How much public funding was used to build the Verizon Center? I thought it was privately financed. And the study only examined personal income in relation to basketball arenas. They apparently didn't take into account any other economic indicators or any other sports.

by Adam L on Aug 11, 2012 8:57 am • link • report

Why would personal income be the metric to measure the economic success of an arena and should financing be ignored? Articles like that which are made specifically for fighting against a new arena in Seattle (Go Thunder!) are why I cringe when I see items that aren't about the Greater Washington region attempting to be related to this area.

by selxic on Aug 11, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

Most places don't benefit from sports facilities. Football stadiums (used only a few times a year) are the worst offenders. This is only one of many studies to demonstrate this. Of course, the blurb here takes a probablistic relationship make it sound like an absolute thumbs up/down. That kind of "statistical distortion" is one reason the discourse is weaker and less informative than it could be.

by Rich on Aug 11, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

The fake parking passes are an old scam. Once color printers became accessible, the old Walter Reed had this same problem (20-odd years ago). It's just that the fakers were more discreet and used, what was then, scarce technology.

by Rich on Aug 11, 2012 10:14 am • link • report

News about fraud committed by traffic camera operators is getting to be like the Energizer Bunny.

It just keeps going and going.

by ceefer66 on Aug 11, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

Why the hell are they giving it away for free? Waiting lists, what a joke. Charge what the market will bear. Charging an appropriate amount of even $100 for a spot/month would bring in almost 5 mil a year on the 4,000 spots. If parking is such an issue, you could probably charge closer to 150 or 175. Will get people to carpool etc, and reduce traffic on Wisconsin etc. this is such a no brainer...

by Kyle-w on Aug 11, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

I have made a few edits to the above link summaries. Thanks.

by David Alpert on Aug 11, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

Nice to see someone finally brave enough to say the emperor has no clothes on basketball arenas like Verizon Center (I think Coalition for Smarter Growth even drank that Kool Aid).

One thing we gleaned from last week's tax assessment scandal was that Gallery Place, that economic dynamo of real estate developments, which is often cited as being the glorious product of the bottomless tax exempt money pit Verizon Center is, has a total value of $181m - $250m.

The last refurb of Verizon cost taxpayers $55 million (although there were some sky boxes thrown in). The continual missing of property tax revenue on Verizon together with the sweetheart deal Barry gave Pollin for policing at DC expense, and the dynamo is of lost city funds.

+1 for the Toronto school of smart growth.

by Tom Coumaris on Aug 11, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

err, what were the edits? Nothing about the side contract Gabe has with Alta, I hope.

by charlie on Aug 11, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report

Charlie: Nothing to do with Gabe. I'd be interested to hear more about that and understand what is or isn't going on as well.

by David Alpert on Aug 11, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report

Bixi's parent, Public Bike System Co., is an ongoing scandal in Montreal, so it's no wonder Alta is having trouble getting their systems installed in Chicago and NYC. Montreal keeps propping PBSC up for now, but if it ultimately fails it could have pretty bad consequences for CaBi and the other Bixi-based networks.

by jimble on Aug 11, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report

@ jimble; I wouldn't chacterize BIXI problems as a "scandal". It is classic financing problem -- they are betting on international sales in London, NYC, and Chiacgo to cover operational losses in Montreal.

I do wonder what these alleged "software" problems could be. The 8D company appears to sell POS software.

by charlie on Aug 11, 2012 4:14 pm • link • report

Why the hell are they giving it away for free? Waiting lists, what a joke. 

Free parking is a pretty common perk. Employers are permitted to provide around $220 in tax free parking benefits and until recently could provide thr same amount in transit benefits. However, recently the max transit benefit went down to $125. The point if the waitlists is to provide parking as a retention benefit since only the most tenured staff will get it. I assume that as with all other federal agencies, employees can opt for transit benefits instead of parking benefits.

by Falls Church on Aug 11, 2012 8:57 pm • link • report

Speaking of delays with Bikeshare, anyone know when the bikes will finally start appearing in Old Town Alexandria? I had heard earlier this year that June was the tentative goal, but it is mid-August and I have seen no evidence of docks being prepared anywhere in the city.

by JJ on Aug 13, 2012 8:41 am • link • report

I long have thought Polin didn't get enough criticism for the $50 million shake down in 2007. People praise him for building the MCI Center in his own dime, but it was he who showed up at the Wilson building after Nationals Park was built asking "where's mine"? The utter nakedness of the quid pro quou with the council was shocking even by 2012 standards: they gave Pollin $50 million, he gave them two luxury suites.

Those that defend his giveaway point to the increased ticket tax that was applied to pay back the money. But Pollin could have just done the same thing without increasing our debt load and leaving us with the risk.

Pollin deserve credit for building the MCI center mostly on his own. But he tarnished his legacy with this cash grab.

@falls church

You're getting two things mixed up. Employers can give an unlimited value in free parking. In other words, even if the market value of a paking space is, say, $1,000 a month, an employer can give it to the employees for free if they want. The $220 cap is on the tax deduction for employees who have to pay for parking. I thought DC was exploring taxing employees for the value of free parking received, but I can't remember whether that ever passed.

by TM on Aug 13, 2012 9:38 am • link • report

Especially since at that time in 2007 DC United was asking for $200 million to cover the infrastructure of all of Poplar Point, that $50 million rubbed me the wrong way.

by selxic on Aug 13, 2012 9:49 am • link • report

Actually, they don't charge because they likely don't have authority to keep the funds, so why bother? Under the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, unless the Army has a more specific statute that authorizes them to keep the parking fees, anything they charged would go directly to the Treasury without benefitting the agency directly. So most agencies would simply say "meh" and do the lottery for parking instead.

by Moose on Aug 13, 2012 10:07 am • link • report

@TM
You're getting two things mixed up. Employers can give an unlimited value in free parking. In other words, even if the market value of a paking space is, say, $1,000 a month, an employer can give it to the employees for free if they want. The $220 cap is on the tax deduction for employees who have to pay for parking. I thought DC was exploring taxing employees for the value of free parking received, but I can't remember whether that ever passed.

Are you sure about this? Do you have a citation somewhere? Even if a business pays for parking for an employee, they can only pay up to $240 I believe. I think it's just that any parking that is not charged for (e.g. if the employer owns the lot and nobody is ever charged) it is assumed to be worth less than $240. But I think over that $240 cap the employer or someone has to pay tax on that contribution.

by MLD on Aug 13, 2012 10:17 am • link • report

I was talking more about an employer-owned lot. Not sure what rules apply when an employer covers the cost at a pay garage.

by TM on Aug 13, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

Employers can give an unlimited value in free parking. In other words, even if the market value of a paking space is, say, $1,000 a month, an employer can give it to the employees for free if they want. The $220 cap is on the tax deduction for employees who have to pay for parking.

Yes, employers can give an unlimited value in free parking but only the first $220/month can be given to employees tax free -- meaning, employees don't have to pay income tax on the benefit because it's not considered part of their income. Employees who have to pay for parking get no tax deduction. Here's an explanation of how the benefit works:

Qualified Transportation Fringe (QTF) benefits include:
•
Commuter transportation in a commuter highway vehicle
•
Transit passes
•
Qualified parking
•
Qualified bicycle commuting expenses

Employer-provided QTFs with fair market values (FMV) that do not exceed monthly excludable limits are exempt from withholding and payment of employment taxes, not reported as taxable wages on the employee's Form W-2, and not included in gross income.

These qualified transportation fringe benefits are excluded from an employee's gross income for income tax purposes and from an employee's wages for payroll tax purposes.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205664,00.html

by Falls Church on Aug 13, 2012 10:58 am • link • report

I'm not sure exactly how it works but it may be in some markets (NYC for example) if the employer owns parking and provides it free of charge they may have to show that it's worth $240 somehow. The transit benefit started in 1984 specifically because in New York employers were providing a significant incentive to drive to work through free parking. 1993 was when the cap on parking benefits was enacted.

The IRS docs are sketchy on how you determine value but are pretty clear you must include anything over $240 in an employee's taxable wages.

by MLD on Aug 13, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

Pollin did what many would do if they saw the gov't handing out money for sports-related facilities. I don't agree with the $50 million handout, but it was probably easier at the time for the gov't to give a lower amount of money to a person who already put up a lot of his money in the construction of the arena, a facility that was widely accepted to have been the catalyst for growth in that area of town, versus giving a higher amount of money for a soccer team that the council as a whole doesn't seem to care about that much. I do think that the Verizon Center had a positive effect on downtown and if the gov't had helped finance part of it, I wouldn't feel any different. We have to look at these deals on a case-by-case, city-by-city basis. It's good to understand the sorts of circumstances and case-studies that exist for various places, but there are times when it is a positive, I think.

by Vik on Aug 13, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

The $50 million was in response to the Nats getting money since if one team gets money the other deserves it. It's all in the past and it's great that the Phonebooth got new HD video boards and made some cosmetic updates, but it would have been nice to see something EOTR where I pass everyday.

by selxic on Aug 13, 2012 12:03 pm • link • report

The redevelopment of 7th Street NW area was occasioned by the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, not Verizon Center which came later.

One complex in Penn Quarter, Market Square, sold last year for $615 million. Those Penn Quarter complexes pay substantial property taxes and (hopefully) the residents pay considerable income taxes.

Giving four city blocks (and closing them) to build the Verizon Center, with considerable city subsidies and tax exemption, effectively stopped developments like Penn Quarter from building there. Ten years ago it didn't take a high level prophet to see that 7th Street was becoming prime real estate.

by Tom Coumaris on Aug 13, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report