Collateral Damage

[Texsox]

Looking at the traffic here it is easy to see the number of Sox fans who are virtually avoiding this train wreck.  

How about the folks at and around the stadium who lose out when Sox fans avoid this train wreck in real life?

I feel bad when hard times happen to innocent people.  Sure a couple millionaires lost jobs,  and I'm certain that caused some stress for their families,  but folks working hard to keep that first roof over their heads and meals on the table are more of a concern.  

[SkokieSox]

There are real problems in America that have become even more transparent and evident in the last few years… the Sox are a metaphor to this reality. 

[joejoesox]

53 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Looking at the traffic here it is easy to see the number of Sox fans who are virtually avoiding this train wreck.  

How about the folks at and around the stadium who lose out when Sox fans avoid this train wreck in real life?

I feel bad when hard times happen to innocent people.  Sure a couple millionaires lost jobs,  and I'm certain that caused some stress for their families,  but folks working hard to keep that first roof over their heads and meals on the table are more of a concern.  

This reminds me of the argument that we shouldn't implement universal healthcare because health insurance employees will be out of jobs

[oldsox]

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

Looking at the traffic here it is easy to see the number of Sox fans who are virtually avoiding this train wreck.  

How about the folks at and around the stadium who lose out when Sox fans avoid this train wreck in real life?

I feel bad when hard times happen to innocent people.  Sure a couple millionaires lost jobs, and I'm certain that caused some stress for their families, but folks working hard to keep that first roof over their heads and meals on the table are more of a concern.  

So, what do you suggest, Tex?  Government subsidies?

[South Side Hit Men]

21 minutes ago, oldsox said:

So, what do you suggest, Tex?  Government subsidies?

For Jerry and his "competitors", the grift never ends.

[MiddleCoastBias]

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

Looking at the traffic here it is easy to see the number of Sox fans who are virtually avoiding this train wreck.  

How about the folks at and around the stadium who lose out when Sox fans avoid this train wreck in real life?

I feel bad when hard times happen to innocent people.  Sure a couple millionaires lost jobs,  and I'm certain that caused some stress for their families,  but folks working hard to keep that first roof over their heads and meals on the table are more of a concern.  

Relative to the traffic here, I've been thinking about that myself. Normally I'm checking countless times a day, even if I post or respond infrequently. I've found myself checking in, seeing the same tired threads on the main page that don't do anything for me, and I check out. 

A losing team and losing culture definitely have trickle down effects.

I know this comment adds nothing to the discourse and I'm doing nothing to make it better, and I'm part of the problem as a result. And that's my observation.

[Texsox]

29 minutes ago, oldsox said:

So, what do you suggest, Tex?  Government subsidies?

One that when teams want government breaks because of the economic benefits we remember the downside. Double whammy when they aren't paying some taxes and area employees aren't working. Maybe set an economic benefit threshold. 

[bmags]

probably not that hard of a hit locally. And fortunately a pretty good time to be a service worker for those in the stadium.

[nrockway]

5 hours ago, Texsox said:

Looking at the traffic here it is easy to see the number of Sox fans who are virtually avoiding this train wreck.  

How about the folks at and around the stadium who lose out when Sox fans avoid this train wreck in real life?

I feel bad when hard times happen to innocent people.  Sure a couple millionaires lost jobs,  and I'm certain that caused some stress for their families,  but folks working hard to keep that first roof over their heads and meals on the table are more of a concern.  

In principle I agree, but in reality who's impacted beyond ballpark employees and parking lot operators? I don't think there are too many businesses nearby that bank on Sox fans coming before or after a game. Could be wrong though. 

[Milkman delivers]

11 minutes ago, nrockway said:

In principle I agree, but in reality who's impacted beyond ballpark employees and parking lot operators? I don't think there are too many businesses nearby that bank on Sox fans coming before or after a game. Could be wrong though. 

I know they’ve lost a lot of vendors in the last few years. The move to cashless payments really screwed them. I try to bring as many singles as I can when I go to games for tips because a lot of people won’t tip at all when swiping.

 

The lack of traffic on this site is kinda depressing. Can’t even wallow in our own misery together.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Milkman delivers

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, bmags said:

probably not that hard of a hit locally. And fortunately a pretty good time to be a service worker for those in the stadium.

Didn't those people picket the stadium protesting low wages and inconsistent work at the end of last season?

[bmags]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Didn't those people picket the stadium protesting low wages and inconsistent work at the end of last season?

and i'm saying the broader service worker economy right now makes it easier to handle a seasonal employer like this providing less work.

[Texsox]

3 hours ago, nrockway said:

In principle I agree, but in reality who's impacted beyond ballpark employees and parking lot operators? I don't think there are too many businesses nearby that bank on Sox fans coming before or after a game. Could be wrong though. 

The reason that teams receive tax breaks is economic development of the area or region. So based on your thinking, which I likely true, why give tax breaks to fund a stadium? Yet it happens over and over again across the country. When JR holds Chicago hostage with an offer from somewhere else, will the politicians give in again or look at this mess and say no?

[pcq]

Jerry has a sweetheart deal cooked up in Peoria. 

[pcq]

46 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The reason that teams receive tax breaks is economic development of the area or region. So based on your thinking, which I likely true, why give tax breaks to fund a stadium? Yet it happens over and over again across the country. When JR holds Chicago hostage with an offer from somewhere else, will the politicians give in again or look at this mess and say no?

The Bill's got like $800M in freebies for their new home going up now. The governor and Commish are local boosters which helped I am sure. 

[Texsox]

34 minutes ago, pcq said:

The Bill's got like $800M in freebies for their new home going up now. The governor and Commish are local boosters which helped I am sure. 

I'm just not buying the economic impact argument anymore. It reminds me of a coworker back in Chicago. One of the Bears players was at a bar we were at (Snuggery) and everyone was tripping over themselves buying him drinks. Spro looked over and said f*** him he can buy his own drink, he's rich. 

It made a lot of sense. 

[Balta1701]

44 minutes ago, pcq said:

The Bill's got like $800M in freebies for their new home going up now. The governor and Commish are local boosters which helped I am sure. 

I do think there's a difference in the type of municipalities here. For Buffalo, this is both a local pride issue (they are a smaller city) and the state is motivated to put money into these areas to support growth outside of NYC. 

Similarly, in Vegas, they're dumping tax money into stadiums because they want to establish themselves as something other than a tourist city, and while we're at it these stadiums probably support the big tourist industry that there as well so everything kinda fits together.

In Chicago, you have a city and a state that have long-running budget issues and no huge reason to dump tons of money into this. They aren't trying to establish themselves, they aren't trying to preserve the one major team in a small city, and there's an overall understanding that the last deal was terrible for the city and that governments shouldn't be funding teams like this. I wouldn't be stunned if he got a deal to keep them there, but I'd be genuinely surprised if there was anything like the last sweetheart deal available for Reinsdorf this time.

[nrockway]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

The reason that teams receive tax breaks is economic development of the area or region. So based on your thinking, which I likely true, why give tax breaks to fund a stadium? Yet it happens over and over again across the country. When JR holds Chicago hostage with an offer from somewhere else, will the politicians give in again or look at this mess and say no?

I totally agree but in principle a stadium could be a driver for economic development, there was an opportunity to 'reimagine' that area when they were building the present day park but totally blew the opportunity. The same firm designed GRF and Camden Yards at essentially the same time and begged the Sox to go in a different direction, alas. I'm not saying to build Wrigleyville at 35th and Shields but there's truly nothing to do after a game except get on the red line or in your car and go somewhere else. 

I think the difference between now and then is that large-scale developer money is flowing south and the city incentivizes these sorts of megaprojects. Not saying the city won't get ripped off on a new park, just that there's a scenario where Reinsdorf or whoever owns the team makes a bunch of money and the public gets something out of it. I don't mind if the city kicks in money if there's an actual public benefit to be derived and democratic oversight, tend to think that's better than giving a developer carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as they fund it themselves. 

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I totally agree but in principle a stadium could be a driver for economic development, there was an opportunity to 'reimagine' that area when they were building the present day park but totally blew the opportunity. The same firm designed GRF and Camden Yards at essentially the same time and begged the Sox to go in a different direction, alas. I'm not saying to build Wrigleyville at 35th and Shields but there's truly nothing to do after a game except get on the red line or in your car and go somewhere else. 

I think the difference between now and then is that large-scale developer money is flowing south and the city incentivizes these sorts of megaprojects. Not saying the city won't get ripped off on a new park, just that there's a scenario where Reinsdorf or whoever owns the team makes a bunch of money and the public gets something out of it. I don't mind if the city kicks in money if there's an actual public benefit to be derived and democratic oversight, tend to think that's better than giving a developer carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as they fund it themselves. 

For this to happen though, someone is going to have to present a full development plan to the city where the ballpark is only one part of it. That means there is going to be money in the project that doesn't go to Reinsdorf, and his ballpark would be part of a revitalization plan. Does that sound like Reinsdorf?

[joejoesox]

5 hours ago, pcq said:

Jerry has a sweetheart deal cooked up in Peoria. 

you want even more bullets flying through the ballpark? 

[Texsox]

This will make sense to @Balta1701 but in a similar plan the most successful Texas grocery chain makes a lot of money by only opening stores where they control surrounding real estate. Their real estate holding generate almost as much as their grocery business in renting space. 

But the difference is they are literally generating traffic 24/7 not just on game days. 

[Texsox]

@nrockway that's an interesting twist I hadn't thought of, the benefit over control of the area versus private control. 

[Milkman delivers]

7 hours ago, nrockway said:

I totally agree but in principle a stadium could be a driver for economic development, there was an opportunity to 'reimagine' that area when they were building the present day park but totally blew the opportunity. The same firm designed GRF and Camden Yards at essentially the same time and begged the Sox to go in a different direction, alas. I'm not saying to build Wrigleyville at 35th and Shields but there's truly nothing to do after a game except get on the red line or in your car and go somewhere else. 

I think the difference between now and then is that large-scale developer money is flowing south and the city incentivizes these sorts of megaprojects. Not saying the city won't get ripped off on a new park, just that there's a scenario where Reinsdorf or whoever owns the team makes a bunch of money and the public gets something out of it. I don't mind if the city kicks in money if there's an actual public benefit to be derived and democratic oversight, tend to think that's better than giving a developer carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as they fund it themselves. 

Yes, oversight from corrupt city politicians and bureaucrats will solve things and in no way lead to loss of more money.

[Dick Allen]

15 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

For this to happen though, someone is going to have to present a full development plan to the city where the ballpark is only one part of it. That means there is going to be money in the project that doesn't go to Reinsdorf, and his ballpark would be part of a revitalization plan. Does that sound like Reinsdorf?

You also have to have the neighborhood sign off on it, and Bridgeport will not. They don’t want that. And really, does it even make sense economically? I read something about Goose Island Brewery who once had a place by Wrigley. They wanted to stay, but lost their lease. Their landlord didn’t want a long term committment. They wanted to go month to month. Goose Island said no because even in Wrigleyville with 40k there every game, and a more dense population within a 2 or 3 mile radius, Goose Islamd said they lost money during the offseason. If the landlord pulled their lease right before the season started, they lose a ton of money. For this type of thing to work, they would need a new area in the city or some suburb with the Bears. 

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

You also have to have the neighborhood sign off on it, and Bridgeport will not. They don’t want that. And really, does it even make sense economically? I read something about Goose Island Brewery who once had a place by Wrigley. They wanted to stay, but lost their lease. Their landlord didn’t want a long term committment. They wanted to go month to month. Goose Island said no because even in Wrigleyville with 40k there every game, and a more dense population within a 2 or 3 mile radius, Goose Islamd said they lost money during the offseason. If the landlord pulled their lease right before the season started, they lose a ton of money. For this type of thing to work, they would need a new area in the city or some suburb with the Bears. 

I honestly don't know what the area around the park is like these days, my experience has always been "It's a giant sheet of parking lots that are practically walled off by the highway on one side". This is very different from places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh, where the ballparks have been integrated into a downtown area that needed the infusion of cash and needed the foot traffic to help grow businesses in a downtown needing revitalization. There might be areas like that in Chicago, but it's certainly not a city in need of bringing new visitors to the downtown area to revitalize foot traffic. Maybe there's some areas in the city this makes sense for?