|
Post by WorcesterGray on Aug 25, 2018 14:30:58 GMT -5
The residents of Pawtucket would have been on the hook for 15M toward a new ballpark in their city.
Lucky Pawtucket. Now off the hook, maybe the city can afford a hospital.
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 25, 2018 14:57:28 GMT -5
The residents of Pawtucket would have been on the hook for 15M toward a new ballpark in their city.
Lucky Pawtucket. Now off the hook, maybe the city can afford a hospital.
Perhaps they can get the former operators of Hahnemann Hospital, City Hospital, or Fairlawn Hospital to come to their city with an extremely generous offer that they can't refuse. Until such a time, Pawtucket residents will have to use the many hospitals (approximately 8) in three of the communities their city shares a border with.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Aug 26, 2018 10:17:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Aug 26, 2018 10:46:36 GMT -5
So Zimbalist, who was hired and paid by the city for the feasibility study, gives it a ringing endorsement. Huge surprise here. This op ed piece should have "paid advertisement" or "propoganda" across the top.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Aug 26, 2018 11:32:40 GMT -5
So Zimbalist, who was hired and paid by the city for the feasibility study, gives it a ringing endorsement. Huge surprise here. This op ed piece should have "paid advertisement" or "propoganda" across the top. Another person who can’t stand it when something good happens for Worcester. What happened to your predictions of the Worcester city leaders being played? Or are we changing the subject now?
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 26, 2018 11:47:25 GMT -5
So Zimbalist, who was hired and paid by the city for the feasibility study, gives it a ringing endorsement. Huge surprise here. This op ed piece should have "paid advertisement" or "propoganda" across the top. Another person who can’t stand it when something good happens for Worcester. What happened to your predictions of the Worcester city leaders being played? Or are we changing the subject now?
Worcester city leaders were played - to the tune of some 70M. The City of Pawtucket was only offering 15M. That ownership got some city fools to fork over 4.67x more is astounding. Who would have thought anyone would be so stupid? City leaders must really undervalue Worcester if they feel it must overpay by so much.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Aug 26, 2018 11:52:20 GMT -5
Another person who can’t stand it when something good happens for Worcester. What happened to your predictions of the Worcester city leaders being played? Or are we changing the subject now?
Worcester city leaders were played - to the tune of some 70M. The City of Pawtucket was only offering 15M. That ownership got some city fools to fork over 4.67x more is astounding. Who would have thought anyone would be so stupid?
I’ll be thinking of you guys when I’m watching the game at Polar Park sipping on a draft beer.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 26, 2018 12:09:44 GMT -5
Worcester city leaders were played - to the tune of some 70M. The City of Pawtucket was only offering 15M. That ownership got some city fools to fork over 4.67x more is astounding. Who would have thought anyone would be so stupid?
I’ll be thinking of you guys when I’m watching the game at Polar Park sipping on a draft beer. You're in for some great baseball in a good seat at a reasonable cost. That draft beer may be only $5 compared to double digit cost at Fenway and the accompanying barker or bratwurst will not cost an arm and a leg.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 26, 2018 12:35:05 GMT -5
As a semi-disinterested observer, I do think getting a AAA baseball team is a feather in Worcester's cap. Look, Worcester is too small for a MLB team which should be obvious. The next level is, of course, AAA. As I previously posted, I lived in areas where the top baseball team was AAA, to wit, Syracuse, Columbus and Rhode Island. Pawtucket did extremely well for a rinky dink town (sorry, rf1) as they got major fans from Providence, the 3rd largest city in New England. Now the #2 largest city has the team. Providence also has the top minor league Bruins team and on again/off again solid college basketball team in the PC Friars (and national hockey champs). While we'd like to think Worcester has Holy Cross as a top drawer sports teams, we know that hasn't really been the case in a while. My guess is that Worcester has a thirst for almost top drawer sports venue and this is it. I am not a Boston Red Sox fan but I'm betting that there a lot of Worcesterites who are and a family can watch pretty good baseball associated with their favorite team for a reasonable price. These are the same kind of draws that Pawtucket had. Now if Holy Cross football and basketball can have some success, maybe we can siphon off some of that enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 31, 2018 14:29:40 GMT -5
Triple-A duel: Zimbalist vs. Matheson Economists argue the merits of Worcester’s minor league stadium commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/triple-a-duel-zimbalist-vs-matheson/?utm_content=buffera8a55&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bufferMatheson (sports economist professor at College of the Holy Cross) says the Worcester plan is just another stadium giveaway. He decries the fact that the city is committing $70 million in public money to build a stadium for wealthy owners of the Red Sox farm team, and questions the use of new tax revenue to fund it from development projects that may well have occurred without a neighboring stadium. Matheson says the Worcester facility will be “the most expensive minor league ballpark in the history of the United States.”
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 31, 2018 14:30:41 GMT -5
Worcester deserves what it gets There are worse stadium deals, but that doesn’t make it smart.
The $101 million Worcester wants to borrow? That one’s hard to figure, and not likely to end well for the city, no matter how Zimbalist spins it
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 31, 2018 15:53:40 GMT -5
rf1, you quoted the one economist who takes your position, here's what the other guy said (emphasis mine):
He may be wrong and his opinion may certainly be influenced by his role as consultant for Worcester but he hardly seems to be someone who generically likes these deals and explains the difference why.
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 31, 2018 16:07:47 GMT -5
rf1, you quoted the one economist who takes your position, here's what the other guy said (emphasis mine): He may be wrong and his opinion may certainly be influenced by his role as consultant for Worcester but he hardly seems to be someone who generically likes these deals and explains the difference why.
Zimbalist was the only sports economist that thought the Woosox stadium project was a good deal out of out of the ten that the Worcester Business Journal contacted. Not surprisingly, he was the only one being paid by the City of Worcester. It seems those that had no personal financial stake ALL unanimously agreed it is one bad deal for taxpayers.
Sports economists: $101M WooSox stadium deal unlikely to beat the odds
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 31, 2018 16:28:37 GMT -5
A much better article referenced, rf1. I don't want to put myself in a position to defend this one way or the other as I don't have a dog in this fight. However, the article seems to have mostly economists' quotes that they generically think stadiums are bad deals because they rob Peter to pay Paul without having a lot of Worcester details that the Smith College and Holy Cross profs have [my bias that I would prefer to believe the Holy Cross prof ]. Another guy who may have his thumb on the scale due to his experience but: Only time will tell. My guess is that like most new stadia, the intangible benefit of civic pride is what drives these things, not the economics.
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 31, 2018 19:24:55 GMT -5
A much better article referenced, rf1. I don't want to put myself in a position to defend this one way or the other as I don't have a dog in this fight. However, the article seems to have mostly economists' quotes that they generically think stadiums are bad deals because they rob Peter to pay Paul without having a lot of Worcester details that the Smith College and Holy Cross profs have [my bias that I would prefer to believe the Holy Cross prof ]. Another guy who may have his thumb on the scale due to his experience but: Only time will tell. My guess is that like most new stadia, the intangible benefit of civic pride is what drives these things, not the economics.
Yes. It will take some time before this misjudgement comes to fruition. 105+ million in public money (city 70M/state 35M) is an awful large investment that is being risked on a premise it will be made back in new tax revenues. There were many in RI that were skeptical their state stadium proposal would pay for itself and it was only 38M (city c15M/State 23M) in public funds as the team was going to contribute the greater amount (45M). If RI had acted over a year ago and quickly approved the deal crafted by the owners/city/state, it would have been a much better deal for the general taxpayer everywhere. There is however unfortunately some other town that will grossly overpay to buy validation which further emboldens owners for even more public welfare. In this instance, The City of Worcester was that such town and it has now driven minor league stadium funding for millionaire owners that much higher. Pawtucket and RI would never nor could ever have offered such a large generous gift to a minor league sports team. They don't have have that much discretionary money to gamble with. At any rate, the constant threats to move by the Pawsox will now be over for RI. The team threatened to move in the late 90's if McCoy was not renovated. A 17M upgrade to McCoy Stadium with 4k more seats was completed in 1999. By 2015, the new ownership was stating the stadium was too outdated and demanded a new ballpark. This ongoing dynamic will now fall on Worcester. It is worth noting that the team has an out (with penalties) after just 15 years. You can expect that will be a bargaining chip used by ownership at that time for more upgrades. It seems stadiums these days are never good enough and there always seems to be another place waiting to make an outrageous better offer.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Aug 31, 2018 21:02:28 GMT -5
A much better article referenced, rf1. I don't want to put myself in a position to defend this one way or the other as I don't have a dog in this fight. However, the article seems to have mostly economists' quotes that they generically think stadiums are bad deals because they rob Peter to pay Paul without having a lot of Worcester details that the Smith College and Holy Cross profs have [my bias that I would prefer to believe the Holy Cross prof ]. Another guy who may have his thumb on the scale due to his experience but: Only time will tell. My guess is that like most new stadia, the intangible benefit of civic pride is what drives these things, not the economics.
Yes. It will take some time before this misjudgement comes to fruition. 105+ million in public money (city 70M/state 35M) is an awful large investment that is being risked on a premise it will made it back in new tax revenues. There were many in RI that were skeptical their state stadium proposal would pay for itself and it was only 38M (city c15M/State 23M) in public funds as the team was going to contribute the greater amount (45M). If RI had acted over a year ago and quickly approved the deal crafted by the owners/city/state, it would have been a much better deal for the general taxpayer everywhere. There is however unfortunately some other town that will grossly overpay to buy validation which further emboldens owners for even more public welfare. In this instance, The City of Worcester was that such town and it has now driven minor league stadium funding for millionaire owners that much higher. Pawtucket and RI would never nor could ever have offered such a large generous gift to a minor league sports team. They don't have have that much discretionary money to gamble with. At any rate, the constant threats to move by the Pawsox will now be over for RI. The team threatened to move in the late 90's if McCoy was not renovated. A 17M upgrade to McCoy Stadium with 4k more seats was completed in 1999. By 2015, the new ownership was stating the stadium was too outdated and demanded a new ballpark. This ongoing dynamic will now fall on Worcester. It is worth noting that the team has an out (with penalties) after just 15 years. You can expect that will be a bargaining chip used by ownership at that time for more upgrades. It seems stadiums these days are never good enough and there always seems to be another place waiting to make an outrageous better offer.
I get it, you are pissed the Red Sox AAA affiliate is moving and you want Worcester to fail. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Aug 31, 2018 22:30:26 GMT -5
Yes. It will take some time before this misjudgement comes to fruition. 105+ million in public money (city 70M/state 35M) is an awful large investment that is being risked on a premise it will made it back in new tax revenues. There were many in RI that were skeptical their state stadium proposal would pay for itself and it was only 38M (city c15M/State 23M) in public funds as the team was going to contribute the greater amount (45M). If RI had acted over a year ago and quickly approved the deal crafted by the owners/city/state, it would have been a much better deal for the general taxpayer everywhere. There is however unfortunately some other town that will grossly overpay to buy validation which further emboldens owners for even more public welfare. In this instance, The City of Worcester was that such town and it has now driven minor league stadium funding for millionaire owners that much higher. Pawtucket and RI would never nor could ever have offered such a large generous gift to a minor league sports team. They don't have have that much discretionary money to gamble with. At any rate, the constant threats to move by the Pawsox will now be over for RI. The team threatened to move in the late 90's if McCoy was not renovated. A 17M upgrade to McCoy Stadium with 4k more seats was completed in 1999. By 2015, the new ownership was stating the stadium was too outdated and demanded a new ballpark. This ongoing dynamic will now fall on Worcester. It is worth noting that the team has an out (with penalties) after just 15 years. You can expect that will be a bargaining chip used by ownership at that time for more upgrades. It seems stadiums these days are never good enough and there always seems to be another place waiting to make an outrageous better offer.
I get it, you are pissed the Red Sox AAA affiliate is moving and you want Worcester to fail. Move on.
I get your perspective as well. You just want a minor league baseball team for Worcester at any cost even if it is a bad deal at an extreme public price tag and will likely end up soaking taxpayers for years to come. Enjoy higher taxes down the road because of this giveaway..
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Aug 31, 2018 22:41:20 GMT -5
I get it, you are pissed the Red Sox AAA affiliate is moving and you want Worcester to fail. Move on.
I get your perspective as well. You just want a minor league baseball team for Worcester at any cost even if it is a bad deal at an extreme public price tag and will likely end up soaking taxpayers for years to come. Enjoy higher taxes down the road because of this giveaway..
Ok, I’ll enjoy higher taxes. You win.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Sept 1, 2018 7:16:26 GMT -5
I get it, you are pissed the Red Sox AAA affiliate is moving and you want Worcester to fail. Move on.
I get your perspective as well. You just want a minor league baseball team for Worcester at any cost even if it is a bad deal at an extreme public price tag and will likely end up soaking taxpayers for years to come. Enjoy higher taxes down the road because of this giveaway..
Yes, Worcester and Massachusetts clearly aren’t as smart as those great Rhode Islanders. How’s Curt Schilling’s video game doing again?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 7, 2018 6:38:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Sept 7, 2018 7:03:10 GMT -5
Phreek, if you ran the world nothing would ever happen. Everything is impossible with you.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 7, 2018 8:25:28 GMT -5
Phreek, if you ran the world nothing would ever happen. Everything is impossible with you. You would be surprised, or maybe not, at how much of other people's money I've spent, over the years. As I don't own property in Worcester, I don't give a rodent's behind how the city spends its money. As a non-taxpayer, I will observe that the valuation of commercial and industrial property in Worcester continues to decline, and the residential property owners have to pick up more of the burden of financing the city. Annual property tax bill on a home assessed at $500,000
Cambridge $1,199 Brookline $2,671 Boston $2,862 Somerville $3,088 Watertown $5,272 Arlington $6,280 Belmont $6,345 Worcester $9,455 Source for cities other than Worcester www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/assessingdepartment/News/cambtaxnewsletter1final082817.pdfFor Worcester www.worcesterma.gov/finance/taxes-assessments/understanding-your-taxes/real-estate-tax$9,455 is at the 'new' Federal cap on the deductible amount for state and local taxes,
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Sept 7, 2018 9:11:21 GMT -5
Phreek, if you ran the world nothing would ever happen. Everything is impossible with you. You would be surprised, or maybe not, at how much of other people's money I've spent, over the years. As I don't own property in Worcester, I don't give a rodent's behind how the city spends its money. As a non-taxpayer, I will observe that the valuation of commercial and industrial property in Worcester continues to decline, and the residential property owners have to pick up more of the burden of financing the city. Annual property tax bill on a home assessed at $500,000
Cambridge $1,199 Brookline $2,671 Boston $2,862 Somerville $3,088 Watertown $5,272 Arlington $6,280 Belmont $6,345 Worcester $9,455 Source for cities other than Worcester www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/assessingdepartment/News/cambtaxnewsletter1final082817.pdfFor Worcester www.worcesterma.gov/finance/taxes-assessments/understanding-your-taxes/real-estate-tax$9,455 is at the 'new' Federal cap on the deductible amount for state and local taxes, Looks like you cherry picked certain towns for your analysis. And why did you pick $500,000 as your benchmark? How many homes in Worcester are assessed at $500,000? Not many.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Sept 7, 2018 9:55:03 GMT -5
Well in a sense you are making the case for Worcester attracting businesses any way it can. I also don't care what they do (as a Mass. resident I can live with the state improving Kelly Square and a few other roads; had to be done at some point anyway)
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Sept 7, 2018 11:12:14 GMT -5
Annual property tax bill on a home assessed at $500,000
Cambridge $1,199 Brookline $2,671 Boston $2,862 Somerville $3,088 Watertown $5,272 Arlington $6,280 Belmont $6,345 Worcester $9,455 $9,455 is at the 'new' Federal cap on the deductible amount for state and local taxes, Looks like you cherry picked certain towns for your analysis. And why did you pick $500,000 as your benchmark? How many homes in Worcester are assessed at $500,000? Not many. As of November 2017, the average assessed value for single-family homes in Worcester was about $213,000.
|
|