Skip to main content

Treasury official: Intangible benefits, political constraints fuel stadium deals

The only parties who seem to be justifying the use of tax-exempt bonds backed by fixed PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) to build sports facilities are sports team owners and their municipal backers. Academic analysts of professional sports and a wide array of civic groups criticize the provision as a wasteful subsidy.

Even the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, Donald Korb, called the plan the IRS (seemingly reluctantly) approved for the construction of stadiums for the New York Yankees and New York Mets a "loophole" the IRS tried quickly to close.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who chairs the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, doesn't think the IRS should let the stadium deals go through in the first place and has called for a moratorium until the IRS and Treasury Department explain their positions.

After all, as testimony last year showed, the Treasury Department had trouble justifying the deals, suggesting that local decisionmaking was affected by perceived intangible benefits as well as political and fiscal constraints.

That suggests that projects like the Atlantic Yards arena are essentially political projects that require significant scrutiny in the news pages, not cheerleading in the sports pages.

Treasury official on the spot

Kucinich, during a 10/10/07 hearing of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, heard from Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of Treasury.

Solomon offered testimony that gently buttressed the academic argument:
The tax policy justification for a Federal subsidy for tax-exempt bonds is strongest in circumstances where State or local governments use Governmental Bonds to finance public infrastructure projects and other traditional governmental functions to carry out clear public purposes.

The tax policy justification for a Federal subsidy for tax-exempt bonds is weaker when State or local governments use Governmental Bonds to finance activities beyond traditional governmental functions, such as the provision of stadiums, in which the public purpose is more attenuated and private businesses receive the benefits of the subsidy.

The benefit principle

Then Kucinich pressed the issue. (Video available. Go to about 24:15.)

REP. KUCINICH: I'd like to go to this issue of the benefit principle of taxation.... In part, it is based on the idea that those who benefit from services should be the ones who pay for them. Now let's say that City A is told by the owner of a professional sports team that they will have to finance a new stadium or the team will leave. And let's further say that City B offers twice as much to the team to lure it away from City A. Now, of course, all the bond financing offered by City B and City A -- if they choose to give the team what it wants, will be tax-exempt.

Apply the benefit principle of taxation to this transaction. How do federal taxpayers benefit from the team moving to City B, or for that matter staying in City A, with a new stadium? How do they benefit?

Solomon (right) allowed himself a smile before offering a deadpan reply.

MR. SOLOMON: The current structure of the Internal Revenue Code leaves discretion to the state and local governments to make these decisions. And that is part of the framework. And we present, in our written testimony, possible options that one might consider if one were to decide that it is an appropriate --

His questioner was skeptical.

REP. KUCINICH: So you really can't say, is what you're saying.

MR. SOLOMON: I'm not an expert on local economic issues, of the determinations that state and local governments make, as to what appropriate projects are --

REP. KUCINICH: Let me try one more question, then. If the economists are right, that building professional sports stadiums do not raise incomes, create jobs, or increase revenues, while new ballparks do increase the value of the team franchise, would you say that building a professional sports stadium is mostly a private activity, or is it a public activity?

MR. SOLOMON: State and local governments, and those who are in state and local government, need to make these decisions. And they make these decisions, not necessarily on dollars and cents--

REP. KUCINICH: Okay. Okay. I got it. I got it. I know where you're coming from.

Political constraints

Later, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), asked Solomon why, cities continue to compete to attract teams and to offer stadium subsidies. (The scarcity issue was also discussed at the hearing as contributing to the problem.)

REP. ISSA: Why, in your opinion, are cities making that decision if it's a bad business investment? What do you think the real reason that cities are voluntarily doing this, and continuing to do this bidding process?

MR. SOLOMON: Because the cities believe that there are various benefits. Perhaps they cannot be specifically identified, but there are various intangible benefits. And they -- of course, there are political constraints on their decisions as well as financial constraints.

And that's why developers like Forest City Ratner spend big money on lobbyists.


  1. So sports team owners are in the small club lobbying to justify the use of special loophole tax-exempt bonds?- “R-TIFC-PILOT”(pronounced “Artifice-PILOT”- or “Return Total Intercepted For Costs-PILOT”) bonds.

    Yes the team owners are in this club,- that makes sense. But “municipal backers” want to join this small club and join the lobbying game too? Really! Anyone working for or representing a municipality, state or local government is looking to shoot themselves in the foot if they lobby for this loophole: they only seek to strengthen their adversary’s negotiating edge.

    In the case of sports venue financings only “the private businesses receive the benefits of the subsidy” because they wield a monopoly (via the sports franchise system) and that is why, as in the Kucinich example that “City A” and “City B” are forced to compete each other so that in the end the tax exempt financing goes to the sports team franchise owner either way, no matter what. It is why all the actual subsidy benefit is pocketed exclusively by the sports team owner. The public pays for this unproductive transfer of wealth to rich franchise owners. The federal government pays for it in the form of unpaid income taxes. States and municipalities pay for it in the form of unpaid income taxes and also because this particular form of subsidy actually encourages the non-payment of real estate taxes as well.

    We are told “City A” and “City B” still compete with each other (notwithstanding expert advices that there is no economic benefit) not based “on dollars and cents” reasons. (-Pregnant pause-)

    Norman editorializes “that's why developers like Forest City Ratner spend big money on lobbyists”- It is also why they make political contributions- Then there is a more jaundiced observation: After lobbying for their negotiating adversaries, the sports team owners, public officials who have denied the public interest can take jobs directly working for those the private businesses.

    Michael D. D. White
    Noticing New York


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…