Arizona lawmakers work to recapture taxes at Chase Field to pay for repairs, upgrades
The Brief
Arizona Rep. Jeff Weninger introduced HB 2704 in January, and if passed, would recapture sales and income taxes associated with Chase Field and the Arizona Diamondbacks, and use the money to pay for upgrades and repairs.
"Today was a first step victory in this much-needed public/private partnership. It shows the momentum that has been behind this bill …," said Derrick Hall, president and CEO of the Arizona Diamondbacks.
PHOENIX - Arizona Lawmakers at the capitol are discussing ways to fund upgrades at Chase Field in downtown Phoenix.
What we know
HB 2704, introduced by Rep. Jeff Weninger, would recapture sales and income taxes associated with the field and the Arizona Diamondbacks, and direct them to funding repairs and upgrades.
Not everyone's on board with the proposed plans.
If you're a Diamondbacks fan, you know Chase Field is old and needs a lot of repairs, and in order for this bill to pass, the city, county, and state all have to come to an agreement.
The backstory
Chase Field is one step closer to getting $500 million worth of repairs after the House passed it 35-25. It now moves on to the Senate.
Rep. Weninger introduced the bill in January and has since made revisions after negotiations with the city and county.
"Recapture of revenue generated at Chase Field does not go to the team or ownership. These dollars go to the county for critical improvements, repairs and construction at the publicly owned Chase Field," Rep. Weninger explained.
Derrick Hall, president and CEO of the Arizona Diamondbacks, is calling this a first step victory in this much-needed public-private partnership.
His full statement reads, "Today was a first step victory in this much-needed public/private partnership. It shows the momentum that has been behind this bill and we are grateful to Representative Wenninger and Governor Hobbs for the leadership and encouragement, as well as all House Representatives who supported it. Allowing this proud franchise to remain at Chase Field for continued economic and community impact is in the best interest of the City, County, State, and Major League Baseball."
"There's an intent clause in the bill that the team will contribute $250 million of their own to the repairs and construction of the stadium, that again, the stadium that they do not own," Rep. Weninger said.
The other side
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego posted on X on Feb. 25 explaining why she's in opposition.
"Today, the State House will consider H.B. 2704, which subsidizes renovations to Chase Field with hundreds of millions hard-earned tax dollars. It takes $200 million from the City of Phoenix alone, which will have a real impact on our ability to pay for police and fire services," she said, in part, before the House ultimately passed the bill.
Big picture view
Rep. Weninger says he's been working closely with the city.
"With the county, we did not touch the .2% county jail portion of the tax and what the city were did not touch the .3% that goes with first responders," he explained. "We're not pulling from the education, but the rest of the tax and income tax from within the envelope of the stadium would go into a fund that then would go back into the maintenance and improvements of that publicly owned asset."
If passed, the deal would be good for 30 years.
The bill states that if the Diamondbacks leave in the first ten years, the team will have to pay a $10 million penalty and all funds left in the Maricopa County-controlled account revert back to the appropriate government entity.
"I support a solution that keeps Major League Baseball and the Diamondbacks here in Arizona, and I am really hopeful that the point of disagreement between the city, county and the state can get worked out so that we can get the deal done," Arizona Gov. Kaite Hobbs said.
In a previous commerce committee, those in opposition explained why this bill isn't beneficial to taxpayers.
"According to the team's own estimates, the bill would take away 15 to 20 million dollars yearly from state and local general funds, diverting funds away from parks, roads and affordable housing," said Margaret Schultz with Worker Power.
Diamondbacks fans say they're ready to see improvements made at Chase Field this upcoming season.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State Legislature Acts To ‘Make Texas Healthy Again'
Under Senate Bill 25, which awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature, Texas could become one of the first states to mandate warning labels on foods containing artificial dyes and specific chemicals. The bill, dubbed the Make Texas Healthy Again Act, requires labels on products containing one or more of some 40-plus additives, such as Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), and titanium dioxide. The label would state: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' The warning label must be prominent, readable, and would apply to products packaged after January 1, 2027. A loophole allows producers using existing packaging through 2036 to avoid the requirement. The bill also invalidates state labeling rules if federal regulations supersede them. 'Texas can really lead here. … These bills represent a Texas way that prioritizes transparency, prioritizes good education and prioritizes incentive change,' Calley Means, a top adviser to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said during a Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing. Beyond labeling, SB 25 increases physical activity requirements for middle school students from four to six semesters of 30-minute daily sessions and mandates nutrition education for undergraduates, developed by a seven-member Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee appointed by the governor by December 31, 2025. The committee would include experts in metabolic health, a licensed physician, a Texas Department of Agriculture representative, and others. In addition, doctors and nurses must complete continuing education on nutrition to maintain their licenses. 'This sweeping legislation is not just another bill. It's a call to action — one that so many Texans and Americans are realizing — that something is wrong and that something needs to change in our food industry and in our sedentary lifestyle,' Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), the bill's sponsor, told The Texas Tribune. The bill garnered bipartisan support, with 10 Senate Democrats and three House Democrats sponsoring or co-sponsoring. 'This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say, 'We are sick and tired of being sick and tired,'' said Rep. Lacey Hull (R-Houston) before the House passed the bill on May 25. Food industry groups, including Walmart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, and Frito-Lay, opposed the labeling, warning in a letter that it 'could destabilize local and regional economies.' Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (D-San Antonio) expressed concern that 'the cost of food will continue to rise,' the Tribune reported. Kolkhorst countered in February that 'the market will adjust.' Supporters, like the Episcopal Health Foundation, see health benefits. 'The amount of money and time we're spending treating diabetes as opposed to preventing it is huge, especially in Texas,' said Brian Sasser, the foundation's chief communications officer, per the Tribune. Andy Keller of the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute added, 'In a world that pretends the brain is not part of the body, this bill will put tools in the hands of children, parents and teachers to begin truly addressing emotional health and wellbeing.' The bill aligns with federal Make America Healthy Again initiatives, with Kolkhorst noting Kennedy's personal call urging its passage. 'As in so many cases, we're not waiting on Washington,' said Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) in February. 'Texas will act.'
Buzz Feed
20 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
5 Ways Republicans Are Defending Kicking People Off Medicaid
WASHINGTON — In their zeal to deliver a big win to President Donald Trump by passing his sweeping tax and spending bill, Republicans have been coming up with ridiculous ways to defend their plan to strip health care from an estimated 11 million low-income people. Experts don't matter. Prove you are worthy of health care. We're all going to die anyway. Somehow, these are actual arguments GOP lawmakers and officials have been making as they try to gloss over the pain their bill would impose on poor people and families while handing big tax breaks to mostly rich people. Here are five of the most absurd ways Republicans have tried to defend their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which guts federal health and food assistance programs by nearly $1.3 trillion. We're all going to die anyway. It was her first town hall of the year, held at 7:30 in the morning at a rural area two hours away from Des Moines — possibly to keep national attention off the senator as much as possible. Yet Republican Sen. Joni Erst of Iowa last week still managed to step in it with a flippant remark to a woman concerned about Republican plans to cut Medicaid. 'People will die!' the woman shouted at the senator. 'Well, we all are going to die,' Ernst responded with a smirk. 'For heaven's sakes, folks.' The glib comment quickly went viral on social media and Democrats pounced on her words, featuring them on signs at press conferences around the U.S. Capitol this week as they blasted the GOP tax and spending bill. It even spurred Democratic state Rep. JD Scholten to announce his entry into the race to unseat Ernst, who faces reelection next year, and election handicappers to shift the race slightly toward Democrats. Ernst later doubled down by filming a sarcastic apology video from a cemetery. 'I'm very compassionate,' she told a swarm of reporters this week. Losing health care coverage is actually healthy. From the minute Republicans started drafting the legislation this year, they knew two things: They would limit eligibility for the childless adults without disabilities covered under the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, saving hundreds of billions of dollars, and they would deny that the significant loss of coverage resulting from 'work requirements' — which would mostly kick people who have jobs off Medicaid by imposing new paperwork burdens on them — counted as a cut. In fact, as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) explained in February, losing health care coverage would spur people to improve themselves, and they'd be better off for it. 'Work is good for you. You find dignity in work. And the people that are not doing that, we're going to try to get their attention,' Johnson said. 'So everyone needs to take a deep sigh of relief and understand that we're not going to harm any Americans with this. What we're doing is the right thing by the people.' The Congressional Budget Office said this week the proposed work requirements — better understood as a limit on benefits for people who don't prove to their state government they've participated in 80 hours per month of qualifying 'community engagement' activities — would reduce Medicaid enrollment by 5.2 million and save $344 billion over a decade. Ultimately, 4.8 million fewer people would have insurance in 2034. This week, Johnson's office pointed to a new analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that unemployed Medicaid recipients who would be affected by the law typically spend 4.2 hours per day watching TV and playing video games, compared with 2.7 hours per day of TV and video games for Medicaid recipients with jobs. For Republicans, unemployed gamers are about as deserving of government assistance as undocumented immigrants, who are also targeted in the legislation. 'The next time a Democrat makes false claims about 'Medicaid cuts,' just remember that what they're really saying is they want illegal aliens and able-bodied adults playing video games at home to continue stealing resources from those who need it,' Johnson's office said in a statement. In a major analysis of work requirements that have been tried in various federal programs, however, the CBO found in 2022 that booting unemployed people off Medicaid didn't boost their employment. The budget office pointed to what happened when the first Trump administration let Arkansas implement a Medicaid work requirement in 2018. 'There, many of the targeted adults lost their health insurance as a result of the work requirement,' the CBO said. 'Employment did not appear to increase, although the evidence is scant. Research indicates that many participants were unaware of the work requirement or found it too onerous to demonstrate compliance.' Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), lead author of the Republicans' Medicaid proposal, has said lawmakers learned from the Arkansas example and that the compliance paperwork in this case would be less onerous. Don't believe the experts. GOP lawmakers have sought to undermine the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan federal agency that analyzes the fiscal effects of legislation, after it estimated that the massive tax cut package will add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years and eliminate health insurance for nearly 11 million people. Republicans have argued that these tax cuts will spur economic growth and eventually pay for themselves, something that studies have shown did not happen after they made similar arguments about their 2017 tax cut bill. They also have a very vocal critic to contend with in billionaire Elon Musk, their one-time ally who has savaged the bill as an 'abomination' for how it will balloon the deficit. Appearing Thursday on CNN, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) also dismissed the CBO's projections about the nearly 11 million people who stand to lose their health care coverage. 'Can you say for certain no one will lose their health insurance?' CNN anchor Pamela Brown asked Scott. 'You just can't look at those numbers at face value and say they're going to happen,' Scott responded. People will find jobs eventually. Republicans who are willing to at least acknowledge that cutting Medicaid will lead to people losing health insurance argue that they will instead be able to find a job and receive employer-sponsored health care. 'People are screaming and saying, 'Hey, it's kicking people off Medicaid.' It's not kicking people off Medicaid,' Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in an interview with CNBC. 'It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So, yes, we've got 10 million people that are not gonna be on Medicaid, but they then are gonna be on employer-provided health care.' That's an extremely optimistic prediction, especially since the GOP bill doesn't explicitly create any jobs itself. Even if those people who lose their Medicaid coverage are able to find a job at some point, not every employer offers health care, particularly for part-time roles. 'Few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage and none would be eligible for the premium tax credit,' CBO Director Phillip Swagel said in a letter to members of Congress on Wednesday. Prove you deserve care. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the former TV personality now running the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said people should have to 'prove that you matter' to get Medicaid coverage. During a Wednesday interview on Fox Business, Oz defended the bill's harsh, new work requirements for Medicaid. The bill requires states to deny coverage to people age 19 to 64 applying for Medicaid if they're not already working at least 80 hours a month. It also requires states to kick people off Medicaid if they can't prove they're meeting the work requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these work requirements alone will result in 5.2 million people losing their health coverage. 'We're asking that able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school,' Oz said. 'Do something that shows you have agency over your future.' If people aren't doing those things, he said, they'll have to get a job and get health insurance there because they shouldn't be covered by Medicaid anymore. 'Go out there. Do entry-level jobs. Get into the workforce. Prove that you matter,' Oz said. 'Get agency into your own life.' In fact, under the GOP bill, most people are projected to lose Medicaid coverage due to red tape, with states not automatically exempting certain people from work requirements who should be exempted. At least 2 in 3 enrollees would be kicked off Medicaid despite working or qualifying for an exemption, like having a disability or going to school, per the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Moriah Balingit, The Associated Press
