DOCSLIB.ORG

Mission Valley Stadium & Arena Development Proposal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mission Valley Stadium & Arena Development Proposal MISSION VALLEY STADIUM & ARENA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT ANCHORED TRANSIT ORIENTED MULTI-USE URBAN VILLAGE HOK SPORTS – Proposed San Diego Chargers Stadium – Citizen’s Task Force on Charger Issues PROPOSED & PREPARED BY: JEFFREY M. RICE CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC CAPITAL MARKETS DEBT & EQUITY FINANCE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION CONFIDENTIALITY © CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (2007). All Rights Reserved. The information and content contained herein is strictly confidential and The information contained herein is proprietary professional literary and intended for the exclusive use of CB Richard Ellis, City of San Diego, architectural work product. The information contained herein is protected County of San Diego, A.G. Spanos, Chargers Football, LLC, National by international copyright laws as a collective work and/or a compilation, Football League, Major League Soccer, and Sports Arena Group 2000. containing literary and architectural work including pictorial and graphic work. The unauthorized disclosure, duplication, reproduction or dissemination of the information contained is subject to civil penalties and liabilities. Any duplication, reproduction, transmission or dissemination without the express written permission of CB Richard Ellis is strictly prohibited, and subject to civil and criminal penalties. EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION Upon acceptance and agreement of the principles and content of the DISCLAIMER proposal contained herein, the parties involved hereby agree to engage CB Richard Ellis to represent all of the parties involved in negotiating the The information contained herein has been obtained from sources terms of a mutually acceptable agreement for the development of the deemed believable. While we do not doubt it accuracy, we have not existing stadium site in Mission Valley for a new football stadium and verified it and make no guaranty, warranty or representation about it. arena/ convention center complex through a tiered master ground lease and sublease structure. It is your responsibility to independently confirm its accuracy or completeness. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates are The parties will not seek to circumvent the representation of CB Richard used for example only and do not represent the current or future Ellis through direct communication amongst the parties with the intent to performance of the property. exclude or avoid representation and compensation. The value of this transaction to you depends on tax and other factors which should be evaluated by your tax, financial and legal advisors. COMPENSATION You and your advisors should conduct a careful, independent The parties shall be responsible for compensating Jeff Rice and CB investigation of the property to determine to your satisfaction the Richard Ellis for their services in the event the parties reach a mutually suitability of the property for your needs. satisfactory agreement; receive voter approval; and commence a ground lease. We include projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates for example only, and they may not represent current or future performance of the CB Richard Ellis shall be entitled to a brokerage fee equal to 5.0% of the property. value of the ground lease from the City to Master Developer to be paid in three installments, as follows: 1/4 at agreement of the parties; 1/4 The pro forma income and expenses set forth in this investment upon voter approval of the propositions; and 1/2 upon lease package are estimated projections based on certain assumptions, commencement. stated or not. In the event, no mutually acceptable agreement between the parties is You and your advisors should develop independent cash flow accepted and approved, the parties shall not be responsible for any projections and conduct other financial analysis as well as make an compensation to CB Richard Ellis. independent investigation of the property prior to making an investment decision. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed believable. While we do not doubt it accuracy, we have not verified it and make no guaranty, warranty or representation about it. It is your responsibility to independently confirm its accuracy or completeness. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates are used for example only and do not represent the current or future STADIUM & ARENA performance of the property. The value of this transaction to you depends on tax and other factors which should be evaluated by your tax, financial and legal advisors. You and your advisors should conduct DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL a careful, independent investigation of the property to determine to your satisfaction the suitability of the property for your needs. TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II PROPOSAL OVERVIEW III PROCESS & RESPONSIBILITY OVERVIEW IV DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW V ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS VI STADIUM OVERVIEW & DESIGN VII ARENA/CONVENTION CENTER OVERVIEW & DESIGN VIII MIXED-USE SPORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The information contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed believable. While we do not doubt it accuracy, we have not verified it and make no guaranty, warranty or representation about it. It is your responsibility to independently confirm its accuracy or completeness. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates are used for example only and do not represent the current or future STADIUM & ARENA performance of the property. The value of this transaction to you depends on tax and other factors which should be evaluated by your tax, financial and legal advisors. You and your advisors should conduct DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL a careful, independent investigation of the property to determine to your satisfaction the suitability of the property for your needs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY ISSUES OBJECTIVES Qualcomm Stadium is owned and operated by the City of San Diego. The Chargers utilize Qualcomm Stadium under an amended Partial The Mission Valley Stadium & Arena Development Proposal Use & Occupancy Agreement until 2020 which provides for annual (“Proposal”) seeks to mutually satisfy the objectives of the San Diego rent of $2.5 Million, offset by ticket payments and concession revenue, Chargers and the City of San Diego: with no obligation for reimbursement of utilities or operating expenses. The agreement also allows the team to relocate after 2008 and pay a • The San Diego Chargers want a new stadium to generate more termination fee to the City. revenue, become more financially competitive with other NFL teams, and provide a better entertainment experience for fans. The City is currently subsidizing operations and use of the stadium by incurring losses of $2.3 Million and stadium bond payments of $5.7 • The City of San Diego seeks to keep the Chargers in San Diego; Million annually, as well as transfers from the Sports Arena ground increase revenues to the General Fund; decrease budget expenses; leases of $3.6 million and TOT funds of $3.0 Million. The City does not and achieve a market return on the value of the stadium land. receive any direct rent from Charger Practice Facility. The total annual cost to the City is $14.6 Million. STADIUM, ARENA & CONVENTION CENTER OVERVIEW As a publicly owned property, the 166 acre stadium site in Mission Valley generates no property tax revenue. The “as-is” unimproved and The Chargers have proposed building a new state-of-the-art football un-entitled market value of the stadium land is estimated to be $100 stadium with 65,600 seats (Expandable to 70,000 for Super Bowls), 120 Million. luxury suites and 8,600 club seats at a projected cost of $600 Million. Under the terms of the Sports Arena ground lease with the Hahn Arena The proposed Charger football stadium will host 10 NFL games, 6 Aztec Group until 2017, the City is receiving $400,000 in ground rent and no games, Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, major concerts, and thrill events property tax revenue. The “as-is” unimproved and un-entitled market from August to January with estimated attendance of 1.1 Million. value of the 60 acre Sports Arena site is estimated to be $40 Million. The Sports Arena facility in the Midway District hosts over 100 events annually with attendance over 800,000. The 40 years old facility is STADIUM PROPOSALS inferior compared to other arenas in Southern California and does not have the seating capacity required for major concert tours; the arena is Five years ago, the Chargers submitted a proposal for a new stadium unable to support or attract professional sports franchises due to the and mixed-use development as a 50/50 public-private partnership and lack of luxury suites, club seating and the limited ability to generate $200 million of public debt. The Citizen’s Task Force on Charger Issues revenue from advertising, sponsorship and branding. (“Task Force”) reviewed the use & occupancy agreement and the new stadium development proposal. The Task Force determined that the With 32 Million visitors and 16 Million overnight guests annually, San current operating agreement was financially unfavorable to the City and Diego is the second most visited city in California and seventh most concluded that the new stadium proposal should not be accepted. The visited destination in country. San Diego is the 10th most popular Task Force submitted a set of recommendations for accepting any convention destination in the country, and the leading choice in proposal for a new stadium and development of the stadium site. California. The San Diego Convention Center annually hosts 75-80 major conventions with 70%-75% occupancy and attendance exceeding The Chargers submitted a revised stadium & development proposal in 1 Million which generates $1.56 Billion in regional economic impact and 2005 which was not accepted by the City. The Chargers are pursuing tax revenues of $25 Million. negotiations and feasibility studies with the cities of Oceanside and Chula Vista as potential locations for a new stadium. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed believable. While we do not doubt it accuracy, we have not verified it and make no guaranty, warranty or representation about it. It is your responsibility to independently confirm its accuracy or completeness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mission Valley Stadium Private Financing Proposal
    MISSION VALLEY STADIUM PART I PRIVATE FINANCING PROPOSAL SUMMARY OUTLINE PROPOSAL Benefits & Issues of Mission Valley – Conceptual Stadium Ideas Stadium Design Concepts & Features Proposed by: Infrastructure & Environmental Projected Infrastructure & Stadium Costs San Diego Stadium Cooperative Coalition Paying for a New Stadium – Private Financing Sources Naming Rights & Seat Licenses / PSL Issues & Objections Stadium-Development-Transportation Strategy & Financing Plan February 2015 Public Investment & Private Stadium Financing Proposed Private Stadium Financing Plan COPYRIGHT NOTICE © 2015 All Rights Reserved. Any use of these proprietary materials and concepts contained herein, including reproduction, modification, distribution or republication, PART II without the prior written consent, is strictly prohibited. MISSION VALLEY STADIUM REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DISCLAIMER This is a proprietary and confidential Proposal (“Proposal”) intended solely for Stadium Site Overview preliminary use and benefit in determining whether you desire to express further interest in the involvement and support of the Mission Valley Stadium Private Proposed Traffic Infrastructure Financing Project (“Project”). This Proposal contains selected information pertaining Mass Transit to the Project and does not purport to be a representation of the state of affairs of the Project or to be all-inclusive or to contain all or part of the information which Parking prospective parties and investors may require to evaluate involvement and support Pedestrian Access & Environmental of the Project. Conceptual Site Plan - Proposed Stadium All financial projections and information are provided for general reference purposes Proposed Commercial Village Development only and are based on assumptions relating to the general economy, market conditions, competition and other factors beyond the control of the proposal. Ground Lease Development Plan Therefore, all projections, assumptions and other information provided and made Site & Development Summary herein are subject to material variation.
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)
    Special Regular- and Postseason- Games Special Regular- and Postseason-Games .................................. 178 178 SPECIAL REGULAR- AND POSTSEASON GAMES Special Regular- and Postseason Games 11-19-77—Mo. Western St. 35, Benedictine 30 (1,000) 12-9-72—Harding 30, Langston 27 Postseason Games 11-18-78—Chadron St. 30, Baker (Kan.) 19 (3,000) DOLL AND TOY CHARITY GAME 11-17-79—Pittsburg St. 43, Peru St. 14 (2,800) 11-21-80—Cameron 34, Adams St. 16 (Gulfport, Miss.) 12-3-37—Southern Miss. 7, Appalachian St. 0 (2,000) UNSANCTIONED OR OTHER BOWLS BOTANY BOWL The following bowl and/or postseason games were 11-24-55—Neb.-Kearney 34, Northern St. 13 EASTERN BOWL (Allentown, Pa.) unsanctioned by the NCAA or otherwise had no BOY’S RANCH BOWL team classified as major college at the time of the 12-14-63—East Carolina 27, Northeastern 6 (2,700) bowl. Most are postseason games; in many cases, (Abilene, Texas) 12-13-47—Missouri Valley 20, McMurry 13 (2,500) ELKS BOWL complete dates and/or statistics are not avail- 1-2-54—Charleston (W.V.) 12, East Carolina 0 (4,500) (at able and the scores are listed only to provide a BURLEY BOWL Greenville, N.C.) historical reference. Attendance of the game, (Johnson City, Tenn.) 12-11-54—Newberry 20, Appalachian St. 13 (at Raleigh, if known, is listed in parentheses after the score. 1-1-46—High Point 7, Milligan 7 (3,500) N.C.) ALL-SPORTS BOWL 11-28-46—Southeastern La. 21, Milligan 13 (7,500) FISH Bowl (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 11-27-47—West Chester 20, Carson-Newman 6 (10,000) 11-25-48—West Chester 7, Appalachian St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Stadium Announcements on Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth
    United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. In the Matter of: (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 | 05000286 ENT000169 Exhibit #: ENT000169-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: Submitted: March 28, 2012 Rejected: Stricken: Other: THE IMPACT OF STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT IN DALLAS-FORT WORTH CAROLYN A. DEHRING, CRAIG A. DEPKEN and MICHAEL R. WARD* We investigate the impact of a potential new sports venue on residential property values, focusing on the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys’ search for a new host city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We find that residential property values in the city of Dallas increased following the announcement of a possible new stadium in the city. At the same time, property values fell throughout the rest of Dallas County, which would have paid for the proposed stadium. These patterns reversed when the Dallas stadium proposal was abandoned. Subsequently, a series of announcements regarding a new publicly subsidized stadium in nearby Arlington, Texas, reduced res- idential property values in Arlington. In aggregate, average property values declined approximately 1.5% relative to the surrounding area before stadium construction commenced. This decline was almost equal to the anticipated household sales tax burden, suggesting that the average expected amenity effect of hosting the Cowboys in Arlington was not significantly different from zero. (JEL L83, R53, H73) I. INTRODUCTION projects raise house prices in aggregate, while negative net benefit projects lower house prices Public expenditures on a project, and the in aggregate.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia
    Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer S.B. Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of AASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN OF TECHNOLOGY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAY 3 12005 AT THE LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2005 © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author:.................. ............... .......... Department of Civil Environmental Engineering May 20, 2005 C ertified by:................... ................................................ Jerome J. Connor Professor, Dep tnt of CZvil and Environment Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies BARKER Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 20, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT As existing open-air or fully enclosed stadia are reaching their life expectancies, cities are choosing to replace them with structures with moving roofs. This kind of facility provides protection from weather for spectators, a natural grass playing surface for players, and new sources of revenue for owners. The first retractable-roof stadium in North America, the Rogers Centre, has hosted numerous successful events but cost the city of Toronto over CA$500 million. Today, there are five retractable-roof stadia in use in America. Each has very different structural features designed to accommodate the conditions under which they are placed, and their individual costs reflect the sophistication of these features.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, 1960-1992
    Guide to the John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, 1960-1992 2.9 linear ft. Accession Number: 0910-23 Collection Number: 87 Prepared by Christopher Strange April 2016 Citation: The John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, Collection 87, Box number, Folder number, Irving Archives, Irving Public Library. Historical Sketch Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas was the home of the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys from 1971-2008. The Cowboys moved there from the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, where they had played their home games since the team’s first season in 1960. The team’s owner, Clint Murchison Jr., contacted City of Irving officials as early as 1966 to propose the idea of building a state-of-the-art stadium with assistance from the city. After some negotiation, the two sides agreed that the city would build and own the stadium, and the Cowboys would enter into an agreement to lease the stadium for their home games for at least 35 years. A Cowboys’ subsidiary, the Texas Stadium Corporation, would manage the stadium. The city would finance the construction by requiring all season ticket purchasers to also buy construction bonds. The city would repay the bonds with money from tickets sold over the duration of the Cowboys’ lease, and Irving taxpayers would not have to pay any share of the construction costs. The bonds went on sale in December 1967, and the first $3.5 million was raised in three weeks. Supporters of the stadium said it would cost Irving taxpayers nothing, but the plan still caused some controversy in the city.
    [Show full text]
  • Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP
    aJ./ ERNST & YOUNG PIPER RUDNICK Qua/it In E er thing We Do GRAY CARY ' AGENDA 11:00 a.m. Registration and networking 11:40 a.m. Ballroom opens; luncheon seating begins Lunch is erved 12:30 p.m. Luncheon program begins Welcome Duane Roth, CEO CONNECT Jay Rains, Partner DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP Frieder Seible, Dean Jacobs School of Engineering, UCSD Introduction of Honoree Dr. Richard Atkinson, President Emeritus University of California Conversation with Walter J. Zable Fred Lewis, Producer and Host of lTV's "The Heart of San Diego" 2:00p.m. Program closes HALL OF FAME COMMITTEE Special thanks to the following Hall of Fame Committee Members: Committee Chair Brent Jacobs Burnham Real Estate Committee Members Knox Bell DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP Malin Burnham The Burnham Companies Edward Dennis UCSD Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry Sandy Ehrlich SDSU Entrepreneurial Management Center Stan Fleming Forward Ventures Dr. Jeffrey Kirsch Reuben H. Fleet Science Center Cub Parker Retired Technology Banker SPONSORS Lead Sponsor DLA Piper Rudnick ray Cary US LLP is a business law fi rm with offices PIPER RUDNICK throughout the U , whose core practices ar c rp rate and securities, litiga- liillllliiiital GRAY CARY tion, real estate, intellectual property, and government affairs.Worldwide, D LA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary has over 3,000 lawyers in 58 cities in 22 countries, including the United Kingdom, mainland Europe and Asia, offering leading practices in commercial, corporate and finance, human resour e , litigation, real estate, regulatory and legi lative, and techn 1 gy, edia, and com­ n1unicati ns.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Irving and Irving Convention & Visitors Bureau
    City of Irving and Irving Convention & Visitors Bureau Proposed Multi-Purpose Center Study February 2007 FINAL DRAFT Presented by: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Contact: Robert V. Canton, Director Phone: (813) 218-2917 Fax: (813) 375-7842 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1500 Tampa, Florida 33602-5147 Telephone (813) 218 2917 Facsimile (813) 375 7842 February 15, 2007 Maura Gast, Executive Director Irving Convention & Visitors Bureau 222 W. Las Colinas Blvd., Suite 1550 Irving, Texas 75039 Dear Ms. Gast: PricewaterhouseCoopers is pleased to present this report on our analyses of a proposed multi- purpose facility in Irving, Texas. We trust that you will find the information contained herein useful in your decision-making process. Our Services were performed and this report was developed in accordance with our engagement letter dated October 20, 2005 and addenda dated May 26, 2006 and October 3, 2006 and each is subject to the terms and conditions included therein. Our Services were also performed in accordance with Standards for Consulting Services established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The procedures we performed did not constitute an examination or a review in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards or attestation standards. Accordingly, we provide no opinion, attestation or other form of assurance with respect to our work or the information upon which our work was based. We did not audit or otherwise verify the information supplied to us in connection with this engagement, from whatever source, except as may be specified in this report or in our engagement letter. Our work was limited to the specific procedures and analysis described herein and was based only on the information made available through December 7, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures
    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
    [Show full text]
  • 1967 American Football League
    1967 AMERICAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE Research by Elias Sports Bureau and Pro OAKLAND 51, DENVER 0 Sunday, September 10 Football Research Association Linescore At Oakland Coliseum, attendance 25,423. Committee, Ken Pullis, Chairman Denver 0 0 0 0 - 0 Oakland 7 13 14 17 - 51 1967 AMERICAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE Oak-Dixon 3 run (Blanda kick) Oak-Lamonica 4 run (kick failed) Eastern Division W L T Pct. PF PA Oak-Dixon 10 pass from Lamonica (Blanda kick) Houston Oilers 9 4 1 .692 258 199 Oak-Daniels 6 run (Blanda kick) New York Jets 8 5 1 .615 371 329 Oak-Sherman 13 run (Blanda kick) Buffalo Bills 4 10 0 .286 237 285 Oak-FG Blanda 23 Miami Dolphins 4 10 0 .286 219 407 Oak-Wells 50 pass from Blanda (Blanda kick) Boston Patriots 3 10 1 .231 280 389 Oak-Powers 36 interception (Blanda kick) Western Division W L T Pct. PF PA BUFFALO 20, NEW YORK 17 Sunday, September 10 Oakland Raiders 13 1 0 .929 468 233 At War Memorial Stadium, attendance 45,748. Kansas City Chiefs 9 5 0 .643 408 254 New York 0 14 3 0 - 17 San Diego Chargers 8 5 1 .615 360 352 Buffalo 0 0 0 20 - 20 Denver Broncos 3 11 0 .214 256 409 NY-Maynard 19 pass from Namath (J. Turner kick) AFL Championship: Oakland 40, Houston 7 NY-Maynard 56 pass from Namath (J. Turner kick) NY-FG Turner 32 Buff-Powell 24 pass from Kemp (Mercer kick) FIRST WEEK Buff-Powell 27 pass from Kemp (Mercer kick) Buff-FG Mercer 51 DENVER 26, BOSTON 21 Buff-FG Mercer 43 Sunday, September 3 At Bears Stadium, attendance 35,488.
    [Show full text]
  • Stadium Construction for Professional Sports: Reversing the Inequities Through Tax Incentives
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 18 Issue 3 Volume 18, Summer 2004, Issue 3 Article 5 Stadium Construction for Professional Sports: Reversing the Inequities Through Tax Incentives Zachary A. Phelps Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STADIUM CONSTRUCTION FOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS: REVERSING THE INEQUITIES THROUGH TAX INCENTIVES ZACHARY A. PHELPS* INTRODUCTION There are few things in today's society that garner more attention or have a larger significance on everyday life than sports. Avid fans follow their favorite teams not only during their respective seasons, but search the Internet and sports page in the off-season to find even the slightest bit of information. Popular holidays are interwoven with various sporting events, such as football on Thanksgiving Day or baseball on the Fourth of July.1 Some events even attract their own celebration, such as Super Bowl Sunday. If a city's local team is fortunate enough to win a championship, a large-scale parade is usually held to honor the players and coaches. 2 Clearly, sports permeate multiple aspects of our lives, and it is this popularity that sports franchises use to their advantage. People become so attached to *J.D. Candidate, June 2004, St. John's University School of Law; B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Dr Pepper Big 12 Football Championship
    2009 DR PEPPER BIG 12 FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP 2009 STANDINGS BIG 12 GAMES OVERALL NORTH DIVISION W-L Pct. PF PA W-L Pct. PF PA Home Road Neutral vs. Div. vs. Top 25 Streak Nebraska 6-2 .750 150 105 9-3 .750 307 133 5-2 4-1 0-0 4-1 2-1 Won 5 Missouri 4-4 .500 217 233 8-4 .667 364 295 3-3 3-1 2-0 4-1 0-3 Won 3 Kansas State 4-4 .500 182 216 6-6 .500 276 280 5-1 0-5 1-0 3-2 0-2 Lost 2 Iowa State 3-5 .375 151 195 6-6 .500 253 271 4-2 2-3 0-1 2-3 0-2 Lost 1 Colorado 2-6 .250 164 234 3-9 .250 267 346 3-3 0-6 0-0 1-4 1-3 Lost 3 Kansas 1-7 .125 191 287 5-7 .417 353 341 4-2 1-4 0-1 1-4 0-2 Lost 7 SOUTH DIVISION Texas 8-0 1.000 317 145 12-0 1.000 516 185 6-0 5-0 1-0 5-0 2-0 Won 16 Oklahoma State 6-2 .750 206 176 9-3 .750 362 261 6-2 3-1 0-0 3-2 2-1 Lost 1 Texas Tech 5-3 .625 271 181 8-4 .667 440 261 6-1 1-3 1-0 2-3 1-3 Won 2 Oklahoma 5-3 .625 231 127 7-5 .583 373 162 6-0 1-3 0-2 3-2 2-3 Won 1 Texas A&M 3-5 .375 253 290 6-6 .500 407 392 5-2 1-3 0-1 2-3 1-2 Lost 1 Baylor 1-7 .125 104 248 4-8 .333 249 327 2-4 2-3 0-1 0-5 0-3 Lost 3 BIG 12 FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP - SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Friday, December 4 Noon and 1:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Results
    H DENVER BRONCOS ISTORY ­­ Miscellaneous & R ESULTS Year-by-Year Stats Postseason Records Honors History/Results 252 Staff/Coaches Players Roster Breakdown 2019 Season Staff/Coaches Players Roster Breakdown 2019 Season DENVER BRONCOS BRONCOS ALL-TIME DRAFT CHOICES NUMBER OF DRAFT CHOICES PER SCHOOL 20 — Florida 15 — Colorado, Georgia 14 — Miami (Fla.), Nebraska 13 — Louisiana State, Houston, Southern California 12 — Michigan State, Washington 11 — Arkansas, Arizona State, Michigan 10 — Iowa, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oregon 9 — Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Purdue, Virginia Tech 8 — Arizona, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Minnesota, Syracuse, Texas, Utah State, Washington State 7 — Baylor, Boise State, Boston College, Kansas, North Carolina, Penn State. 6 — Alabama, Auburn, Brigham Young, California, Florida A&M, Northwestern, Oklahoma State, San Diego, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UCLA, Utah, Virginia 5 — Alcorn State, Colorado State, Florida State, Grambling, Illinois, Mississippi State, Pittsburgh, San Jose State, Texas Christian, Tulane, Wisconsin 4 — Arkansas State, Bowling Green/Bowling Green State, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa State, Jackson State, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland-Eastern Shore, Miami (Ohio), Missouri, Northern Arizona, Oregon State, Pacific, South Carolina, Southern, Stanford, Texas A&I/Texas A&M Kingsville, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Wyoming 3 — Detroit, Duke, Fresno State, Montana State, North Carolina State, North Texas State, Rice, Richmond, Tennessee State, Texas-El Paso, Toledo, Wake Forest, Weber State 2 — Alabama A&M, Bakersfield
    [Show full text]