City councilors Tuesday night promised not to be a rubber stamp in reviewing the agreement and financial package that will bring the Boston Red Sox top minor league team to the city and play at a stadium to be built near Kelley Square.
While councilors said they are very much aware of the excitement and enthusiasm generated throughout the city since Friday’s announced move of the Pawtucket Red Sox to Worcester, they said it is their duty to make sure the deal is in the city’s best interests and benefits the community as a whole.
Comments
For what? You already lost the negotiation!
Oh right, political theater because there is an election coming up, followed by the usual tax increase and maximum possible commercial tax rate on those poor city businesses that bear the brunt of the ballpark side effects.
There are about 1100 apartments being built or on the board for the areas near Polar Park. Commercial and retail are also being added. So maybe your adding 3,000 people with decent disposable incomes to the area. It's only going to fuel growth in the Canal District.
The commercial tax rate is high, but the fact is that people are still opening businesses here despite that.
Even with TIFs the city coffers are going to be greatly enriched by all the new tax revenue from these projects. You might want to ask yourself what was the alternative? Empty, blighted lots generating minimal tax revenue?
If you attend a game you'll see the great civic pride the fans have.
With regards to the additional tax revenue that MAY enrich the City coffers these MAY arise if and when the proposed developments are built and at hopefully it will be enough for the City to make its payments on the bonds which were issued to build the ball park.
To date I have only seen the construction of a $175,000,000 ballpark which has enriched the WooSox and a partially constructed public garage. I have not seen the promised private development across the street or in left field. To the contrary, across the street, I see dirt parking lots with a new street. At this time I ask is this worth $175,000,000.00?
Massport took similar risk in deciding to invest $100 million in ORH with the hope that it could provide some relief for Logan. That has been a dismal failure so far. I think we'll know in 5 years whether either of these investments paid off.
With regards to the ballpark, I believe the City issued bonds which will be repaid from the revenues from development across the street which is significantly behind schedule. Ultimately City real estate taxes will be used to pay for the ballpark. I would rather have them pave streets, build a new Burncoat High School and fix the flooding problems in the City first. There is absolutely no risk with these expenses and the reward is truly increasing the quality of life of us City residents and taxpayers.
Probably, this baseball park is the best thing for these kids. All the new businesses it's going to create will provide needed jobs for them.
At least the billionaire ball team owners can get some chapeau labor. They win again.
Couple your post on the lack of due diligence with Mayor Mariano's commentary in the Telegram and the voters in the City need to wake up and hold the City Council responsible for their actions, or inactions in this case.
It seems like the movie Groundhog Day as a small business owner in the City. Each fall the City Council rings their hands with the tax classification hearing, pitting the residents against the businesses and in the end each side gets an increased real estate tax bill, it is just a matter of the size of the increase and no one asks how did we get to this point. We complain when we get our tax bill for about two weeks then we forget only to repeat the exercise the next year. For this we pay the City Council $30,000.00 a year with benefits.
This election the taxpayers should vote anticipating the upcoming tax classification and considering the performance of the City Council and the City Manager. Whether the issue be the continued deplorable condition of streets and sidewalks throughout the City, the continued problem of flooding or a ballpark that is 60% -70% over budget which most certainly will increase our tax bills if not this year in the next few years. Just like you can't pick up your home and move it to a town with a lower tax rate, I can't financially just close down and move to another town. I hope voters consider the candidates closely and vote based upon the candidates accomplishments, not just the fact that they recognize their name.
Every city has old roads and pipes that need to be updated. The millions of new tax dollars these developments will create will help pay for those improvements. If you look at the latest census numbers, people are moving to Worcester in droves. Obviously, they don't share your opinions about Worcester.
Also, lower income people do purchase things. Maybe they don't pay $49 for a steak at 111, but they will eat at a more reasonable place. Maybe they drink bottled beer instead of wine. I'm getting the feeling that you look down on people that are less fortunate. Shame on you!!
With regards to my opinion that the construction of a ballpark is not a prudent investment, this statement is based upon the original $100 million construction budget's bond payments being supported by the new taxes derived from the Madison development. I was doubtful from the inception of the project based upon research I had done on minor league baseball ballparks and the proposed development which was planned to finance them. Most recent I call your attention to the capital City to our southwest. Their ballpark has been voted the #1 ballpark in their division, the team is doing well and the City of Hartford had to make the $3 million payment on the bonds they issued to construct the ballpark.my apprehension continued to grow as the project cost rose from $100 million to $130 million and the current estimate of $170 million. While the cost of the ballpark grew, the developer has downsized the number of hotel rooms and has announced that the construction of the left field office building will not commence until he has signed leases. This is a logical approach but with the availability of office space in the City, the new UNUM building and the recently acquired glass tower the likelihood of the development starting soon is highly unlikely and like Hartford the City will have bond payments to make with no revenue stream to make the payments from. Some may call me a pessimist, I believe I am just being pragmatic. I am Worcester born and bred and continue to wish for its continued success but from my vantage the $175 million eggs the City put into this one basket (ballpark) is not a prudent investment. I hope I am proven wrong but it is not heading in that direction.
I assume you have seen the story in the T&G that the WooSox attendance has exceeded 300,000 with 7 games left. Weather permitting I would speculate attendance will exceed 350,000. This is a complete turn around from their attendance in Pawtucket where they were last in attendance. This level has to be credited to baseball fans in Worcester and the surrounding towns, the novelty of a new stadium and the ability to get out from under the COVID lockdown. In any event I am sure the WooSox owners are glad they listened to Larry Lucchino to move the team to Worcester because this must be their most profitable year ever. Conservatively, If an average ticket price is $20 and the average per person concession purchase is $20, revenues would be $14 million, excluding merchandise sales. Add to that corporate sponsorships which I would estimate to be worth $5-$6 million and naming rights and other advertising which I would estimate in the amount of $5 million this equates to gross revenues of $25 million for 60 games. The value of their ownership interest must have increased dramatically. We can only hope the City's return follows suit, but considering where the promised development stands, I find it highly unlikely.
-The City was subsidizing the old Worcester City Hospital to the tune of $11 million per year.
-The City was subsidizing Worcester Airport at $6 million per year
-It took 25 years for the first biotech park to be built out.
-It took 15 years for the Gateway Science Park to be built out.
Developers usually don't pay millions for land, hundreds of thousands for design plans, and thousands on permits just to not develop a project. No one could have perceived the pandemic that caused material costs to skyrocket. I don't know what's the big deal that the City might have to subsidize the park for a couple of years until the project across the street gets built out. There’s probably $10-15 million of fat that can be cut out of the general budget. You could get rid of five of the 12 Assistant Superintendents at the school department to save $1 million per year. Some other services can be privatized at a cost savings.
You don't mention the hundreds of jobs at the park that were created. This might be the first job for teenagers or elderly people looking to subsidize their social security benefits. Local businesses like Polar and Coney Island are making a killing selling their products at the park. You also to fail to mention that the City's garages and surface lots are realizing a bump in revenues as a result of game parking.
You refuse to tell us what your alternate plan is. Do you think it was best for the City to have two large, blighted lots just sitting there for the next 25 years? It just seems like your very closed minded. When all these developments come to fruition, you’re going to feel very foolish.
to keep the systems and utilities on at the old Worcester Auditorium so the building doesn't cave in. There were plans to redevelop it, but the closure of Becker College put the end to that.
I looked quickly on the City's website and it appears both the Biotech Park and Gateway Park were both privately developed. I can't find if the City assisted in the development through what is their most common form, a TIF. In researching these two developments I was reminded of the current biotech expansion underway next to the original biotech park where the City is not directly participating.
Finally, with regards to the hundreds of SEASONAL partime, and presumably minimum wage jobs, I ask is that worth the investment of $175 million. A side note, I believe the additional parking revenues which you are describing are being redirected away from the parking system to pay for the bonds on the ballpark.
You touch on one of my concerns indirectly with your proposal with your proposed school department budget cuts. We pay the City Council, the School Committee, the City Manger and the Superintendent to deliver municipal services in an efficient cost effective manner. When they don't do their jobs, which appears to be the case in this instance it materializes in an ever increasing tax bill. I ask a simple question, if the City subsidizes the payment on the bonds for let's say the first five years, will the City give me a refund on these tax payments the next five years?
We already see short term collateral damage to small canal district businesses that are not in the TIF club of insiders.
I’m. Wry concerned about the long term damage to the city from what increasingly appears to be inept handling of this situation. Just one example: a multi-million dollar mistake not knowing that expensive underground data and other infrastructure existed to support high tech businesses that were taken by eminent domain that a private developer would have known about just by seeing the signs on the doors of the businesses, let alone Dig Safe.
I’m not as confident as Gary is that this will all,pencilout wohtout long term fiscal pain to taxpayers. I legit hope that Gary is right and I am wrong.
It has been pointed out before that this critical discussion is happening only in a small, private ORH blog. That may be a larger issue as there will be more boondoggles unless that changes.
yourself now that Konnie Luke's is gone.
You remember when the city manager wrote a self-serving article saying the park was a huge success (three weeks after it opened)? Why do you think he felt a need to do so?
Returning to your underlying question, why the article, I can't remember when exactly The Worcester Business Journal calculated the project cost but I believe it was roughly around this time and it was brought to light that the project was 60% over budget at that moment in time. Couple that with the fact that the garage being constructed was being schedule and the developer had not started construction on any of the development which the initial plan had as being completed by this moment in time and any person thinking objectively would call the project a train wreck waiting to happen.
The ball park appears to be a marvel, with the exception of the facade and the obstructed views down in the third base line boxes, but would you not expect that with a $160-175 million price tag?
The ball park was and continues to be portrayed as not costing us taxpayers any money. If that is not the case this will be a bait and switch and the motivation could be as simple as the ending of the wizard of oz. "Don't look behind that curtain"
Hopefully we don’t see these same officials with jobs at the WooSox or other recipients of giant tax breaks. Even I’m not that cynical.
Still unsure how we are supposed to support a $175,000,000 facility on $32,000 a year in rent. My barber pays more for that in Trent for 1000 sq feet in a sort of rundown part of the city that gets no TIFs..
I still can’t see why the manager calls this a a “good investment” but maybe he can unleash the info buried from public view so that the rest of us can u derstand.