News Release

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, June 23, 3004

NYPIRG Announces Opposition to West Side Stadium

New York, New York-The New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. (NYPIRG) today announced its opposition to the proposed controversial West Side Stadium.

The $1.4 billion stadium would be built on a platform over a rail yard on Manhattan's Far West 30's owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. New York City and State plan to spend $600 million to build the platform and a retractable roof; the New York Jets say they will spend $800 million to build the stadium itself.

"The arguments against a West Side stadium are strong and reflect longstanding NYPIRG concerns about the environment and the use of scarce government resources," said Gene Russianoff, senior attorney for NYPIRG.

NYPIRG had not taken previously a stand on the proposal. (NYPIRG's statement in opposition to the stadium follows this release.)

In its statement, NYPIRG noted that stadia have a poor track record generating revenue and that if the city's financing scheme falters, city taxpayers would be on the hook. Recent news accounts have raised serious questions about the economic benefits projected by the Jets for the stadium, which would also be used as a convention and events center.

NYPIRG also cited serious environmental concerns and expressed skepticism about City claims that 70% of the new stadium's patrons will get there by public transportation. Russianoff said that NYPIRG was also very troubled by legislation recently proposed by Governor Pataki, which would severely limit environmental challenges to the related expansion of the Javits Convention Center and possibly to the stadium.

"A stadium would likely be an impediment to development," said Russianoff. He noted that despite proposed additions to the stadium - including restaurants and an adjacent deck connection to the Hudson River Park - "in the end, the building would be a huge bulky box between the city and the river." Russianoff added: "There are more important priorities for scarce city funds." According to recent polls, this view is shared by a majority of New Yorkers.

NYPIRG did not take a position on the larger West Side development plan. However, it called on the City and Metropolitan Transportation Authority to have an independent appraisal made of the value of the yards and said that the MTA must receive fair market value for its property.

NYPIRG Statement in Opposition to West Side Stadium
Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Background:
New York City and State and the New York Jets have announced plans for a controversial football stadium and expanded convention center on the West Side of Manhattan. It would be built on a platform over a rail yard on the far West 30's that is owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The city and state have agreed to spend $600 million to build the platform and a retractable roof. The Jets say they will spend $800 million for building the stadium itself. The stadium is part of a much larger $3.7 billion plan for developing the West Side, calling for extending the 7 subway line from Times Square to 34th Street and 11th Avenue; building new parks, streets and infrastructure; and expanding the Javits Convention Center. Supporters of the stadium argue that it will revitalize the area, bring major league football back to the city and generate long-term revenues for the city. The City is pushing the project hard to start construction before a summer 2005 deadline for awarding the summer 2012 Olympic Games.

Opposition to the Stadium
The arguments against a stadium are strong and reflect longstanding NYPIRG concerns about the use of scarce government resources and the environment:

Stadia have a poor track record generating revenue: Many studies show that stadia subsidized in other cities have not lived up to promises. The New York City Independent Budget Office concluded: "Research on stadiums consistently finds that there is no basis for forecasting an economic development impact beyond that generated by the local expenditures of the team and its fans. In particular, none of the studies suggest any economic rational for assuming that building any new stadium would itself spur construction of office towers and hotels." If the city's financing scheme falters, city taxpayers would be on the hook. As The New York Times noted in a June 20, 2004 story: "According to the New York Jets, the stadium Š will be an economic whirlwind, attracting 60 football games, soccer matches, concerts, trade shows and conventions a year. An Ernst & Young report commissioned by the team estimates that the stadium will generate $72.5 million in annual tax revenue. But a close reading of the report and an examination of the track records of other combined stadium-exhibition halls suggest that the Jets' projections may be too optimistic. No other similar stadium has attracted anywhere near as many events as the Jets are predicting."

A stadium would likely be an impediment to development: As Newsday editorialized: "A stadium will cost a fortune and will make the neighborhood less attractive to apartment buyers." The City argues that its proposal is not just a stadium; it can be turned into a venue for conventions and concerts, active on many days of the year. Its "edges," they say, will have attractions, like a flea market and restaurants; on the west side there would be a green deck over West Street. But in the end, the building would be a huge bulky box between the city and the river - much like the lifeless areas around the existing convention center to the north.

There is strong public opposition: Opinion polls show strong public opposition to public subsidies for a stadium, with 60% opposed. Some 53% were opposed when asked "Would you favor or oppose the building of a new stadium Š on the West Side of Manhattan, if the only tax dollars used came from the increased tax revenue from new office and apartment building in the surrounding neighborhood?" Area elected officials and affected community boards are fighting the stadium.

There are serious environmental concerns: Dense Manhattan is the wrong place for a stadium; it will generate a great deal of traffic and attendant negative environmental impacts. The City says that upwards of 70% of the new stadium's patrons will get there by public transportation, compared to the 4% who now take transit to the Jets Meadowlands stadium. But that's hard to credit. Madison Square Garden - which is actively opposing the stadium plan - says that only between 40% and 50% of attendees of garden events come by transit. And the Garden is far better served by transit - subways, LIRR and NJ Transit - than would be the Jets stadium. NYPIRG is also very troubled by a provision in the proposed and related Convention Center legislation which would eliminate Supreme Court review of environmental challenges to the project. This bill may apply to the stadium site.

There are more important priorities for scarce city funds: In December 2003, New York Times writer Bob Herbert powerfully stated the case that a subsidized stadium was the wrong priority for New York City: "Let's see. The city and the state of New York do not have enough money to adequately fund the public schools. Kids frequently find that gymnasiums, science labs, art classes, playgrounds and even qualified teachers are in short supply. The MTA has already imposed the biggest fare hike in history, is in the process of cutting portions of its work force and may have to raise fares again in 2005 because of budget problems. Students at the state and city university systems are facing the double-whammy of budget cuts and substantial tuition increases. It's a sad story. Despite an array of tax and fee increases, the city and the state are essentially broke. There's no money for anything except the bare essentials. Unless -- and this is hard to believe -- unless the needy group is the New York JetsŠ"

Special Concern About the MTA: The City and MTA are negotiating over how to compensate the MTA for its two rail yards on the West Side. That is of great importance for the future of the transit system, since these revenues could be used to pay for repairing and expanding the transit system. In July, the MTA will issued a 2005-2009 rebuilding program, vital to the future of the city's economy. During the current 2000-2004 MTA rebuilding program, the city has cut its capital aid to the MTA by $90 million over three years. The City has taken the position that the MTA yards have little value without the city's proposed improvements, such as the platform, 7 extension, new infrastructure and "upzoning." The City would have the MTA receive revenues from properties built on the site at some point in the future, after development rights have paid for many of the planned improvements. According to news accounts, MTA officials have countered by saying that the yards are worth $1.2 billion. In NYPIRG's view, the MTA must receive fair market value for its property. We have called on the City and MTA to have an independent appraisal made of the value of the yards.

Conclusion: Some brand opposition to a West Side stadium as anti-development. NYPIRG strongly supports a range of major building projects. These include a $17 billion Second Avenue subway; a $6.3 billion link between the LIRR and Grand Central Terminal; and a $22 billion-plus, five-year MTA rebuilding program, which includes such projects as a $750 Fulton Street Transit Center and a $400 million rehabilitation of the South Ferry subway station. In addition, NYPIRG is not taking a position on the larger West Side development plan. Many critics of the stadium support development in this area and argue that a stadium would actually be an impediment to Mayor Bloomberg's long-term vision for the Far West Side.