No new taxpayer stadiums! (Phoenix, Glendale: rent, tenant, landlord)

[adriver]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

The Coyotes I get, the Suns I sorta get (although they are in no position to be asking for anything right now) but the DBacks? That Stadium is one of the nicer ones I've been to in an excellent location.

Let them go, this is greed in the worst way.

OP is leaving out a few things.. This isn't there first choice, this is what they are saying they may look into if the original agreed contract for maintenance upkeep is not going to be honored; which the county is now saying they just don't have the money.

Originally Posted by locolife

People need to chill out, the D'Backs have NOT I repeat HAVE NOT asked to anything from taxpayers at this point. They are doing exactly what any of you would do if you entered into a contract that said maintenance on your home would be managed to a certain level and then told there is no way that agreed upon maintenance will get done.

All they've asked for at this point is the option to explore options as their landlord is not keeping up their end of bargain. The overreaction to this simple request is asinine.

Agreed, The Dbacks aren't the ones who are breaking the contract, but they are all ready being backed into a corner.

Originally Posted by cjseliga

They signed a 30 year lease with 12 more years left on the lease, they aren't going anywhere, at least for awhile.

If there not going to keep up the maintenance, the contract will have been broken, and not by them.

Originally Posted by stevek64

Arizona Diamondbacks ask permission to explore new stadium options; Maricopa County says no - ABC15 Arizona

Does almost $200 million dollars for "maintenance" sound a bit excessive to anyone?

Regardless, if this was a contract and agreed upon legally by both parties, I agree with you....the agreement should be honored. But then I think we should all step back to see how beyond bad these deals are for the taxpayer which I'm guessing who are the one's who will ultimately foot some/most/all of this bill.

Yes it sure does, that's why I would have gotten it in the contract too.

[johnp292]

Originally Posted by adriver

OP is leaving out a few things.. This isn't there first choice, this is what they are saying they may look into if the original agreed contract for maintenance upkeep is not going to be honored; which the county is now saying they just don't have the money.

Probably because they spent it all on lawsuits and settlements thanks to Arpaio.

[Bungle]

Originally Posted by locolife

People need to chill out, the D'Backs have NOT I repeat HAVE NOT asked to anything from taxpayers at this point. They are doing exactly what any of you would do if you entered into a contract that said maintenance on your home would be managed to a certain level and then told there is no way that agreed upon maintenance will get done.

All they've asked for at this point is the option to explore options as their landlord is not keeping up their end of bargain. The overreaction to this simple request is asinine.

Finally a voice of reason and someone that understands their situation.

People are very much overlooking that the team actually pays rent to the county. Many other sports stadiums in other states are funded with public tax dollars and the teams don't spend a dime...this IS NOT the case with the DBacks at Chase Field.

[KurtAZ]

Don't care about any of these teams...I don't attend any of their games and I am definitely against any taxpayer money going to fuel teams and players that are being paid millions of dollars a year to play a game. Now...that being said...them being here does generate some revenue for businesses in and around the arenas including any national tournaments that come to the Valley so there is SOME community benefit to having them here. New arenas...no...fix/renovate the ones they have? That is a more likely possibility.

[AlohaAZ]

Originally Posted by Bungle

Finally a voice of reason and someone that understands their situation.

People are very much overlooking that the team actually pays rent to the county. Many other sports stadiums in other states are funded with public tax dollars and the teams don't spend a dime...this IS NOT the case with the DBacks at Chase Field.

Exactly, a lot of knee-jerk reactions going on here and other forums regarding this topic.

[elcajones]

They all play in state of the art venues!!!!! This is ridiculous!
And I thought my Chargers in San Diego were being ridiculous.... at that they play in a rough stadium.

[ScottsdaleMark]

I am opposed to any taxpayer funded stadium. I have a feeling the team owners know how conservative Arizona is and will not ask the taxpayers to go whole hog on anything but we could see them come at the public asking for partial support, e.g., a ballot initiative asking for a couple hundred million in bond issue money to help support them. That is the sort of thing that may still have a chance of passing...I have to imagine a completely taxpayer funded stadium is basically a thing of the past in this country, particularly in a conservative state.

[Ztonyg]

Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark

I am opposed to any taxpayer funded stadium. I have a feeling the team owners know how conservative Arizona is and will not ask the taxpayers to go whole hog on anything but we could see them come at the public asking for partial support, e.g., a ballot initiative asking for a couple hundred million in bond issue money to help support them. That is the sort of thing that may still have a chance of passing...I have to imagine a completely taxpayer funded stadium is basically a thing of the past in this country, particularly in a conservative state.

I'm not sure if I agree with your logic.

Conservative politicians generally support corporate welfare yet despise individual welfare. A stadium is essentially a corporate welfare project.

There's no question that a fully taxpayer funded stadium / arena would fail on any ballot initiative. Not just in Arizona but anywhere.

I'd even say that bonds would be difficult to pass at this time.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by Ztonyg

I'm not sure if I agree with your logic.

Conservative politicians generally support corporate welfare yet despise individual welfare. A stadium is essentially a corporate welfare project.

There's no question that a fully taxpayer funded stadium / arena would fail on any ballot initiative. Not just in Arizona but anywhere.

I'd even say that bonds would be difficult to pass at this time.

The DBacks are maintaining they want to look elsewhere. I say let them. This is a large market with a good baseball fan base. That stadium is nice somebody would bite.

I doubt anything happens, I think this was a poorly calculated move to leverage a more advantageous lease agreement and new updates after seeing the support the Coyotes received. However, that situation was completely different. I haven't seen much support in the DBacks favor.

[ajonesaz]

I don't think any of the stadiums are being funded properly. Didn't the courts rule that our rental car tax for stadiums was illegal? I think the state has to refund that to consumers?

Cardinals stadium was a great deal because it brought us many big events and it has paid for itself. The hockey stadium in Glendale was a stupid idea.

Diamondbacks probably don't want to leave Chase Field, this is probably a negotiation tactic. I would like to see a breakdown of what that $200 million in maintenance entails. How much of it is a new state of the art jumbotron?