But after Chisholm’s first move was to cut payroll, will he really want his second move as owner to block the WNBA from moving to Boston? Seems like you’d really be tempting the fate of the basketball karma gods there. 6/6
The final piece is the Chisholm-Pags relationship. It’s no secret that things seemed tense publicly between Pags/Wyc. It’s obvious that Chisholm doesn’t have the $$ to also buy the Sun right now. Will he have the capital to pay $1B in 2032? Maybe. 5/6
Now, why would the league want to also depress team values? Because they’re in CBA negotiations and the players are asking for a cut of all franchise sales. Players do have ownership in the rival off-season league, Unrivaled. And they see these high valuations and want a cut. 4/6
But it’s important to note that even that TV deal underperformed expectations compared to the overperforming NBA deal. They were agreed to as a “package deal,” but what it really meant was the WNBA took a lower number so the NBA could reap the windfall. How? Because the NBA owns the WNBA. 3/6
The idea that because the league has struggled in the past financially that they need to proceed cautiously is pretty crazy. They have a huge TV deal coming that will make all the teams profitable, even with a new CBA. 2/6
The Globe had a few head-scratching stories today, but this one takes the cake. The league should probably update its outdated Talking Points that the Globe is parroting here. 1/6
Too soon to say. I’d be surprised if the NBA changes its position, but perhaps an overwhelming tide of public opinion, a push from the players union, and the bad optics of white billionaires holding back an American Indian tribe from cashing in could sway things.
If I were the players or fans, I’d be furious. This league has been continually forced to the side in favor of the NBA’s best interests (even arena dates, etc), and it’s not going to change for the better as long as the NBA is in charge. 5/5
It’s not a coincidence that this is happening with the first franchise to not be owned by an NBA owner. It also happens to be the first WNBA franchise that turned a profit. They were good stewards during some tough times for the league, and now the league is strong-arming them. 4/5
How does the NBA continue this beneficial cycle? By keeping the WNBA teams in the hands of NBA owners. If the Sun are sold to the Houston owner, and the Boston team goes to Chisholm in 2033, that’s two more NBA owners of WNBA teams. And the WNBA continues to get the short stick. 3/5
The WNBA took a below-market TV deal last year because they partnered with the NBA as an add-on to their deal. To most observers, the WNBA undersold their rights while the NBA oversold its rights. So, the billionaire men profit in the NBA, while the WNBA rookies still make five-figure salaries. 2/5
In case folks aren’t paying attention to it all, the league wants the Sun to go to an established NBA owner in Houston. And keep the Boston market in 2033 for the Celtics owner who right now doesn’t even have enough $$ to close the NBA deal, let alone get a WNBA team. Why? Money and control. 1/5
Boston is stepping up with more than 900 affordable homeownership units approved and in the pipeline. But we can’t get shovels in the ground on them without help from the state’s Commonwealth Builder.
If you care about fixing the housing crisis and stabilizing our communities, see below.
A $110M investment to unlock over 30,000 unbuilt housing units in Boston! This initiative expands homeownership opportunities, supports BHA mixed-income developments, and leverages state partnerships—all aimed at building generational wealth and strengthening our neighborhoods. #HousingForAll
This is troubling. Not to mention the truck pollution that this doesn’t solve.
www.wgbh.org/news/local/2...
And legislature had a chance to at least double the seniors tax exemption, but they let that languish too.
Yes - it’s a brutal gut punch to all homeowners, but especially seniors. The Senate had the option to give homeowners a break, but they didn’t. 7%+ tax hikes every year since FY19. It’s time to give the residents a break. And yes, many businesses would’ve still seen a decreased tax bill.
Again, the city is in strong fiscal health. Watch any of the 30+ budget hearings from this year with more than 100 hours of questions/testimony (Available on YouTube). It's illuminating and fully transparent - refreshing these days.
The real only fiscally troubling part of the budget is the runaway police OT. Now, whether the solution is contract reforms on court OT, more cops, dynamic shift scheduling, etc., your mileage may vary. But - clocking in at over $100M in FY24, police OT is the city's financial Achilles' heel.
I don't foresee a nine-figure surplus in FY25, but there will be a healthy one. The city budgets very conservatively. Again, this is in contrast to the state (and I don't blame the state as their revenue mix is so varied and volatile).
"The numbers don't lie," and thus saying the city needs to be "fiscally responsible" is bending the truth.
Let's look at the numbers:
$192M surplus in FY23.
$282M surplus in non-property-tax revenue in FY24.
We always have a surplus - and recently a nine-figure one.
Ultimately, however, it can't be paid for by ANY of the alternatives the Sen. calls for, it simply shifts the burden elsewhere. The tax shift was using rainy-day funds (free cash) for the small business grants, but it wouldn't (or maybe couldn't even) pass into that for the exemption.
The main fear would be that the landlords would pass the tax increase onto tenants. I don't think that would happen with corporate landlords (those apt buildings seem to set rents by a demand algorithim that wouldn't be affected by a tax increase). But I think small landlords might pass it down.
The increased exemption benefits the average homeowner about the same as the tax shift - but instead of increasing the burden onto the commercial sector, it increases it onto landlords. Not an awful idea - but a tough one to ram through in mid-Dec as you'd want some protections similar to tax shift.
Similar to a tax shift, the city needs a home-rule petition to increase the residential exemption to 40%. Because the Senate has been off for four months, that's not an easy option to pursue. I do think it's a good one to examine, but there are downsides (same as tax shift) and no guarantee to pass.
Boston's net state aid ($121M - tbf warped because of charter school $$) is low compared to the past two decades. Two decades ago, it accounted for nearly 30% of the city's revenue. That seems like a fair amount considering how much the state benefits from the city through income and sales tax.
"Small businesses would have suffered just as much, if not more" is wrong. The final compromise included an increase in small business grants and increase in personal property tax exemption. Those two parts would help small businesses and they are likely worse off without them.
The final legislation included a floor (41% tax burden) so that homeowners couldn't see too high of a tax drop. The initial measure (which only passed the Council with 8 votes) didn't have that and was indeed drastic. The compromise was far more measured.
If the biz tax shift passed, the res. rate would've been a 5% hike. Not 9% as written. It was a simple as that. If the legislation passed the Senate, homeowners would've seen a 5% hike (10% accelerated); thanks to the Senate blocking it, homeowners will see a 10.5% hike (21% accelerated).
"City officials escalated their rhetoric." Actually, they didn't. They revised it downward from the 33% accelerated to 28% accelerated. Additionally, the entire article conflates the accelerated with the normal tax rate. Again, both sides are guilty of doing this.