MLB has told the brewers that they need to make stadium repairs

[owbc]

23 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I know I've mentioned it before but I find the entire area around AmFam to be infuriating. It's so bloody hard to get in and out, there's nothing around it, and compared to most other modern ballparks, the location and area feels like a throwback (in the bad sort of way).

They really need to figure out how to build out around the stadium and make it more of a modern experience without completely gutting the tailgating culture of the area.

In my view the location itself is fine. The Brewers draw from a large geographic area and the location along the freeway suits them. The Braves have done well with their stadium location at a freeway interchange. Building the entertainment district is the tough thing, I haven't been to Truist Park but I think it's mostly mixed-use developments around it. Currently I agree, it's 0/10 for amenities.

I don't know how you build something like that from scratch when you have a city like Milwaukee that isn't really bursting with demand for new housing or new developments. 

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I know I've mentioned it before but I find the entire area around AmFam to be infuriating. It's so bloody hard to get in and out, there's nothing around it, and compared to most other modern ballparks, the location and area feels like a throwback (in the bad sort of way).

They really need to figure out how to build out around the stadium and make it more of a modern experience without completely gutting the tailgating culture of the area.

That's my opinion of the Twins' stadium, at least from getting in/out with a vehicle.  The parking garages in close proximity are nice, but unless you want to leave halfway through a game you might as well plan on spending a solid hour in your car waiting to get onto a highway out of there - weekday day games seemingly being the worst when they end close to rush hour. 

That sort of a setting also offers zero options for tailgaiting, too.  

[Axman59]

50 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Except the State can't tell the Brewers to go pound sand.  The State has a legal obligation in a binding contract to make these repairs.  The State has to make the repairs according to the contract that they have made with the Brewers.  The Brewers could sue the State and they would win and the State would have to pay for its portion of the repairs.

Either they pay for the repairs or they get sued to pay for the repairs either way the State is paying for its portion of the repairs. 

The State doesn't own the park. The Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District does and they are the entity that leases the park to the Brewers.* And the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District doesn't have any money other than the $70 million they currently have in reserve. So I'm not sure the Brewers can force the State to pay and the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District has no mechanism to tax anyone to generate more money. I think the Brewers recourse is to declare the lease to be in breach and play somewhere else.

 

 

*From their website: The Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District (the District) is a special district that is a local unit of government, a body corporate and politic that is separate, distinct and independent from the state.

[Fear The Chorizo]

54 minutes ago, owbc said:

In my view the location itself is fine. The Brewers draw from a large geographic area and the location along the freeway suits them. The Braves have done well with their stadium location at a freeway interchange. Building the entertainment district is the tough thing, I haven't been to Truist Park but I think it's mostly mixed-use developments around it. Currently I agree, it's 0/10 for amenities.

I don't know how you build something like that from scratch when you have a city like Milwaukee that isn't really bursting with demand for new housing or new developments. 

 

Yeah, location is actually ideal for Miller Park - trying to pigeonhole a ballpark into a saturated downtown area makes no sense when many of the fans coming to the game are traveling from all over the state.  That's why tailgaiting is such a scene more than anything in Milwaukee, IMO - people going to the games want that parking lot space to stretch out and have a few beers with brats on the grill after driving several hours to get to the ballpark - and they're willing to pay parking fees to do so rather than spend 45 minutes driving up and down city streets looking for a parking spot 2 miles from the stadium.

Could they add some other fan-friendly/fan experience sections or a limited entertainment district with readily accessible hotel/commercial amenities to the area?  Sure - but the Brewers' situation not owning the land/stadium is a big-time limiting factor when having to partner with local/state government on that type of an investment.

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

That's my opinion of the Twins' stadium, at least from getting in/out with a vehicle.  The parking garages in close proximity are nice, but unless you want to leave halfway through a game you might as well plan on spending a solid hour in your car waiting to get onto a highway out of there - weekday day games seemingly being the worst when they end close to rush hour. 

That sort of a setting also offers zero options for tailgaiting, too.  

I'm lucky because when leaving the parking garages around Target Field, I'm heading west on 394. All the garages are quick to leave that way, two of the three have ramps directly onto the freeway.

But I understand the aggravation. Personally, I make the trade-off in location and amenities every time.

[nate82]

Just now, Axman59 said:

The State doesn't own the park. The Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District does and they are the entity that leases the park to the Brewers.* And the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District doesn't have any money other than the $70 million they currently have in reserve. So I'm not sure the Brewers can force the State to pay and the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District has no mechanism to tax anyone to generate more money. I think the Brewers recourse is to declare the lease to be in breach and play somewhere else.

 

 

*From their website: The Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District (the District) is a special district that is a local unit of government, a body corporate and politic that is separate, distinct and independent from the state.

I am using the state as not the state of Wisconsin but as the government as a whole.  I believe the district is basically an arm of the government so therefore falls into the states jurisdiction.  The Brewers could easily sue the district and the state as I believe the state is the guarantor of the district.  The state being either the county of Milwaukee or the state of Wisconsin probably the county of Milwaukee unless the district is seen as a state owned entity. 

The Brewers can force the payment as the district is legally liable to pay for its portion of the repairs.  If the district can not pay its portion then the state would have to step in to pay what the district is not able to pay. 

The best outcome in my opinion is for the district to sell the stadium and the area to the Brewers.  This would force the Brewers to pay for the repairs.  Basically sell the stadium and the property to the Brewers minus the agreed upon repairs that are needed. 

I don't see the Brewers leaving and something will get worked out but that is more than likely going to come at the expense of the tax payers. 

[homer]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I know I've mentioned it before but I find the entire area around AmFam to be infuriating. It's so bloody hard to get in and out, there's nothing around it, and compared to most other modern ballparks, the location and area feels like a throwback (in the bad sort of way).

They really need to figure out how to build out around the stadium and make it more of a modern experience without completely gutting the tailgating culture of the area.

The parking lots seem like wasted space to me. Yeah obviously on game day and for concerts they are used but what about the other 250+ days of the year? I would think they could build a parking structure or two and then sell off or develop some of that excess land. If you don't want to tailgate, want covered parking, and direct access to the stadium from your car then park in a structure. 

[igor67]

Lightrail for Twins games is great in my experience. It gets really crowded of course, but they run some extra trains right around then and it often beats waiting to exit a parking garage.

[Brock Beauchamp]

12 minutes ago, homer said:

The parking lots seem like wasted space to me. Yeah obviously on game day and for concerts they are used but what about the other 250+ days of the year? I would think they could build a parking structure or two and then sell off or develop some of that excess land. If you don't want to tailgate, want covered parking, and direct access to the stadium from your car then park in a structure. 

That's kind of what I was thinking: eliminate some of the ground-level parking to build out the area, leave a bunch for tailgating (and a special ticket or something), then build structures for those who want to just park and leave their car.

[Axman59]

43 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I am using the state as not the state of Wisconsin but as the government as a whole.  I believe the district is basically an arm of the government so therefore falls into the states jurisdiction.  The Brewers could easily sue the district and the state as I believe the state is the guarantor of the district.  The state being either the county of Milwaukee or the state of Wisconsin probably the county of Milwaukee unless the district is seen as a state owned entity. 

 

The Stadium District is its own governmental body and is separate from the State of Wisconsin government. It is like, for example, the City of Brookfield. If the City of Brookfield defaults on a contract, the aggrieved party does not have a cause of action against the State of Wisconsin just because the City of Brookfield is in Wisconsin, or because the State of Wisconsin has given money to the City of Brookfield in the past.

If the State of Wisconsin is a contractual guarantor of the Stadium District I am not aware of it, would not assume they are, and if someone claims they are I'd like to see the evidence of it.

 

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, nate82 said:

Except the State can't tell the Brewers to go pound sand.  The State has a legal obligation in a binding contract to make these repairs.  The State has to make the repairs according to the contract that they have made with the Brewers.  The Brewers could sue the State and they would win and the State would have to pay for its portion of the repairs.

Either they pay for the repairs or they get sued to pay for the repairs either way the State is paying for its portion of the repairs. 

There’s a complete misunderstanding of contracts, landlord/tenant law, and state and local politics. 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

I am using the state as not the state of Wisconsin but as the government as a whole.  I believe the district is basically an arm of the government so therefore falls into the states jurisdiction.  The Brewers could easily sue the district and the state as I believe the state is the guarantor of the district.  The state being either the county of Milwaukee or the state of Wisconsin probably the county of Milwaukee unless the district is seen as a state owned entity. 

The Brewers can force the payment as the district is legally liable to pay for its portion of the repairs.  If the district can not pay its portion then the state would have to step in to pay what the district is not able to pay. 

The best outcome in my opinion is for the district to sell the stadium and the area to the Brewers.  This would force the Brewers to pay for the repairs.  Basically sell the stadium and the property to the Brewers minus the agreed upon repairs that are needed. 

I don't see the Brewers leaving and something will get worked out but that is more than likely going to come at the expense of the tax payers. 

No. If a party doesn’t comply with their obligations in a lease, the lease is breached.
 

Assuming for the sake of argument,  in the extreme instance the Brewers sued the Stadium District for breach of contract, there is no legal remedy to force the Stadium District to make repairs/improvements.
 

If the lease was breached the Brewers obligation to play professional baseball games there is removed, and any lawsuit would be about money the Stadium district potentially could be responsible for associated with the Brewers finding somewhere else to play (rent, loss of revenue from moving, etc, etc.).  That’s it, unless there extra language in the lease that states otherwise (somebody should try to get it via a FOIA request).

It’s no different than if your stairs collapsed in your apartment and the landlord didn’t have the money to fix them. As a tenant you could sue the landlord for breach, and you wouldn’t have to comply with your half of the lease (pay rent) you would get the expectation damages (difference in rent between old place and similar new place), you can’t force a landlord to build new stairs

 

[nate82]

17 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Assuming for the sake of argument,  in the extreme instance the Brewers sued the Stadium District for breach of contract, there is no legal remedy to force the Stadium District to make repairs/improvements.

Yes there is this is called the arbitration process which is a standard practice in lease agreements.  The Brewers would win the arbitration case and the district would either have to pay for the repairs or they would have to default on it.  I doubt the state will allow an arm of the government to default when they can just raise taxes to fix the issue. 

 

18 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

If the lease was breached the Brewers obligation to play professional baseball games there is removed, and any lawsuit would be about money the Stadium district potentially could be responsible for associated with the Brewers finding somewhere else to play (rent, loss of revenue from moving, etc, etc.).  That’s it, unless there extra language in the lease that states otherwise (somebody should try to get it via a FOIA request).

All of this would cost more than doing the repairs.  So doing the repairs is basically what the district will do.  There will be a new tax added on from the state.

 

21 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

It’s no different than if your stairs collapsed in your apartment and the landlord didn’t have the money to fix them. As a tenant you could sue the landlord for breach, and you wouldn’t have to comply with your half of the lease (pay rent) you would get the expectation damages (difference in rent between old place and similar new place), you can’t force a landlord to build new stairs

If the stairs collapse then the house becomes condemned as being unlivable.  It would have to be repaired or the house gets demolished.  It is basically forcing the landlord to build the new stairs.  The Brewers situation is more like the plumbing is not working which the landlord has an obligation to fix.  In some cities there are required repairs that have to be made basically the landlord has to make the repairs there is no other option.  In Phoenix if the AC goes out the landlord has to fix the AC and also pay for a hotel or forfeit the rent for that month.  The AC has to be fixed there is no other option in this scenario.  

[Jopal78]

28 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Yes there is this is called the arbitration process which is a standard practice in lease agreements.  The Brewers would win the arbitration case and the district would either have to pay for the repairs or they would have to default on it.  I doubt the state will allow an arm of the government to default when they can just raise taxes to fix the issue. 

 

All of this would cost more than doing the repairs.  So doing the repairs is basically what the district will do.  There will be a new tax added on from the state.

 

If the stairs collapse then the house becomes condemned as being unlivable.  It would have to be repaired or the house gets demolished.  It is basically forcing the landlord to build the new stairs.  The Brewers situation is more like the plumbing is not working which the landlord has an obligation to fix.  In some cities there are required repairs that have to be made basically the landlord has to make the repairs there is no other option.  In Phoenix if the AC goes out the landlord has to fix the AC and also pay for a hotel or forfeit the rent for that month.  The AC has to be fixed there is no other option in this scenario.  

Whatever, maybe watch some YouTube videos on the law (or find some commercial lease forms online and read them) instead of just making stuff up off the top of your head. 

[Axman59]

30 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I doubt the state will allow an arm of the government to default when they can just raise taxes to fix the issue.

States allow other levels of government to default on things all the time. States do not have a legal obligation to cover the liabilities of other levels of government.

[nate82]

43 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Whatever, maybe watch some YouTube videos on the law (or find some commercial lease forms online and read them) instead of just making stuff up off the top of your head. 

Not made up look it up if you don’t believe me most states have laws where the landlord must fix something that is damaged.  In Arizona it is A.R.S. §33-1363

 

[nate82]

46 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

States allow other levels of government to default on things all the time. States do not have a legal obligation to cover the liabilities of other levels of government.

Yes and most of the time it is something that isn’t all that visible to the public.  This is very visible there is no hiding this.  I am extremely confident the state would just pass a new tax for this instead of letting it default.  

[homer]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Whatever, maybe watch some YouTube videos on the law (or find some commercial lease forms online and read them) instead of just making stuff up off the top of your head. 

Please stop with the condescending tone. Thanks.

[Axman59]

48 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I am extremely confident the state would just pass a new tax for this instead of letting it default.  

 

And I am extremely confident the state is not going to pass a new tax to cover this.

[Fear The Chorizo]

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm lucky because when leaving the parking garages around Target Field, I'm heading west on 394. All the garages are quick to leave that way, two of the three have ramps directly onto the freeway.

But I understand the aggravation. Personally, I make the trade-off in location and amenities every time.

haha, I must go to the wrong Twins games, because my exit is 394 westbound also, and it's been a nightmare for me 75% of the time.  Maybe I'm picking the wrong garage over and over again that doesn't have a freeway exit - because that would definitely be my style.

[folly412]

6 hours ago, jhart05 said:

But AmFam field needs bathroom upgrades?

While much of the assessment was legitimate, I don't know what to do with this line...

Quote

Photo 28 - Club level restrooms are in very good condition, but the finishes are dated and uninspiring. 

I need a modern, inspired way to go take a leak in the middle of the fifth.

[Brock Beauchamp]

19 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

haha, I must go to the wrong Twins games, because my exit is 394 westbound also, and it's been a nightmare for me 75% of the time.  Maybe I'm picking the wrong garage over and over again that doesn't have a freeway exit - because that would definitely be my style.

It really depends how you exit the garages. The only garage without an entrance directly onto 394 is A Ramp, which has the entrance to 394 three turns away from the exit of the ramp.

[sveumrules]

15 minutes ago, folly412 said:

While much of the assessment was legitimate, I don't know what to do with this line...

I need a modern, inspired way to go take a leak in the middle of the fifth.

They should just install video screens that play non stop loops of water falls and mud slides.

[homer]

8 hours ago, Samurai Bucky said:

Yet, there will most likely be a 2% increase proposed for the city during the next election, plus a .375 increase in Milwaukee County.  The issues the city and county are having now are a result of abysmal fund management dating back at least 40 years.

This is only part of the problem. The county, for example. has to provide state-mandated services (e.g. courts) but the revenue they get back from the state to provide such services has remained flat the last 10 years or so (assuming the graph on the left is different since Covid):

Hence the big kerfuffle going on right now to pass revised revenue sharing with municipalities. I realize this sort of tiptoes politics but I thought it was important to point out. 

[Samurai Bucky]

5 minutes ago, homer said:

Hence the big kerfuffle...

I had to make note of checking off a box on my buzzword bingo sheet 💪

I didn't realize the amount of money going back to the state.  Thanks for the info.