Skip to content

The parking garages at Yankee Stadium are a financial black hole

Apr 2, 2013, 11:00 AM EDT

Boston Red Sox v New York Yankees Getty Images

Back when New Yankee Stadium was built, the team demanded that the city build parking garages to house 9,000 cars. Never mind that the ballpark is right next to a train station.

But the city agreed, issuing tax-exempt bonds to cover the costs plus subsidizing the garages to the tune of $100 million on top of that.  Now those bonds are likely going into default, reports the New York Daily News:

Bronx Parking Development LLC failed to make a $6.9 million payment due April 1 on more than $237 million in tax-exempt bonds arranged by the Bloomberg administration back in 2007.

The group, which is not connected to the Yankees, thus fell into one of the biggest defaults of a New York City-sponsored bond in decades.

Sounds like this will lead to a city bailout or a bankruptcy, leaving the bondholders and/or taxpayers holding the bag.

Just another fabulous example of what happens when the government does favors for sports teams and all common sense is thrown out the window. And when the recipients of those funds try to gouge the hell out of customers, charging them some $35 to park, which rendered the garages half empty most of the time.

How hard is it to tell a billion dollar business like the Yankees to build their own parking garages if they want them so bad?

  1. mybrunoblog - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM

    The parking garage situation is a big shit sandwich and all involved (the city, taxpayers, garage owners) are all going to have to take a bite. Everyone involved seriously overestimated the idea that the average fan Is a sucker.
    Many Yankee fans now are willing to either take public transportation, park on the street, take the ferry, or park three blocks away for $15 or $20 as opposed to the ridiculous idea of paying $35 to park at a Stadium garage.

    • dondada10 - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM

      I go to Yankee Stadium about 5 times a year, even though I’m not a fan (I live in the Bronx…).

      Everybody knows to just drive down 161st toward Jerome. You’ll find parking right there on the hill, 1-2 blocks away.

      Suck it, Empire.

      • bigharold - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        You are aware that the Yankees don’t own the garages?

    • sophiethegreatdane - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      “The parking garage situation is a big shit sandwich…”

      I believe the name of the record was Shark Sandwich.

      • sophiethegreatdane - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        HTML fail.


    • albertmn - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

      You mean the Yankees or the city haven’t yet tried to sue the other parking garage owners for undercutting the price, like the Yankees are having their little fit about StubHub ticket resales?

      • scoocha - Apr 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        Yup, by the laws of free trade – the NYY have to use Stubhub because you want them to. Moronic faggola.

    • hardballtalkk - Jan 11, 2015 at 2:26 PM

      I go to about 5 yankees games at Yankee Stadium every year so I am well aware of the parking situation out there. As a few others here have said, you can find free parking all over the Bronx (though I wouldn’t say it’s all that safe for your car (nicks and scratches on your bumper, etc), you can park AT Yankee Stadium which will cost you an arm and a leg or you can park right near the stadium for way less money. Half the time I will just park at the stadium. It’s fast, and easy. When funds are low and I can’t afford that I usually use “Yankee Stadium Parking Lots” – they are at 939 Woodycrest Avenue #1a Bronx, NY 10452 . Either option is good. Just my 2 cents…

  2. eatitfanboy - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM

    If you think $35 to park in New York City is gouging, you obviously don’t spend much time there. Other than that, I certainly agree with sentiment of not using taxpayer money to build stadiums and infrastructure for sports teams.

    • Kevin S. - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

      For 3-4 hours, $35 is gouging, even in New York.

      • Jason @ IIATMS - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:14 AM

        Except in midtown. That’s the rate for more than one hour.

        YS rates jump to $50 during playoffs.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

        Really? Texans pay $40 to park at Cowboys games.

      • Kevin S. - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM

        The comparison was to other parking garages in New York City. I also don’t think football is necessarily a fair comparison, because you get to the game hours ahead of time and tailgate.

      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Paying $40 for a tailgating spot 8 times a year is certainly different than paying $35 for parking for the 80+ home games they have in baseball.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM

        Ok, I was just surprised that this seemed a lot to people in NYC. Valet parking in Arlington is $40, so it didn’t strike me as weird right off the bat.

      • jolink653 - Apr 2, 2013 at 4:46 PM

        If you think that’s bad, try parking downtown by the Seaport…a normal parking garage down by where I work generally charges roughly $15 for a half hour

      • kiwicricket - Apr 2, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        It’s visually obvious Texans don’t like walking….

    • mybrunoblog - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:12 AM

      Maybe at a peak hour in midtown $35 isn’t crazy but $35 in the Bronx? I actually think city parking has gotten cheaper over the past few years. I can park in Manhatten for less that $25 or even $20 if I want to drive a few blocks.

    • rathipon - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      They wish they could price gouge. It doesn’t work so well when there are other options. You can park for half as much money a block away.

      Here’s what will hopefully happen. Bondholders will take a haircut, as they should for making a bad investment. A new entity will purchase the garages for an amount that allows them to turn a profit while charging a competitive rate. Consumers win!

      Here’s what will probably happen. The city bails out bondholders. The cost of the bad investment is thus borne by taxpayers in general. Perhaps the city takes over ownership of the garages and mismanages them. Consumers… well, you know.

      • bigharold - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        The City made these bonds tax exempt but I don’t believe they guaranteed them. If so the bond holders should absolutely take the beating. That’s the way business works.

        Unfortunately I think your analysis as to the potential out come is right on the money.

    • bigharold - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      $35 to park in the Bronx is gouging. Even in Manhattan, you don’t pay that unless you’re in midtown.

    • misterchainbluelightning - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      Sure do read a lot of talking about it not being too much $, if people were parking there this wouldn’t be a story, they are not parking there, and the price vs other options is the reason.

  3. wallio - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

    Meanwhile Bloomburg is too busy trying to ban Happiness to care.

    • Old Gator - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:13 AM

      Well, if your idea of happiness is type II diabetes and emphysema, I guess so….

      • Jason @ IIATMS - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:15 AM


      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

        Happiness if freedom of choice. At least that’s my opinion, which is not the opinion approved by the mayor of NYC apparently.

      • dondada10 - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        Gator, right on. The people who bash King Bloomberg are the same ones who have eaten the populous out of free health insurance.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        Soo…I take your comment (and the subsequent 43 thumbs up) to mean you (and sadly 43 other people) are on board with Bloomberg’s policies? Certainly even a liberal can see the problem with this sort of…Dictatorship. No?

      • indaburg - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM

        Right on, OG.

      • mrfloydpink - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:59 PM

        @stlouisbaseball: For someone who claims to be a moderate, you do seem to spend a lot of time railing against those awful liberals.

        I think everyone understands that Bloomberg’s initiative represented a tradeoff–a loss of “freedom of choice” in favor of better public health. Whether the tradeoff is apropos is certainly open to discussion and debate. But to characterize it as ‘dictatorship’ is laughable. The local hardware store won’t sell me dynamite unless they see a license that says I know how to use it. The local bar will cut me off if I appear to be drunk. The local gun store will check to make sure I’m not a felon before selling me a gun. Does this mean I live in a dictatorship?

      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

        I’m shocked at how many people here are in support of freedom of choice being taken away. I’ll give you the floor if you want to argue for or against gun control, there’s legit reason for both. But to take the floor and argue that people should not be allowed to buy sodas in whatever size they want is ludicrous. I drink 2 per day and the minute I start getting fat I guess I’ll have to cut that out, but I’ll never live in a city that tells me to do it.

        The country I love has freedom of choice. Eat yourself to death if you want, I shouldn’t suffer because someone else has no willpower. The smoking bans I was ok with, because I breathe in that second hand smoke and it annoys me. But everyone said “where will it end?” I laughed as I breathed fresh air. Now I’m not laughing, as people are trying to decide what I can and can’t put in my body.

      • Old Gator - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM

        St. Louis: I didn’t say I approved of his policies – only that, in relation to those policies, wallio’s plaint that Bloomberg was trying to “ban happiness” was lame. Frankly, if it takes an extra-large iced frappuccino to find happiness, that I think his or her idea of what happiness requires is pretty vapid. Honestly, in and of itself I don’t care what others choose to eat or drink, and if it were purely a matter of self-inflicted damage I wouldn’t care much either.

        Unfortunately, the assertion that people who indulge in sizable quantities of this shit are “only harming themselves” is a myth, just like the apocryphal claims, promulgated by the tobacco industry, that sidestream smoke was harmless. The economic toll that self-inflicted illnesses like type II diabetes, emphysema and all of the complications of morbid obesity exact on your pocket and mine via the pressure they put on our healthcare “system” is horrifying. The absurd cost of health care and health insurance (without even broaching the subject of price gouging by insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital management companies, nor the related nightmare of out-of-control medical lawsuit awards) is a burden on all of us. If people would eat less garbage, and fast food companies would stop serving it, we probably wouldn’t even need Obamacare as currently formulated in the first place.

        So let’s strike a balance: let’s make type II diabetes in those without a demonstrable metabolic problem transcending their atrocious eating habits and, for example, emphysema, bronchitis and lung cancer in smokers ineligible for medical insurance or any other kind of public funding. Then, all of you whose trivialized concepts of “happines” and self-indulgent definitions of “liberty” are based on being able to sicken yourselves can go on all the self-destructive binges you wish.

      • dowhatifeellike - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM

        Freedom to be grossly unhealthy stops when the taxpayers have to pick up the medical bills. The majority of bankrupcty in this country is due to overwhelming medical debt. Until such time when hospitals are allowed to withhold treatment from those who can’t pay, this is the best we can do.

      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        Based on the comments and thumbs up here, I think this is the place to pitch my grand idea…I hope you will all join me in my efforts to have governors installed on all vehicles. My studies show that there will be ZERO automotive deaths or injuries if we don’t allow any vehicle to travel faster than 10 mph. 36,000 people per year die in accidents, 10.8 million injured. Think of all the money we’ll save on insurance and healthcare when we eliminate speeding. I’d love to eliminate cars all together, but those damn republicans would never vote for it, so I’m compromising with governors mandatory on all cars. With your help, we can get this done!

      • Old Gator - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

        dowhatifeelike: and of course when we reach that point, we’ll have created a civilization so brutal and callous that it won’t be worth sacrificing for, being proud of, or exemplary of any positive value except selfishness. Good idea.

        jm91rs: and of course, the need of a complex modern society for mobility is directly comparable to the need to guzzle enough sugar to wreck your kidneys, pancreas and circulatory system. Great analogy.

      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

        Sadly there is no great analogy as our society has not known similar limits to freedom to do whatever you want to yourself with legal drugs. I guess you can use the smoking ban as an example, but that’s never gonna fly because secondhand smoke actually harms others.

        Liberal, Moderate or Conservative, it shouldn’t matter. If someone wants to put something legal in their body in massive quantities, then they should be allowed to suffer the consequences. Now I’m all for taking the people who are overweight, and continue to indulge in such activities and figuring out how to penalize them financially for their insurance costs.

        Reward those who take care of themselves, don’t punish them.

      • snowbirdgothic - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM

        Except, of course, for the reductio ad absurdum notion of “those who take care of themselves”. Because there are, of course, no economic factors that weigh into one’s choice of diet or living circumstance.
        Once again, it comes down to “the poor should have invested in railroads and shipping”.

      • scoocha - Apr 4, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        I love no smoking in bars. But it seems like hypocrisy that you can’t smoke but you can be inundated with music levels around 160db. Contradict much?

      • jwbiii - Apr 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        “Now I’m not laughing, as people are trying to decide what I can and can’t put in my body.”

        Really. I get hassled almost every time I shoot up while watching a little league game in a park. Where does this end?

    • badintent - Apr 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM

      He was too busy ignoring half of NYC when Hurricane Sandy smashed in . He want to have his yuppie ass NYC Marathon the next day with massive generators making hot chocolate for the runners, screw the seniors in highrise building with no elevators.Bloomberg is a dog and the ass fleas too.

  4. Jason @ IIATMS - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:13 AM

    I am taking my son to Thursday’s game. Via MetroNorth. Since I have a monthly pass already, I ride essentially for free. $3 for my son.

    And I’m getting a ginormous sammich to bring with me.

    /FU to Levine and Trost

    • dondada10 - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

      And the Metronorth allows open containers.

      I hop on the Wakefield station with my friends and we’re blitzed before we get to 161st and River.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM

        Yes…until Bloomberg bans getting blitzed on the Wakefield station.
        But you know…think off all the help you are providing the wineo’s, vagrants and degenerates.
        In the name of free healthcare!

      • indaburg - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM

        Ah, you’re bringing back some fond memories…

      • dondada10 - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        You got me there, StLouis. I wanna have my cake and drink it on the MetroNorth, too.

        Indiaburg, you’re originally from NY?

      • Jason @ IIATMS - Apr 2, 2013 at 3:17 PM

        Not for a 13 year old on his birthday! I’m not THAT good of a father.

      • Jason @ IIATMS - Apr 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

        @dondada: You can drink cake?


        /banned by Bloomberg

  5. benihanagt - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    Interesting timing considering parking is the primary source of funding in Sacramento’s arena plan they are pitching to the NBA tomorrow.

    • gerryb323 - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM

      Because, you know, everybody in Sacramento rides the subway every day and has no need for a car…

    • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM

      Parking in Sacramento is certainly different than NY.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        “But everyone said “where will it end?”

        On point JM! When seatbelt law were implemented I was in my late teens.
        I remember it vividly. When the law was initially implemented…it was done so behind the guise of NEVER stopping you solely for not wearing a seatbelt.
        Rather, if you were stopped for another infraction (and not wearing your seatbelt) you were subject to a fine/ticket. My Father said “it is just the beginning.”
        “Once the government gets their foot in the door the flood gates open.”
        “Within a year they will be pulling people over for no other reason than NOT wearing their seatbelts.” At the time…I just sort of laughed it off as my Dad being an old dude railing against the establishment. And you know what? He was wrong.
        Within SIX MONTHS they were pulling people over for no other reason than not wearing their seatbelts.
        On a side note: To this day I can still (legally) ride motorcycle’s and ATV’s w/out wearing a helmet. But get in that Car/Van/Truck/SUV and you better buckle up.
        That is legislative logic for you right there.
        Seatbelts = Mandatory
        Helmets = Your choice.

      • Colin - Apr 7, 2013 at 2:19 AM

        You’re right that it makes no sense. Helmets should be mandatory as well.

      • jwbiii - Apr 9, 2013 at 5:31 PM

        “Helmets = Your choice.”

        I have a friend who’s a neurosurgeon. They have a term for helmetless riders.

        Organ donors.

    • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      Does the city own the garage or the Yankees? Here in cincinnati there is a hot debate on selling the rights to garages and meters for the next 30-50 years. The deal was worth close to 100 million upfront and $1M per year after that. The buyer was a NYC investment company and they were going to up the rates and install some pretty crazy technology to increase enforcement (Generating close to $250M over the life of the lease). While I think it’s a bad deal for Cincinnati (they’re using the money to pay off some budget gaps, which will then allow them to use their other money for a streetcar to nowhere), it seems that if the garage is doing that poorly in a place with fairly high demand for parking like NYC, some private business could take over for a large sum and turn it around. Private business can always run things better than government can.

      • Cris E - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        Maybe, but there’s a difference between “better” and “nine digits better”, particularly when it’s Cincinnati revenues (vs NY or some other higher cost, non-flyover baseline.) These guys may make a profit, but it won’t be as much as they think. Say it’s 40 years, so $100m up front + 40 * $1m per year is $140m in licensing costs, plus what it takes to operate and maintain the ramps and meters and staff over 40 years. That could be a lot of money, depending on how crazy the tech is, so maybe $20m in capital plus $1m per year? Now you’re at $200m to break even and that has to be covered by Ohio rate parking revenues. That’s a tough deal over that long a term.

  6. Old Gator - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:16 AM

    I think this is wonderful. Clearly, Bloomberg relied on the advice of Scrooge McLoria and the Chihuahua and the actuarial orifice of the Ceety of Macondo in piecing together the financing of this garage.

  7. dowhatifeellike - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    Isn’t NYC supposed to be one of the cities where you don’t need a car? Isn’t that why they put a train station at the stadium? I wouldn’t pay $35 for a ticket and that’s what they charge to park?

    • Kevin S. - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      If you’re coming from outside the city with multiple people in your party driving can make more sense.

      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM

        I’ve only driven in the city a handful of times, and even if money were no object I’d much rather take public transportation. When I come into the city I park my car at some overpriced garage and use all public transit. I drive almost 200 miles per day for my job yet when I get into that city it eats me alive.

        The fact that most people won’t drive to the games, and that parking is so expensive, it seems so obvious that this garage was a bad idea.

      • cackalackyank - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        Yep. Tried the thing of taking PATH from NJ to Herald Square, then onto the Subways, etc with 6 of us. To put it politely, it sucked. Not that the Cross Bronx and the Major Degan are great, but never again. That experience aside, $35 to park on top of the going rates at the new stadium is just total BS. But in other news I can’t afford tickets there anymore at all so I’ll just worry about the prices in Baltimore, DC, and Atlanta, when I want to take my kid to game.

      • Kevin S. - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

        Well if you’re going to take the PATH, the move is to go to WTC then walk a couple blocks to City Hall and grab the 4. That’s what I do when I’m going in by myself. The cost issue comes up when you’ve got multiple people coming in and it’s $30/person round trip on NJ Transit. But even driving in, I’ll park in a neighborhood near a subway stop and take the train up. Eff those overpriced garages.

  8. rcali - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    And the team is filled with overpaid players way past their prime. Did I see a cane in the on deck circle?

  9. El Bravo - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    “Sounds like this will lead to a city bailout or a bankruptcy, leaving the bondholders and/or taxpayers holding the bag.”

    The way Bloomberg throw millions around, he should cover this loss. He has single-handedly swung elections all over the map with direct investments in various PACs. Pick up the tab, Bloomberg, you filthy rich sonnofabitch!

  10. bigharold - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:24 AM

    “Never mind that the ballpark is right next to a train station.”

    Keep in mind a lot of the Yankee fan base is from LI, (like myself), and NJ in which case those train stations don’t help.

    As for the garages themselves. Back at the old stadium, the cost to park a car was $17 at it’s highest, now it’s $35. They’ve essentially priced themselves out of the market. I went to the home opener yesterday and parked the car at a municipal garage on 149th street for $11, and a 10 minute walk each way.

    “..the team demanded that the city build parking garages to house 9,000 cars.”

    So why didn’t the City, with it’s billionaire business savvy Mayor, say no? Why didn’t they do the leg work to show that fewer spaces were needed or price it better to get a higher occupancy rate? Does anyone really believe that had the City said “.. were only building 6000 spaces.” the new Stadium would not have been built?

    For me mass transit is a non-starter, too expensive and about 2.5 hours each way. To get to a game at this point were talking about $30 in gas, $15 more in tolls to add another $35 to park the car, before I spend anything on tickets or refreshments, (and don’t get me started on concession prices), that’s just too much. That is when I start looking for alternatives. If I’m smart enough to figure these things out the Mayor’s team should have too.

    I guess there was a reason why George Steinbrenner sold the garages back to the City when he bought the Yankees in 1972.

  11. greymares - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:27 AM

    they would have to pay me 10x$35 just to go to that god forsaken city

    • bigharold - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:40 AM

      That God forsaken. And they took a vote, .. they don’t want you anyway.

    • dondada10 - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM


  12. darthicarus - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    Somewhere Jeff Loria is looking into adding some parking garages in random areas around Marlins Park, and all of the spaces will be 10 inches smaller than average…just because.

  13. snowbirdgothic - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    Just remember, kids, the owners are the ones taking all the risks.

    • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      I am always on this side of the argument when people complain about rich owners versus players. Not taxpayers versus rich owners though. Where’s the risk in a free parking garage if you’re the Yankees?

      • snowbirdgothic - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

        “The owners take all the risk” is a patently false argument based on applying lemonade stand math to complex financial transactions. Yes, the owners theoretically pay all the bills. However, they A)get massive influxes of revenue regardless of what they put on the field B)get to amortize player salaries C)Derive huge streams of income from secondary and tertiary revenue streams D)Benefit from franchise value appreciation E)Traditionally funnel operating expenses back to themselves (see: Jeffrey Loria, Consultant) and F)receive tremendous taxpayer-funded benefits like the bulk of the profits from publicly funded stadia, etc.There is little to no risk in owning a professional sports team in a mature league.
        The players, however, risk their livelihood and their future well-being every time they step on the field, and let us not forget, they are in fact the product. Without them, there is no franchise to own. As such, I’m all in favor of them getting as much scratch as they can during their limited earnings window, despite the categorical efforts by ownership (with the willing assistance of the media) to villify them for making “so much money”. A-Rod may be “Stealing” $30M a year; the Steinbrenners got handed a billion, and it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

      • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        So you’re saying you forgot to use the sarcasm font on your original post? Gotchya

      • snowbirdgothic - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        I keep on forgetting that nobody gets deadpan any more.

  14. carbydrash - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    Never underestimate NYC’s willingness to fuck over tax-payers for more stadiums!

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go enjoy Flushing-Corona park before MLS builds a soccer stadium on tax-payer funded parkland that they are getting for, and this is not a joke, one dollar. Of which the city will recieve no revenue sharing over.

    Repeat: A large section of parkland is being sold to MLS for $1.

    God, I hate this place.

    • hep3 - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM

      Gee, Brooklyn would still have the Dodgers if the State and City of New York would have sold condemned land to Walter O’Malley at a decent price so he could build and pay for his own stadium to stay in the borough.

      And how did that move to LA work out for the Dodgers and MLB?

    • cackalackyank - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

      You seriously think NYC has cornered the market on this? Nope, it just goes on and on and on.

  15. Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    Why don’t they just hire Jay Z to fix this mess?

  16. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Apr 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM

    Sure, let’s give the Steinbrenner family $237MM. In the meantime, the after-school program at my son’s school is closing for lack of funds, which means my wife may have to quit her part-time job in order to pick him up in time.

    But yes, let’s make sure billionaires are subsidized in their junk ventures.

  17. romoscollarbone - Apr 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    Back when I was in college and a little beyond (02-09) I had season tixs for the yanks. Parking went from 12, to 19 in a few years leading up to the new stadium. Then they built one new deck directly next to the stadium and still have the original garages and now charge $35ish. It’s beyond ridiculous. Coming from NJ driving makes more sense.

    By the time you factor in NJ transit (13pp round trip), subway (5pp round trip) driving already pays for itself. Add in the fact that often times by the time the game ends, you fight thru the mass of people to get on the subway platform, and actually get to NY Penn station you miss the 11:07 train and have to wait an hour for the next train. Driving allows me to go to work the next day, essentially.

    If you cruise around enough you can find street parking. Usually by the Courthouse is a good bet. The only time the train is really worth it, is during the playoffs. Parking is insane. I’ve seen guys direct people and charge them to park on the sidewalk, and then the cops come thru and ticket/tow people who parked on the sidewalk.

  18. daveitsgood - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    Everybody knows that nobody drives in New York, there’s always too much traffic.

  19. stlouis1baseball - Apr 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

    @ Floyd:
    “railing against those awful liberals.”
    ??? Where did I say anything about awful liberals?
    You seem to spend a lot of time putting words in my mouth.
    There are lots of liberal leaning policies I agree with. Hence me being more on the moderate side.
    Whereas…you seem incapable of disagreeing with any liberal leaning stance.

    As far as your comparison with regards to Bloomsberg’s 16 oz. soda limit versus someone buying dynamite, getting hammered and subsequently cut off by the bartender…and background checks by gun store owners…a huge stretch. They aren’t even close. While we are at it…let’s go ahead an add speed limit signs to the mix. You know…cause’ that screams of a Dictatorship as well.
    That is laughable. We are talking about Soda’s! Not…the unibomber. Not someones Alcoholic Uncle who gets drunk and endangers society. Not a convicted felon who is trying to purchase a gun. SODA’s! Dude…you will do yourself a huge favor when you realize you can disagree with left leaning policies without fear of being labeled a conservative. In fact…it is a strength. A strength that allows one to think for themselves.

    • jm91rs - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

      It’s nice to see someone else who thinks they can disagree with both sides and make informed decisions on their own! Even if you are a Cards fan 😉

    • historiophiliac - Apr 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

      I would kinda pick my battles on that one. If you’re gonna have that fight, have it for something worthwhile. There’s so many good reasons to Rage! you don’t wanna waste it.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM

        Sooo…how many students correctly answered last night’s bonus question?

      • historiophiliac - Apr 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

        I haven’t graded them yet, but I know 2 had it right.

  20. gls24 - Apr 2, 2013 at 6:21 PM

    Please warn those in Sacramento before it is too late!

  21. turdfurgerson68 - Apr 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    Just another reason to hate the Yankees and the Steinbrenners.

    If Bloomberg hate any balls he would have played financial hardball with both the Yankees and Mets…especially the Yankees.

    What would they do? Threaten to move to NJ??

    Have the NY Yankees fans play…not the taxpayers!!!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (3054)
  2. M. Teixeira (2456)
  3. G. Stanton (2416)
  4. H. Olivera (2375)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2344)
  1. J. Fernandez (2248)
  2. K. Medlen (2152)
  3. G. Perkins (2061)
  4. J. Eickhoff (2048)
  5. Y. Puig (2039)