24 November 2008

Your tax money at work... naming the NY Mets stadium

Citigroup/Citibank was just granted a bailout using our tax money. They will now be able to follow through on their commitment to spend $20,000,000 per year for the next 20 years ($400 million) to have their name on the baseball stadium for the NY Mets.

That's our money. To put their name on a stadium. I can't be the only person outraged by this. So why does the Bush administration allow this to happen? Can't they just say NO!??


  1. Is there any other advertising that Citi-bank uses that you don't like?
    I have no idea what name recognition is worth?
    I don't understand the outrage.
    Outrage about the government bailing out any of these institutions I understand.
    Naming a Baseball park may be money well spent.
    They have to clear a bad name somehow.

    BTW you have a great Blog.

  2. I completely understand the outrage. It's the same as when the AIG officials went out to that resort in CA after we bailed them out. I also don't like the Mary J Blige commercials for Citibank. I'm of the opinion that if you are in this much trouble that you need billions then you need to stop doing things that are costing you money. Who hasn't heard of Citibank? It's not like they need the name recognition.

  3. gbradley--the stadiums all over the country had perfectly good names before businesses decided to pay to have their names used. Long before Citi, I have resented this practice. Super commercialism is crass, and a waste of money for a near-bankrupt company.

  4. I agree that the naming of civic facilities is unwise policy - but why is it the fault of the Bush Administration that Citi has a pre-existing contractual obligation.
    One of the reasons that I favor the bankruptcy approach for some of the bailout candidates (automakers, for example) is that the bankruptcy judge does have the power to alter contractual relationships. The airlines have been using bankruptcy courts for years as a way to void their union or pension contracts.

  5. No one is blaming the Bush administration. In fact, you're the first to mention Bush. From what I can see, we are all outraged at the bank and their policies which has put them in a situation where the government has to bail them out. I'm blaming the company for their use of their finances and their lack of concern that we are now paying for. Further more, if bankruptcy judges have the power to alter contractual relationships, then why can't the Citibank contract be altered with the ball field?

  6. Jennifer - the Bush administration was mentioned in the original post -
    Bankruptcy judges have powers not available in other venues.
    Unilateral modification of private contracts is not something I would like to see as a government pastime.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...