99 days to go till Opening Day at the Stadium … here’s some news to tide you over:
- Mark Teixeira was introduced to the New York media at a press conference yesterday. Here’s a couple of quotes from the newly-pinstriped slugger:
“The first time I went to Yankee Stadium, I was in awe,” Teixeira said. “The chance to play here my first six years in the big leagues, I always loved coming here. Seeing Mattingly when he was a coach here and going out to Monument Park was very special for me.
“I’m going to get a chance to be the first first baseman the Yankees have in the new stadium. That’s going to be pretty sweet. The fans here in New York will be pumped.”
Discussing the long free-agent process that ultimately landed him in New York, Teixeira gave much of the credit to his wife, Leigh, who helped seal the deal in a Dec. 12 conversation over dinner at a Texas country club.
“I said to Leigh, ‘Everything’s equal. Where would you want to play?'” Teixeira said. “Finally, she broke down and said, ‘I want you to be a Yankee.’ That’s what did it for me.”
- Jon Lane of the YES Network covered the press conference, and gives us a pleasing Tex quote:
Seconds into his formal introduction, Teixeira, looking completely relaxed and at ease, showed off perhaps his greatest attribute. He smiled and told the notoriously tough New York media to fire away, taking questions about accepting responsibility and playing up to expectations that will never be higher.
“I look at myself as a leader,” Teixeira said. “First and foremost, I try to do things the right way on the field and you can carry that over to the locker room and earn the respect of your teammates.”
He explained later to writers he was negotiating with five different teams, the Yankees, Red Sox, Nationals, Angels and Orioles, and how the Yankees were atop the pecking order. At first, his wife Leigh told him she just wanted him to be happy. On December 12, during their weekly Friday night dinner at their country club in Texas, Teixeira asked his wife if all things were equal, where you want me to play. Her answer was New York, the Yankees and everything that comes with it.
“I might have been a little more hesitant if I hadn’t played in so many different cities the last three years,” Teixeira said. “I went to Atlanta, where Braves baseball is huge. That was some pressure. It was the first time in a long time I was nervous to play a baseball game. The same going to Anaheim. They were the kings of the AL West. The media is tougher there and the fans are into it, so I think I’ve gotten a taste of a little bit of everything and I enjoyed being a part of it.”
- The Post has more yummy quotes from Teixeira.
- Bryan Hoch at MLB.com runs down how the Yanks acquired Tex.
- More “much ado about nothing” regarding Andy Pettitte. Here’s a couple of quotes from the Yankees:
“There’s still dialogue going on,” Yankees co-chairman Hal Steinbrenner said. “They were not happy with our offer; we were not happy with what they wanted. There’s been no agreement.”
Cashman would not confirm a New York Times report that New York has pulled its offer to the 36-year-old Pettitte, but said in reference to his level of interest: “Things are more complicated now.”
- The Post reports that if the offer to Pettitte is still alive, it is most likely lower than the original $10 million figure.
- The City has bowed to public scrutiny and criticism, and is giving up the luxury box it negotiated for itself in dealing with the funding for the new stadium.
[My take: I’m sure members of the Bloomberg administration will have no problem scoring a couple of free passes or luxury box invites regardless of this turn of events.]
- With the A’s about to sign Jason Giambi, the Times’ Benjamin Hoffman reflects on the Giambino’s years in NY:
What that is failing to account for is that Giambi actually did exactly what the Yankees signed him to do. As the face of the Oakland Athletics, Giambi embodied the spirit of patience and power that was lionized in Michael Lewis’s book “Moneyball.” Relying on his ability to draw walks and hit balls over the fence, Giambi won the 2000 American League M.V.P. and was the runner-up in 2001. At that point, no one was complaining about his defense, which was already sub-par.
Over the course of his seven years in New York, Giambi continued to do exactly the same thing. He compiled a .404 on-base percentage (fifth in Yankees history), .521 slugging percentage (seventh in Yankees history) and 209 homers (10th in Yankees history).
Making his home run total more impressive is the fact that he accomplished it in just seven seasons. Of all the storied sluggers in Yankee history, the only players who had that many over a seven-year span were Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth.
[My take: Is it snarky to suggest that averaging 30 homers per year while on steroids for some portion of those years isn’t quite as “storied” as what Joltin’ Joe, Gehrig, the Mick and the Babe did? And while no one complained about his defense in 2000, he WAS hitting .330, not .250 then, and hadn’t yet lost whatever range afield he might have had.]
- Shelley Duncan was DFAed to make room for Teixeira on the roster.
- OF John Rodriguez was signed to a minor league deal.
- Amidst an interesting article on the youth movement in the majors (trying to emphasize growth with organization and keeping one’s draft picks), Tom Verducci notes the aged Yankees in key spots:
The Yankees, for all the money they have spent, will try to buck this trend by starting Alex Rodriguez, 33, Derek Jeter, who turns 35 in June, Johnny Damon, 35 and Jorge Posada, 37, with Hideki Matsui, 35, getting at-bats in the outfield and at DH. No team has won the pennant with a 35-or-older shortstop since the 1956 Brooklyn Dodgers with Pee Wee Reese. Only two of the 240 teams to make the postseason since then used such an old shortstop: the 1996 Orioles (Cal Ripken) and 1981 Phillies (Larry Bowa).
- Over at LoHud, Pete Abe reports that the Bombers have signed Jason Johnson to a minor-league deal, with the hope he can compete for the fifth starter spot.
[My take: I wonder if Pettitte’s stomach is churning over this one … he could lose his rotation spot to someone whose career stats are …. 56-100, a 4.99 ERA and a 1.488 WHIP]
- PeteAbe also notes that Yanks signed 2003 AL ROTY Angel Berroa to a minor-league deal.
[My take: …. with the chance to become this year’s Miguel Cairo / Wilson Betemit? Who’s seemingly promising career tanked more abruptly … Berroa … or Marcus Giles?]
- “American Idle” Carl Pavano signed a one-year deal with the Indians.
[My take: Its kind of a quirk that the Indians felt they had to deal Sabathia and get something back for him in the middle of 2008, and now sign the pitcher who in some ways contributed to the Yankees sensing they needed to go after Sabathia.]
- The Village Voice chimes in on the political machinations going in regarding the tax-exempt bond funding for the new stadium:
The 2009 mayoral campaign begins this month when the richest sports franchise in America puts its hand out for one more bailout. The New York Yankees—strike that—Yankee Global Enterprises LLC, the mega-corporation that controls all things Yankee, has already received $942 million in triple tax-free bonds courtesy of the Bloomberg regime to build its fabulous new stadium on city land where a wonderful tree-shaded park once stood near the Harlem River.
The mayor’s people are spending most of their time these days ordering the closing of day-care centers and firehouses, insisting that the terrible economic situation dictates no other course. But on January 16, Bloomberg’s team will pause from these chores to order its representatives on the city’s Industrial Development Agency to approve another $370 million in tax-free bonds to finish the stadium project. According to the city’s Independent Budget Office, this new round of financing will cost taxpayers roughly $48.5 million in foregone revenues. This is on top of the $181 million the team saved by having the taxes excused on its first round of financing.
- Happy 33rd birthday to Alfonso Soriano (doesn’t it seem like just yesterday he was coming up with the Bombers?).
- Happy 74th birthday to Dick Schofield (Sr.). Schofield appeared in 25 games for the Yanks in 1966, hitting a robust .155 in 58 ABs. Schofield had only three seasons with more than 250 ABs, but appeared in a ML game in 19 different seasons, despite hitting a career . 227.
- On this date in 1915, the Tigers waive Wally Pipp, and the Yankees acquire him. Pipp will anchor first base in New York for a decade until Lou Gehrig’s appearance.
- On this date in 1924, the Yanks buy the contract of Louisville Colonels star outfielder Earle Combs, who hit .380 the prior year for Louisville. Colonels owner Bill Kneblekamp gets $50,000, outfielder Elmer Smith and another player, and demands that the Yankees play an exhibition game in Louisville with a guarantee that Babe Ruth is in the lineup. This reportedly nets Kneblekamp an additional $5,000.
- Not a Yankee historical note, but still interesting … On this date in 1933, Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis announces that he is cutting his salary by 40 percent. Landis’ action is a sign of the times during the Great Depression; most players will have their salaries reduced for the coming season.
Ironically, it's nice to see the Village Voice report the real cost to City revenue. While most outlets keep talking about the City giving the Yankees over $1 billion in relief, the figures cited by the Voice represent the real amount. That reason that is ironic is because I am sure the Voice was not trying to present the tax free loan in a positive light.
While it is fashionable to argue against sports teams receiving public assistance, I, as a tax payer of NY, endorse the measure. What's more, I think the lack of a public outcry (in spite of the media's attempts to fan the flames) stems from similar support across the city. The Yankees (and Mets) are popular enough institutions in this city that $200mn in lost revenue over an extended period of time is simply not the "travesty" that so many are trying to suggest. While some may seek to score political points off of the prominence of the Yankee name, ultimately, I think the complaints will continue to fall on deaf ears because the outrage among the public simply doesn't exist.
Also, if the $230mn in forgone revenue is divided by the 40-year term of the loan repayments, that would come out to $6mn per year in tax revenue. If the city received $500K instead of its luxury box, that would lower the abatement to $5.5mn. In other words, it seems as if media outlets are significantly exaggerating the financial reality in order to score political points.
No team has won the pennant with a 35-or-older shortstop since the 1956 Brooklyn Dodgers with Pee Wee Reese.
Wow, great find. And at least Reese played defense. I really fear that Jeter is now the biggest hole on the team, based on how many hits he lets through. At least they'll get defense in CF.
I saw the press conference and I'm coming around on Teixeira. Can't help but thinking he's going to bash 40 HRs with a .400 OBP hitting in front of A-Rod. But they could have gotten that same production from Dunn or Manny (both still available!).
[3] I am not sure how telling that factoid really is. Afterall, there have only been 46 seasons played by short stops 35 or older (min. 100 games) since 1956, and most of those were compiled by the same group of players.
I really think Angel Berroa could make me pine for the good ol days of Wilson Betemit.
And you have no idea how thrilled I am that Carl Pavano went [anywhere else.]
I was so sure that in two or three weeks, I'd see Brian Cashman trying to convince me that "its a one year deal that's low risk high reward! We know Carl can pitch if he can stay healthy!"
[1] We've been over this, but I'm still not giving up.
For starters, that figure only represents the revenues lost by the loans being tax-free. It does not include the revenues lost by having the actual loan payments being made in lieu of property taxes that the Yankees would otherwise have owed.
Second, the issue of the parkland is a huge one for the community. I understand that it doesn't mean crap to most Yankee fans, but that doesn't make it any less despicable.
Third, the benefits to the city are minuscule. The job creation Levine talks about is virtually nonexistent.
Finally, the fact that there isn't an outcry isn't terribly meaningful. It means that most people aren't paying attention, especially not to the details, and don't really follow what the ramifications are. Most people don't understand the PILOT payments, for example (I don't even pretend to understand them fully). That doesn't make this issue any different from a whole lot of others.
[5] Berroa is basically Alberto Gonzales without the glove.
I know.
And that's horrifying.
Betemit was bad at nearly everything. Awful hitter, awful defender, awful runner. But he hit the odd HR, so some people were satisfied with his shitty, shitty play.
Berroa is Alberto Gonzalez without the glove or Wilson Betemit without the odd HR.
That frightens the hell out of me.
"Ninety-nine mugs of root beer on the wall,
Ninety-nine mugs of root beer....
You jinx someone,
Then drink 'til it's gone..."
(you know the rest...)
Btw, does Soriano being 33 include the being two years older he admitted to after being traded to Texas? >;)
[6] I'm with you, JL. It seems more likely that most people outside the neighborhood just don't care, being safely ensconced in their habitats outside of the rusty, crumbling and germ-infested Bronx we're supposed to be (oh yeah, the crime too), so whatever in their eyes and minds that changes the landscape is an improvement. And I love the talk about the jobs created with projects such as these, when in reality you're mostly talking about temp jobs; perhaps non-union (benefits? nnnngh!) with peripheral revenue being spent in the restaurants and that's basically it. I mean, taking away free-access parkland to build a stadium that people in the neighborhood can barely if at all afford to go near (hyperbole alert!) is a good idea to some, but I don't live in that neighborhood and even I get the willies without it being a play on my name.
But no one talks about it, mainly because most of the people who really should be talking about it aren't around. Fair enough that most people, myself included, don't understand the concepts of PILOT payments and such (which I think gets thrown around so much that it perhaps purposefully obfuscates the situation as a whole); yet you and I can talk all day, but what impact will we have unless we're big enough to take on Bloomberg Inc. and his B-bbb-B-U-nit! ? I'm generally pissed, but at a loss as to what to do or suggest; especially if few people are concerndabbouddit...
Diane-
Thought you might enjoy this (giant crossword):
http://tinyurl.com/8oj2z9
"The questions for this crossword puzzle are located in different point of interests of the city, like monuments, theaters, fountains etc. So people while walking around the city can try to answer the questions and writing down the answers."
[6] The payments are not being made in place of the property tax. Because the Yankees (Mets) will not be paying property taxes, it's a moot point with regard to the issue of the PILOTs. I guess you could argue that the City should have charged the Yankees for the land and subsequently taxed them for it, but based on the lower assessment value that some have maintained, that wouldn't be very substantial payment anyway.
The park lands are being replaced, albeit it not at the rate some in the community would like. While that may be unfortunate, it is far from despicable.
Whether the benefit to the city is miniscule is widely debated. The estimates on the economic impact vary. What is a fact is the local politicians in the South Bronx have fought hard to keep the Yankees, so they must perceive some value to the community. Also, while the jobs may be seasonal and lower paying, that doesn't make them less important to the people who hold them.
For months now, the press has been beating the drum of a raw deal, but very few seem to be dancing to the beat. The fact that so few seem to be paying attention could very well be a sign that so many are fine with the arrangement. I don't think you need to understand how the PILOTs work to be against the arrangement...especially with the media, which doesn't understand them, presenting them as a boondoggle.
[9] Back to the point of the jobs created...I know it's easy to scoff at the types of jobs that service the stadium, but real people occupy them, and I assume they would not like to lose them, especially as I see so many familar faces coming back as vendors and security guards each season.
Aside from the economic impact, I wouldn't be surprised if the payroll taxes collected by the city don't completely offset the deferred tax revenues.
What is a fact is the local politicians in the South Bronx have fought hard to keep the Yankees, so they must perceive some value to the community.
Perception doesn't equal reality.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if the Yanks left the Bronx, the Bronx isn't going to implode. They'd find something else to do with the open land, whether it's housing, shopping, or entertainment.
[12] Even though there has been considerable development in the South Bronx supported by the SBI, the over $1billion in investment made by the Yankees is hardly something that could be replaced as easily as you suggest. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements, such as the new MTA station, will not only support the new YS, but also the new projects under development in the community.
Maybe you are right and the South Bronx could easily replace the Yankees, but many in the community disagree. Perception doesn't always equal reality, but this time, it could be yours.
I agree with William that some (most/all?) in the press are overplaying the rawness of the stadium deal. I do have real problems with elements of the process and the outcome, but NYC (like perhaps all other cities) has a history with that sort of thing. But on balance, I think the Yankees did a pretty stand up deal. When you compare to every other new baseball stadium deal, I don't see how the Yankees can come in for such heavy criticism - I was in SF when the Giants got their new subsidized stadium, and I'm in DC now that the Nats got their new free stadium. I'd be interesting to see someone try to convince us that the Yankees took advantage of the city more than DC got bilked, or that Minn will, or in both FL cities. If that makes the Yanks the "tallest midget", so be it. But the attacks bereft of context (comparisons to other baseball stadium deals) I find lacking.
[10] I don't entirely understand the status of the property tax. But it's indisputable that the loan repayments are being made in the place of taxes that the Yankees would otherwise owe. That's the definition of the PILOT program.
You're wrong about the jobs. They're minimal. There's virtually no debate about the benefits of a new stadium to a city; study after study has shown little to no economic benefit. The mall being built on the site of the old Terminal Market will benefit the community - without loss of parkland, and without massive underwriting by the taxpayers. That is completely independent of the Stadium. it will provide real jobs and real money coming in, and nothing about the Stadium makes a difference to it.
The politicians like it, though. I guess that means that it has to be serving the greater good, because we know that politicians couldn't possibly be supporting it otherwise.
[14] DC got bilked, Minneapolis got bilked even worse, and I have no doubt that both Florida cities will as well. Is not getting bilked worse than them really an argument in favor of this?
[133] Oh, and the Yankees most decidedly are _not_ investing $1 billion in the South Bronx. They're investing $1 billion in the Yankees. In no way is that an investment in the community.
Chyll, even the restaurants in the area - except for those right across the street - don't depend on the Stadium. It might help business sometimes, but it's the courts and the shopping that keep them going.
Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements, such as the new MTA station, will not only support the new YS, but also the new projects under development in the community.
Which is perfectly fine, but WRT infrastructure, I would say the former Sedgewick & Jerome-Anderson Ave lines, as well as the NY Central Putnam terminus would have served the area fine. Who knows, it's a possibility that if the Yanks werent there, these structures would still exist?
FWIW, I remember the plans for the Metro North station being on the books in the 80's
Maybe you are right and the South Bronx could easily replace the Yankees, but many in the community disagree.
All I have to go on is history.
Brooklyn & Manhattan may miss the Dodgers and Giants, but they've moved on. Boston may miss the Braves, but they moved on. Go to Montreal, and you'd never know the Expos played there. They've moved on (many would say while they were still there). I don't think New York and the Yankees would be unique in this regard.
While I won't dispute that the billion dollars invested in the South Bronx (SoBro? HA!) is a good thing, I can say with a degree of certainty that looking around the boroughs, had the Yankees moved in the 60's - 70's -80's or whenever, The Bronx would've found something to do with that land, whether it's housing, parkland, mixed use development, whatever
Absent a financial meltdown like we have recently seen in the credit markets, I am opposed to corporate welfare of any kind, and that basically seems like what the City's subsidization really is.
Chyll, even the restaurants in the area - except for those right across the street - don’t depend on the Stadium.
Given that the Stadium is open at least 81 times a year, that should come as no surprise. I don't think it was the case either, when the Yanks were barely drawing 2M people
[16] The City of New York has not sold the Yankees the land under the Stadium. It remains the property of NYC. As a result, there are no real estate taxes for the Yankees pay. This arrangement was devised so the IDA could issue the bonds with tax exempt status. This vehicle was needed to ensure that the debt service level would not prevent the project from going forward. This same approach has been used countless times for commercial projects throughout the City, especially in the redevelopment of Times Square.
As I stated in [1], the waived tax revenue is probably just over $5mn per year. Considering that the investment would not have been made without the PILOTs, this is a small price to pay to attract over $1bn in investment into a region that definitely needs it. The alternative would have been to have the Yankees remain in the old place (at an increasing maintenance cost to the city that could have exceeded the $5mn cost) or see them leave the Bronx. I think either option would be more expensive than the $5mn revenue waiver.
As for the jobs, I think you’re wrong. While Bordsky claimed that the new Stadium will only create 15 jobs, the Yankees claim that number is 1,000. Intuitively, 15 more jobs just doesn’t make any sense when you consider the increased amenities and full-year installations. Also, it ignores the very real construction jobs that have been in place for 2+ years. According to the Yankees, construction of the new Stadium has employed 6,000 people, 25% of whom are Bronx residents. Also, over $132mn in contracts have been awarded to Bronx-based businesses. What’s more, the Yankee Stadium project is bringing improved infrastructure and increased visibility that will provide leverage to the other construction projects underway in the Bronx.
I can understand why some people would be sensitive about the notion of a profitable business feeding at the public trough, but I think most of those arguments belie a complete misunderstanding of the finances involved. The Brodskys of the world have seized on an issue that gets a lot of play, but their arguments have little substance.
[18] The Yankees are investing $1bn in the South Bronx because they could invest in the Yankees in any other part of the region. It seems as if you think “investment” must be a charitable endeavor? Unless you think the South Bronx would be better off if the Yankees moved to Manhattan or New Jersey, then their decision to stay is an investment in the area.
[19] Have you ever been the site of the former Ebbets Field? I don’t think the Flatbush area of Brooklyn has moved on successfully. The former site of the Polo Grounds probably hasn’t fared much better. I guess they could building another housing project in place of Yankee Stadium, but something tells me that wouldn’t bring prosperity to the Bronx. You aren’t fully considering the situation if you think the loss of YS could easily be replaced (also, comparing YS to the Expos and Boston Braves suggests a misunderstanding of the context).
As for the MTA station, it would not have been built without the new YS...how can I say that? Well, it has been long proposed, but is only now being built.
[21] You honestly don’t think 4mn people coming into the area on 81 dates has an economic impact? Many businesses make a disproportionate amount of revenue in a condensed time frame, so it would not be unusual if many area businesses inch toward the black thanks to those 81 home games. I would imagine that all the surrounding businesses benefit greatly from the influx of potential customers. Just do a search on the economic impact of the 1994 strike for an illustration.
Have you ever been the site of the former Ebbets Field? I don’t think the Flatbush area of Brooklyn has moved on successfully. The former site of the Polo Grounds probably hasn’t fared much better.
Yes I have. Been to the site of Crosley, Nickerson, Forbes Fields, and Jarry Park, among others.
The problems those particular areas went through have little to do with the departure of the Giants and Dodgers. But I'm sure the housing currently in place serves a useful purpose.
You aren’t fully considering the situation if you think the loss of YS could easily be replaced (also, comparing YS to the Expos and Boston Braves suggests a misunderstanding of the context).
I may be misunderstanding something, but my point is that if the Yankees were to leave the Bronx tomorrow, there'd be gnashing of teeth and rendering of garments, but life will go on. New York City withstood the loss of the Giants (baseball and football), Dodgers, Jets and Giants, and we can name a bunch of other cities that have lost "major league" teams that have managed to survive.
You honestly don’t think 4mn people coming into the area on 81 dates has an economic impact?
Of course it does. But how many of them actually shop there? How many of that 4M don't even see the nabe, funneling in and out of the subway stations or garages to their destination?
Yankee Stadium isn't far from Concourse Village, & the 3rd Ave & Southern Blvd shopping districts. You have the courthouse, a main branch of the post office and Hostos there. Mott Haven was/is being redeveloped.
[23] Aside from Armageddon, "life will go on" no matter what happens. Sure, if the Yankees left the Bronx, the Earth wouldn't stand still, but that doesn't mean it would be a positive development for the area. This isn't a discussion about surviving (heck, wouldn't life go on even if the Yankees really were getting a boondoggle?). It is a discussion about being prosperous. There are lots of examples of abandoned facilities leading to a downturn in the areas in which they once resided. So, while life goes on, in the case of the area around the former Ebbets field, for example, it does so amid some of the highest crime rates and poverty rates in the city. While I don't think the Dodgers singlehandedly plundered Flatbush, perhaps a more general failure to understand the importance of stable businesses in the area did?
As for whether Yankee fans shop in the surrounding businesses around the Stadium, the answer is Yes and in large numbers. From souvenir shops to delis to bars and other service oriented establishments, thousands of fans spend money in the immediate neighborhood. Now, they don't stroll down the the Grand Concourse to shop for clothes, but perhaps with greater development and infrastructure in the area, there may be expanded commerce. Regardless, the businesses linked to the Stadium do benefit. You may think that's insignificant, but I am sure the hundreds of people who make a living off of them think differently.
So, while life goes on, in the case of the area around the former Ebbets field, for example, it does so amid some of the highest crime rates and poverty rates in the city.
And that was happening while the Dodgers were there. It happened while the Yankees were in the Bronx.
perhaps with greater development and infrastructure in the area, there may be expanded commerce.
I don't know if we're talking past each other, but there is currently plenty of opportunity for commerce available. Certainly there was with the Bronx Terminal Market, and several other shopping centers within reasonable distance of the stadium.
You may think that’s insignificant, but I am sure the hundreds of people who make a living off of them think differently.
And I'm sure the thousands who don't think differently as well...
[25] The area around Ebbets Field saw a precipitous decline following the loss of the Dodgers. Perhaps that decline was ineveitable, but if the Dodgers had stayed and anchored new redevelopment, then maybe things would have been different. I don't subsribe to the theory that neighborhoods develop independently of the land use around them.
The Bronx Terminal Market? I think we are talking past each other because the Bronx Terminal Market is not my idea of commerce. or the past 30 years, the BTM has been a sea of corruuption and decay. Besides, wholesale ethnic foods are not the kind of commerce that appeals to a wide customer base. Now, the new BTM project, which boasts "18 acres of land and approximately 1 million new square feet of retail space, featuring well-known, brand-name national retailers" could very well attract Yankee fans, especially if there is favorable tax treatment.
Urban development doesn't happen in a vacuum. It requires cooridnated investment by companies as well as inducements by municipalities.