Cheating the taxpayers now huh.


http://www.newsday.com/iphone/ny-nyyank0114,0,5518460.story


The president of the New York Yankees and the chief of the New York City Industrial Development Authority have been subpoenaed to testify Wednesday before a state Assembly committee probing the taxpayer-backed financing of a new stadium for the team.

Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) said subpoenas for Yankees president Randy Levine and Seth Pinsky, chairman of the city's IDA, were issued Monday.

Brodsky, chairman of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, is chairing the public hearing in lower Manhattan on the financing deal.

In a news release announcing the subpoenas, Brodsky said the Yankees and the Industrial Development Authority have "continued to stonewall" the committee's requests for documents about the Yankees' request for an additional $430 million in public-backed financing. The government bond financing allows the Yankees to borrow at lower interest rates.


The city's Industrial Development Authority has a hearing on the additional taxpayer-backed funding on Thursday and the authority's board of directors is scheduled to vote Friday.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office criticized Brodsky's move.

"I guess it makes for good political theater because it's the Yankees, but when it comes to valuable taxpayer dollars, decisions should be made on return, not rhetoric," Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent said.

Alice McGillion, a spokeswoman for Levine, said the Yankee president learned he was going to be subpoenaed Monday night, but already had rearranged his schedule to attend Wednesday's hearing. She said Levine hadn't received a subpoena but had to reschedule his attendance at an owners' meeting in Arizona.

McGillion said she was unsure if Levine would bring any documents to the hearing in Manhattan.

Officials for the city and the Yankees already have appeared before the committee and provided documents, but Brodsky continues to investigate. At a news conference Tuesday, city Comptroller William Thompson Jr. accused Bloomberg and the Industrial Development Authority of financial incompetence in the Yankee Stadium funding deal.

Thompson, a Democrat who is a potential rival of Bloomberg's in this year's mayoral race, said the Industrial Development Authority deal ultimately will leave city taxpayers with higher costs.

"While our financial review cannot determine intent, this incredible mismanagement begs the question: Was this plain old incompetence or a blatant attempt to mislead the public?" Thompson said. "Either way, New Yorkers now have a box-seat view of fiscal mismanagement."

The Yankees are asking for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds and $111 million in taxable bonds, on top of $940 million in tax-exempt bonds and $25 million in taxable bonds already granted for their new, $1.3-billion Bronx stadium.

The Mets are requesting an additional $83 million, after the $615 million already approved, for the new $800-million Citi Field park in Queens.

Last week, after months of criticism about its handling of the stadium projects.the Bloomberg administration said it would forgo luxury boxes, valued at $600,000 to $850,000, at the new Yankees stadium, as well as suites worth $250,000 to $500,000 at the new Mets ballpark.

The administration has worked out a new deal with the Yankees to get extra money, instead of a luxury box. A separate and similar agreement is being worked out with the Mets for their new park, a Bloomberg spokesman said.

read more post less

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=14911756#post14911756

i dont read the yankee thread.

i dont read the yankee thread.

really?

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=112858&goto=&highlight=&pre=all&oso=date&tus=74040&sor=asc&x=9&y=17

Talked to that Levine once. What a douche.

They really aren't "cheating" the taxpayers... here is the bottom line.

The Yankees are using bonds to finance parts of the stadium, as the Mets are. These are private bonds, paid back with tax revenue generated from the Yankees new stadium.

In essence, if there were no new stadium, there wouldn't be this tax revenue to go to another source, so I don't see what the big deal is.

So how are they doing anything wrong? They aren't. If the city didn't allow the private bonds to be used, the team simply would not have built the new stadium. The city said yes.

They really aren't "cheating" the taxpayers... here is the bottom line.

The Yankees are using bonds to finance parts of the stadium, as the Mets are. These are private bonds, paid back with tax revenue generated from the Yankees new stadium.

In essence, if there were no new stadium, there wouldn't be this tax revenue to go to another source, so I don't see what the big deal is.

So how are they doing anything wrong? They aren't. If the city didn't allow the private bonds to be used, the team simply would not have built the new stadium. The city said yes.

I gotta be honest Destro, that is kind of weak. It's like saying "I don't pay my property taxes on my house but it's no big deal. After all, if I didn't buy the house in the first place, the government wouldn't even get my money." They are ripping the taxpayers off because they aren't paying their fair share.

I gotta be honest Destro, that is kind of weak. It's like saying "I don't pay my property taxes on my house but it's no big deal. After all, if I didn't buy the house in the first place, the government wouldn't even get my money." They are ripping the taxpayers off because they aren't paying their fair share.

This kind of thing happens with businesses all the time, they are essentially getting a huge tax break and once the bonds are paid off, the city starts collecting tax dollars.

I'm sorry but I side with the Yankees here, and you know I'm not a blind fan.

The city knew the agreement up front, they said yes.

Why the outcry now?... because they want more tax bonds?

Then say no now. They don't have to say yes.

This kind of thing happens with businesses all the time, they are essentially getting a huge tax break and once the bonds are paid off, the city starts collecting tax dollars.

I'm sorry but I side with the Yankees here, and you know I'm not a blind fan.

The city knew the agreement up front, they said yes.

Why the outcry now?... because they want more tax bonds?

Then say no now. They don't have to say yes.

I absolutely agree that the city is at fault too. Some politicians are suddenly grandstanding and the whole thing wreaks of hypocrisy after the fact. But the argument that "things like this happen all the time in business" doesn't make it right. The Yankees may be getting some scrutiny here because they are the Yankees, but it doesn't change the fact that they apparently (with the help of some city employees) took advantage of the system and defrauded the taxpayers.

Talked to that Levine once. What a douche.

Did he understand you with his cock in your mouth, OOOOoooo


Seriously, where have you been?

Village Voice Blog Recap of the meeting today which discusses how Levine and the Yankees ripped off the city and it's taxpers http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/when_elephants.php


Assemblymember Jim Brennan, appearing in the role of Good Cop, finally gets down to the real meat of the matter: The city, he notes, is being asked to sell tax-free bonds to help pay for the Yankees' added costs - including refinancing of some of their original bonds. "You're saying that you could not handle the construction payments to complete this without this particular form of financing?" he asks Levine. The Yankee exec responds: "I'm saying that this is what was intended from the beginning, this is what was anticipated for quite a long time, and that if there was a change at the last minute it would create serious issues."

Brennan then presses Pinsky to admit the use of tax-exempt bonds is a subsidy to the Yankees, because the team gets to pay a lower interest rate on their construction debt. Pinsky dodges a direct answer: "It costs the city nothing, in this particular instance." Brennan: "But the benefit to this company goes to their bottom line." Pinsky: "Only to the extent that there is no alternative where the Yankees would be laying that out."

This is a common Pinsky refrain, and is worth explanation. The city's line is that since the Yankees weren't offering to build a stadium with plain old taxable bonds, the city isn't losing anything here - without the tax-free bonds, no stadium would be built, and the city wouldn't get any taxes on the bond proceeds.

No one points it out, but there are two flaws in this argument. First off, those investors who are buying Yankees bonds would instead do something else with their money, and it might well involve paying taxes on the proceeds to the city - creating a new tax shelter does cost the city, albeit a lot less than it costs the federal treasury. More important, though, the new stadium already has been built, so if the IDA were to tell the Yankees to take a long walk off a short pier on its new bond request, the Yankees would be forced to use taxable financing, like it or not.

"I'll concede that it gets confusing," Pinsky finally admits.

1:58: At last, someone with actual information to testify about! After a short break - during which pretty much the entire press corps heads for the exits - economist George Sweeting of the Independent Budget Office hands out spreadsheets detailing his office's latest estimates of the myriad tax breaks and "infrastructure" expenses being paid by taxpayers. Without going into details (check the IBO's website for those), the totals come to a total public subsidy for the Yankees of $854.7 million, more than half a billion of which will come out of state and city coffers; for the Mets, the total subsidy is $371.5 million, with the state and city on the hook for about $230 million. And this, it's worth noting, is without counting any lost future property taxes. Levine would probably turn orange at this point, but he, along with most of the rest of the onlookers, has gone home.

That's basically my whole point... the city can say no to the new request.

To say they ripped off the city and the taxpayers on this issue, is laughable.

The city agreed to the plan and the taxes the Yankees are not paying to the city to pay off the bonds would not have been there to pay without a new stadium.

The only thing that is true is that, without a new stadium, these people would have spent their money on something other than the bonds. But again, it's their decision to buy the bond or not, they aren't being forced to.

The new Yankee Stadium, "the house that greased handshakes built"