So I want to make sure I have it right.
The investors (Shad Khan and whoever else) want to build buildings on top of city-owned land.
The city will continue to own the land.
The investors are asking for $233 million in incentives from the city to build a development on top of city-owned land.
So, basically, they want the city to pay more than half the cost to build on land the city owns. And the developers put in the other $200 or so million (assuming the project gets that far) and build some buildings. Who will own those? I can't find any clear into online beyond a statement that says the city plans to "transfer ownership" of those buildings. Does this mean the city owns those, too, unless and until they "transfer ownership" to someone else? Or the investors own those once they're built, since I guess they're paying for them?
The city would own the entertainment portion of the development, which they are calling LIVE! District, but someone else would operate it. Right?
And the city gets.... what out of the deal, for its $233 million? Hopefully a lot more people living and working right next to the stadium? And this will benefit downtown to the extent that it's worth subsidizing it for a quarter of a billion dollars?
And one more thing. The Cordish Companies, who have built a bunch of these LIVE! districts, always include a mix of shops, restaurants, and entertainment.
So it's city owned land, and upon it is being built a mixed use structure that will include shops, restaurants, and entertainment. Like the thing they just demolished down the street.
Do I have all this right? Surely this smells funny to, I dunno, everyone else.
