintenance and upgrades — and development agreement still remain to be written, and certainly won’t be until well after this bill is voted on. (Assuming this bill gets voted on in the next two weeks, which may still not happen given that Gov. Joe Lombardo and legislative leaders are currently stuck in a standoff over the state budget.) So any state legislative vote is set to take place before a final price tag is agreed on, which is not great at all.

 

Does Nevada still have the worst schools in America?

[bosrs1]

On 5/26/2023 at 4:39 PM, Sykotyk said:

Precisely. Once they start figuring out how many suites/club seats/levels, etc, they'll start having to decide how/where everything will fit. I'm guessing they'll squeeze that foul territory down a bit. But would be neat to keep the curved wall instead of a bunch of angled walls.

 

Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?

 

More like how much is MGM going to demand from the A’s for using their hotel as a free green and gold back drop.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

More like how much is MGM going to demand from the A’s for using their hotel as a free green and gold back drop.

I don't believe MGM, or any business for that matter, demand compensation for their building being simply in view from the ballpark.

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

I don't believe MGM, or any business for that matter, demand compensation for their building being simply in view from the ballpark.

 

I was being facetious. The A’s can’t demand anything from MGM. They were there first.

[McCall]

5 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I was being facetious. The A’s can’t demand anything from MGM. They were there first.

You asked how much MGM would demand FROM the A’s.

[maz]

11 hours ago, McCall said:

I don't believe MGM, or any business for that matter, demand compensation for their building being simply in view from the ballpark.

 

If they did then this would definitely explain why the Pirates have such a low payroll.

 

[McCall]

6 minutes ago, maz said:

 

If they did then this would definitely explain why the Pirates have such a low payroll.

Money well spent.

 

Signed,

A grateful Cardinals fan.

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

You asked how much MGM would demand FROM the A’s.

 

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

[VampyrRabbit]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

So expect an announcement from the A's threatening MGM with legal action in the next few weeks.

[The_Admiral]

ITT: two people who forgot they were riffing

[McCall]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

What? I didn't suggest anything. I pointed out that MGM could NOT demand compensation from anyone simply for their building being in view from another building, as implied by you per your original post.

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

What? I didn't suggest anything. I pointed out that MGM could NOT demand compensation from anyone simply for their building being in view from another building, as implied by you per your original post.

 

Ah, yeah you had to see the post my post was responding to which said:

 

“Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?”