Diamondbacks chief executive Derrick Hall is lobbying for the city of Phoenix to take over for Maricopa County as Chase Field’s landlord, reports Craig Harris of the Arizona Republic. Hall says the switch would ensure the club’s long-term future in downtown Phoenix. That became a public issue last month when Hall threatened to “pursue other stadium options” because of the county’s failure to honor its alleged obligation to handle $187MM-plus in maintenance and repair costs through 2027.
Should the Diamondbacks swap landlords, it would enable them to potentially secure a Chase Field renovation or even a new ballpark “by taking advantage of the stadium’s municipal authority,” as Harris writes. The Maricopa County Stadium District doesn’t have the authority to raise taxes as a way to aid the Diamondbacks.
Phoenix nearly took the reins as the landlord four years ago, according to Hall, but he said the county put the kibosh on the idea because its officials didn’t want to lose the tickets, suites and free parking they enjoy. Maricopa County spokesman Fields Moseley confirmed that a deal for Phoenix to become the Diamondbacks’ landlord was on the table four years ago, but the county wasn’t interested in giving away a ballpark that cost $238MM in sales tax to build and has no mortgage. Moseley added that the potential loss of a stadium suite isn’t an issue to the county.
“We don’t even use the suite. It’s continually given to non-profits to use. Politicians and management don’t use the suite. We seek out non-profits to benefit,” he said.
In Hall’s plan, the Diamondbacks would pay for the projected $187MM in repairs and renovations at the ballpark over the next 12 years, which would take them to the end of their 30-year Chase Field lease. In return, the D-backs would pay less in rent than their current $4MM-plus per year, control the bookings of non-baseball events, and collect the revenue from those events. For its part, the County Stadium District wouldn’t have to assist in paying for Chase Field improvements. Phoenix, meanwhile, would oversee the property and receive rent from the team. Further, the city would be able to build a major sports facility downtown and expand CityScape, in which Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick is a significant investor. CityScape is a high-rise development that features residential, retail and hotel components.
As of now, there are no negotiations taking place for Phoenix to become the Diamondbacks’ landlord, Hall said, and city mayor Greg Stanton wasn’t available for comment Sunday, per Harris.
On the prospect of the Diamondbacks suing the county to break their lease, Hall stated, “If there is a lawsuit, it’s to find another partner to keep us here. It’s not about greed. It’s about staying here.”
The Diamondbacks have called Chase Field home since their inception in 1998. Only 15 ballparks are newer.
Big baseball fan here. I doesn’t bother me that players get the big bucks if the fans pay for the tickets. But to ask the taxpayers to foot the bill… forgetaboutit! Taxpayer funded stadiums is just a scam by billionaire owners.
But those owners are job creators! Until they decide their 18 year old stadium is a POS and decide to move after taking all their taxpayer funding with them…
It’s a complete scam and a few books have been written on the subject.
A good primer:
amazon.com/They-Play-You-Pay-Billionaire/dp/146143…
Building stadiums with taxpayer money makes no economic sense, but if a team moves out of the area because of a hang up on taxes, then many citizens are going to be irate and look for someone to blame. When the politician responsible runs for reelection, people won’t be talking about how much money was saved for the city, they’ll be talking about the memories at the ballpark that were stolen. It’s political suicide.
Having been through multiple stadium debates in this area in the last few years, I really have trouble blaming the owners for asking when half the legislators are falling over themselves to hand out the money.
“It’s not about greed.” No, of course not. It’s nothing personal, just business. Until the taxpayers say no to this, it’s going to keep going on. That no needs to be nationwide. No free taxpayer stadiums. No raising taxes on everyone to benefit a small group. No all-you-can-eat buffets for people who can afford their own steaks and nice bottles of wine. Just, no. This stadium isn’t some 1920’s warhorse–it’s less than 20 years old. What’s the next standard–15 years? Ten? Every five?
They don’t want to replace the stadium, they’re talking about everyday maintenance and renovations. And their plan takes them through year 30…
Look at it again. They will do renovations in return for revenue streams, meaning no net out of pocket (I’m sure there’s a profit in there)
And, the real $: “Further, the city would be able to build a major sports facility downtown and expand CityScape, in which Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick is a significant investor. CityScape is a high-rise development that features residential, retail and hotel components.”
Instead of tax payers paying professional franchises for maintenance, franchises should pay the *taxpayers* for maintenance. These big sports franchises should be paying entertainment taxes to the state to cover up the costs to the people for all of the resources the teams use. Roads, electricity, water, etc. These sports franchises are rolling in profits, and yet they try to suck out even more money from the cities. Things need to change. This is ridiculous. If you’re going to have tax payer funded stadiums, then there should be a price cap on tickets, at, say, $20 each.
At least its not that dump, Wrigley Field.
“You can’t beat fun at the old ballpark.”
One reason why baseball hasn’t expanded into Portland, Oregon is because the taxpayers there have refused to pay for any new stadium; the existing sports teams there have had to come up with their own stadium financing. If the average taxpayer saw some benefit, then it would make some sense to using tax money to build a stadium, but the average taxpayer doesn’t attend a sporting event.
Taxpayers do pay for roads and parking garages and other infrastructure that are exploited by teams (police, ambulance, etc). All this is a “robin hood in reverse” boondoggle to take money from the average citizen to support billionaires. Obviously Loria is the worst example of this but this attempt to blackmail Phoenix/Maricopa county ranks right up there.
Having been to every baseball stadium, this is not one of the ones that needs to be replaced. This on-going threat of moving teams is tiresome. Plus the money the billionaire owners are asking the taxpayers to provide is a joke. To put it in perspective the city of Boston just gave GE $25 million in tax breaks to relocate their headquarters to Boston. Who creates more jobs for a community, a Fortune 100 company or a sports team. Worth mentioning, many of the citizens of Boston are peeved that GE received any money. Unless cities start getting part of the proceeds of when an owner sales the team, it time to quit this joke of a process of using tax payers dollars to create this sporting shrines.
Not that I totally agree with paying businesses to relocate but to your point, who creates more middle class jobs, GE or baseball who bring in part time city residents earning millions and then most everyone else that works for sports teams, vendors etc earn a pittance. The GE example seems to be a better bang for the cities buck.
NOW just to contradict myself. There’s a lot of businesses that benefit from a stadium (bars and restaurants). But it would be interesting to read one of those books people mentioned to see what they say.
Personally I think owners ask and get, because they can. I don’t think the Yankees needed the city’s help to build a ball park and nor were they a threat of leaving. But they got it.
Here, when Delta and Northwest merged, the state played hardball because we’re all about the working man don’t give tax breaks to big corporations… and so jobs got drained to other states. Combined with everything Northwest went through, the result is there’s a lot of mechanics who have the skill set to take apart a jet engine but are changing oil instead.
Then, when our MLB and NFL owners petitioned for stadium money, they found bipartisan support — liberals that hate billionaires and conservatives that hate spending were all over their requests. There was of course a bit of debate, but it all sailed through pretty cleanly for both of our stadiums.
Until legislators have the stones to say “no”, why wouldn’t owners ask for money? The stadium deals are great for them, and the legislators tell themselves that it’s a net benefit for the state, and 50,000 people will just not do anything 8 Sundays a year.
I don’t think relocation out of state should be an option until a franchise reaches a certain age, Tampa and Arizona should make things work where they are or simply dissolve and let new ownerships in other places have the remains as expansion. This would also protect a historical team like the A’s who have earned the right to relocate.
Tampa and Arizona aren’t necessarily looking to move out of state, their problems are more so that the current county they are in isn’t really helping. In Arizona’s case, it sounds like the county isn’t trying to help pay for normal maintenance fees but want all the benefits while in Tampa, the team wants to move out of their current stadium to increase revenue but the county isn’t letting them out of their lease (or something like that).
With Tampa, I just have a hard time imagining why anyone would want to stay there, when they’ve had trouble drawing fans in the middle of pennant races in September.
They claim the issue in Tampa is location, and the stadium being in the middle of nowhere and difficult to get to. I doubt people would go to games regardless of location. Florida is not a baseball state.
Well, it’s very much a baseball state but nobody has been born in Florida in eighty years. Everyone is a fan of an out-of-state team.
Inevitably, when the D’backs do get paid for maintenance, they should be funneling the money straight into Zack Greinke’s account.