Fenway and blight

This is kind of funny:

Joseph P. Marchese Jr. wrote a letter to the BRA last month — one day after the Globe reported that the Sox were seeking a permanent extension of their current concession rights — saying he would pay $3 million for a 10-year contract. His offer is roughly double the annual rate paid by the Sox since the franchise began leasing the public street during the 2003 baseball season.

Marchese shared the letter with the Globe after the BRA failed to acknowledge his bid within four weeks, and said he is considering suing the agency on the grounds that he is being denied “the opportunity to be competitive and make a living.”

This is not so funny:

Cunha’s predecessor, Gregory W. Sullivan, wrote in a December letter that the BRA’s claim to rightfully control the street is dubious because it is based on a determination that the thriving area around Fenway Park is a slum in need of redevelopment. If the city grants another license after the Red Sox contract expires at the end of this season, it should conduct open bidding, he added.

…

The original arrangement was not subject to the state’s open bid law because the BRA — technically independent of the city government — took control of the street by eminent domain and labeled the Red Sox deal a demonstration project meant “to protect against urban blight.”

To sign another no-bid contract with the Sox, the BRA would have to exercise its eminent domain power again, maintaining that the strip of Yawkey Way is a blighted area.

The only reason Yawkey Way has had problems in the past is that the Red Sox have been such bad neighbors, not controlling their fans. I also find it interesting that the BRA is going to continue to call the area a blighted area. The whole idea behind this designation is to improve the area, if the area is still blighted then this ‘solution’ hasn’t worked and should be dropped–10 years is long enough to decide if something works isn’t it?

Of course, that isn’t the point. It’s really a gift to the Red Sox, as Marchese points out:

Marchese, who runs a law practice in Revere, contends that such a designation is “ridiculous and a means to circumvent the open bid law.”

“My take is if it’s a public way and we’re all taxpayers, we should have the same right to bid as the Red Sox,” said Marchese, a former alderman in Everett.

The Fenway neighborhood and the Red Sox

The Boston Globe has an article about John Henry’s wedding:

When they were initially drawing up plans in May, Henry’s event planners had asked only that a few spots on Lansdowne and Ipswich streets be blocked off for parking to fit in generators that would power the reception, which took place under a massive outfield tent. Henry is, by nature, an unassuming multimillionaire not prone to diva demands.

The city, however, had other designs. They looked over the guest list of about 400 names, which included a who’s who of Boston celebrities, with a tinge of Hollywood as well. The wedding band was Maroon Five. The night would be capped off with a fireworks display.

This really isn’t that big of a deal, but just shows how the Red Sox are treated. How many other people do you think would be allowed to have a fireworks display?

To really see this, you have to look at more cases:

• Back in 2003, the Red Sox asked the city if they could use Fenway as a concert venue for Bruce Springsteen. The city, of course, agreed because it was a once in a lifetime event. It then became a yearly thing with one or two concerts a year. This year there are five nights of concerts, which does seem to contradict this (that’s Larry Cancro, Senior Vice President for Fenway Affairs):

One thing, however, seems certain: Fenway Park is a one-time-a-year venue.  “I do not see the circumstances under which we could ever have more than two in one year,” Cancro confirms. 

 The city seems to be fine with this.

• When the Red Sox were trying to expand and contemplated using part of Yawkey Way as a bit of an add-on, the city made it happen. If you go look at the Red Sox you’ll see what should be a weird thing, Yawkey Way, a public street, is open only to Fenway Park ticket holders on game days (for a bit before and during the game).
• When the Red Sox said they wanted a new stadium, Menino was against it if the neighbors were against it. Well, unless it was the Fenway where he was all for it despite neighborhood opposition. The Red Sox also got the city and state to pledge millions of dollars to help.

At this point, I should say that the new owners are much better than the old ones. Which means they consider their neighbors a bit, as opposed to not at all.

Looking at comments to that first article you’ll see the usual remark to any complaints by people in the neighborhood:

So, if you’re so against all the events at Fenway, why live there? It’s been around for nearly 100 years, so you probably had notice that there was a large structure in your neighborhood that seems to attract a good many people for some form of entertainment … unless you’ve lived there since 1900.

You should notice two problems with this:

1. It’s comparing an institution to an individual. By the time I moved out of the Fenway (it got too expensive, like most of Boston), I had lived there long enough so that all of the players had changed, there had been a few different managers, there were different owners. So as individuals, I had been in the neighborhood longer than almost anyone on the Red Sox payroll (and there were people who had lived in the neighborhood for 50+ years). If instead you want to look at institutions, there were apartment buildings in the Fenway neighborhood before the Red Sox moved in.
2. Things work both ways. I knew to expect certain things from the Red Sox and their fans when I moved in, but the Red Sox also should expect certain things since the stadium is located so close to a residential neighborhood. And those expectations are controlled by city ordinance: I should be able to expect that the Red Sox should live up to their promises and abide by city guidelines in terms of noise and control of their patrons.  If a bar was as remiss as the Red Sox have been in the past, they would have been shut down (as I said before, the current owners are much better than the old ones).

Bruins, Celtics, and Red Sox–oh my

The Boston Globe has a story about the scheduling of the Bruins and Celtics playoffs. It notes that there could be 5 days where they both play at the same time and on three of those nights the Red Sox also play (for example, tonight the Red Sox start at 7:10, the Bruins at 7:30, and the Celtics at 8). That certainly makes it difficult to watch all three teams.

What makes it even more difficult for some of us is that all of the games are on cable. I know the Red Sox moved all their games to NESN last year (except for an occasional game on FOX), but I didn’t realize that the playoffs in basketball and hockey had now completely migrated to cable. Is this true everywhere?

Red Sox will want more

The Boston Globe looks at a study comparing how Boston and Denver made out from the World Series in 2007:

The Mile High City was able to boost its municipal coffers by $940,365 during the playoffs from taxes generated by fans eating at restaurants, staying at hotels, and patronizing local businesses. Boston, where most taxes generated in the city flow to the state, ended up losing about $650,000.

…

Both cities generated about $1.5 million in tax revenues, according to the study. But while Denver kept nearly two-thirds of the revenues – with the rest going to the state – Boston only kept 11.5 percent of its revenue, which was generated from a local option on the hotel tax.

Boston also had $1.5 million in costs, mostly for police details, trash cleanup, and emergency medical services. In Denver, the baseball club is required to reimburse the city each month for extra costs for police, additional traffic management, and even food license inspectors.

Wow, what a concept: the Rockies pay for the expenses related to the club’s games. The article seems to be pushing for letting Boston control more of the taxes, but really the first thing should be for the Red Sox to pay for their expenses. My guess, though, is the Red Sox will look at this and argue for more local control of taxes and more money from the city.

As an aside to sports, notice this very telling detail:

nearly 60 percent of Boston’s revenue comes from property taxes, compared with 10 percent in Denver, 20 percent in Atlanta, and 25 percent in New York.

No wonder Menino is pushing so many tall buildings.

Red Sox Feel Our Pain

Sometimes the rich and powerful show exactly how little they understand the common people:

“We have been the beneficiary of fan support and fan loyalty,” said Larry Lucchino, the team’s president and chief executive, waving a list of ticket prices at Fenway, last year the most expensive in baseball. “And at a time when our fans may be feeling some kind of economic adversity, we should show some sensitivity.”

The announcement, which ends 14 years of steady increases, was a seismic acknowledgement that the years-long spending spree on professional sports tickets might be slowing, even for a team that has developed a famously loyal fan base. And it was an attempt to reach out to many fans who over the last decade and a half have found a day at the ballpark increasingly out of reach.

The Red Sox have the highest ticket prices in baseball and the second highest payroll, but not increasing the prices should keep us quiet. It reminds of the time when Ann Romney (when her husband Mitt was running for Senate in 1994) said that they had tough times for a while, even having to sell stock to survive. Really. Dan Shaughnessy understands this, but then confuses the issue a bit:

“It’s an investment in creating good will with our fan base for years to come,” said Lucchino. “We’ve been fortunate in recent years to have tremendous success on and off the field, but we want that to continue for a long time and it seemed to us that to have some sensitivity to this issue for our fans would send a message.”

In other words, they could gouge the fans now and fans would probably still pay. But that might not always be the case. So they make an announcement that makes them look like Father Christmas instead of Scrooge – knowing that you will gladly continue to pay the highest prices in baseball for the privilege of sitting in old Fenway.

It’s not fair to rip the Sox for holding the line on prices. But let’s not make this more than it is. It’s good business in a bad business climate.

No it’s not fair to rip them for not raising prices, but how about ripping them for raising prices 14 straight years and having the highest prices in baseball?

Red Sox and Flyovers

I never really thought about this:

Red Sox officials said they have sought flyovers for every season opener since 2002, after new ownership took over and the attacks on Sept. 11 sparked a national surge of patriotism. Last year, the team had flyovers in the opening playoff games and at the opening game of the World Series.

“It energizes the crowd and thrills our players,” Sarah McKenna, a Red Sox vice president for fan services and entertainment, said in a statement. “The inclusion of a flyover during the celebration of some of the Red Sox’s greatest moments also provides our fans and us with an opportunity to appropriately salute our men and women in uniform.”

There’s another benefit for the Red Sox and others who request flyovers: Taxpayers pick up the tab.

The fuel for the four jets costs about $100,000. I guess I had just assumed the Red Sox paid for it, after all it’s for their benefit. Is this typical, do any of the teams pay for the flyovers or are they all paid for by us (since there were 843 in 2007 for all cases, sports, graduations, …, this adds up to quite a bit). A business like the Red Sox certainly should be the ones who pay here, why don’t they?

RedSox in Japan

Well, this doesn’t really make anyone look good:

The misunderstanding originated from the mistaken assumption that the money for the coaches and support personnel would come from the same pool of money set aside for the players. Apparently, the players’ association was responsible for the coaches being removed from the pool when the Red Sox negotiated an increase in the stipends from $25,000 to $40,000 last fall.

Francona was less concerned about blame than a quick resolution when he was informed Tuesday that his coaches – whose salaries range from $30,000 to $150,000 – would get nothing.

When the players got wind of the inequity, they spoke as one, loud and clear, the only way they could.

Can’t have a game without players.

It sounds good, the players making sure that the non-rich people on the team were paid, but remember this $40,000 is in addition to their regular salary, couldn’t they have just said they would give this additional pay to the coaches, trainers, …? So, it comes off as a lot of squabbling over what to the main players involved (the team, players, owners, league) is very little money.