OT: Publicly Funded Sports Stadiums

[LGR4GM]

In yet a stunning... in yet a no way surprising move the Braves new stadium will cost taxpayers 400million dollars. This means property taxes are going up.  So with the Bills starting to look at building a new stadium, Pegula being worth 5Billion Dollars, the NFL being worth an estimated 45-50billion dollars, do you support any pro sports team from using taxpayer money to fund its new stadium? 

 

Discuss

 

 

 

The Braves’ ballpark is already a new low in the sordid game of publicly financed stadiums, but maybe this can be an instructive moment. Every time a city or county funds a stadium through hotel taxes or by dipping into a general fund, local politicians and team cheerleaders proudly say that residents won’t see their own taxes go up. This is a damned lie.

 

http://deadspin.com/cobb-county-needs-to-raise-taxes-to-pay-for-public-park-1780832038

Edited June 7, 2016 by LGR4GM

[Alaska Darin]

I don't.  The country's infrastructure is crumbling around us and the NFL wants multi-billion dollar entertainment complexes built for them that will be used 10 days a year.  I have no issue with the taxpayer funding infrastructure improvements around these buildings (appropriate roads, drainage, etc) but giving these incredibly rich people free tax payer money while our schools and roads are falling further behind is ludicrous.

[darksabre]

I would like an option for "it depends". 

[Sabel79]

It really is insidious.  Just another spoke in the ever spinning wheel that diverts tax dollars into the pockets of the already wealthy.  After Jeffery Loria took Miami to the cleaners over the monstrosity of a baseball stadium they built in Miami, the well-known boondoggle in Glendale, and on and on... I struggle to comprehend how this can keep happening.  But it does, and it will.  The deadspin article quoted above asks if this can be a wake up call.  Doubt it.  The turkeys will continue to vote for Thanksgiving.

 

Have the benefits to the various communities involved ever outweighed the costs? 

[That Aud Smell]

I don't.  The country's infrastructure is crumbling around us and the NFL wants multi-billion dollar entertainment complexes built for them that will be used 10 days a year.  I have no issue with the taxpayer funding infrastructure improvements around these buildings (appropriate roads, drainage, etc) but giving these incredibly rich people free tax payer money while our schools and roads are falling further behind is ludicrous.

 

Amen, Amen.

 

There's a role for the public fisc to play in these stadium developments, but what's going on now is nothing short of crony capitalism and/or corporate welfare/give-aways.

 

It cannot be reasonably debated that the stadium developments are anything but massive L for the communities that fund them. When's the last time you saw any headline or whisper (credible, anyway) to the effect of "Taxpayers Reaping Benefits of Supporting Stadium Development with Public Money."

 

Man, that has never happened ever. Ever.

 

The NFL does not give a about you, or me, or anything else other than growing. Growing its brand. Growing its viewing audience. Growing its revenue streams. Growing its wealth. And stadiums -- paid for largely by public money (however structured) -- are one of the surest ways for that exclusive club of billionaires to grow their bottom lines. the NFL with a broken wine bottle.

[LGR4GM]

I would like an option for "it depends". 

Make an argument for "it depends" and I could add it.

[darksabre]

Make an argument for "it depends" and I could add it.

I would need to see economic impact studies for individual locations to make a decision on whether a publicly funded stadium is a good or bad thing. We know how important the Bills and the Ralph are to people in OP. Imagine the economic impact of that stadium leaving?

 

I think there are arguments to be made for and against publicly funded stadiums. But we know that communities find sports to be important, regardless of economic cost. Think about all the money people have willfully given to bad Bills teams over the last decade.

 

Like it or not, publicly funded stadiums, and the teams who get great lease deals on them, often have more meaning to the community that outweighs the perceived negative impact of public dollars being taken from people.

 

Pro sports may be raking us over the coals with publicly funded stadiums, and maybe we're not coming out ahead in every situation, but we don't seem to want to stop them. We're too emotionally attached to our teams.

[That Aud Smell]

@d4rk:

 

I guess that's the question, then.

 

Do our elected officials simply carry out the apparent desires of a vocal segment of the population (even if it's most of us, it ain't everybody) and accept a bad (or even awful) deal with the local pro sports franchise because the people can't do without their beloved team(s)?

 

Or are our elected officials obliged to exercise independent judgment and perhaps even defy the apparent will of the electorate if they believe that the local pro sports franchise is looking to fleece the public fisc without offering anything of nearly fair or equal value in return?

 

Have stadium financing deals been made part of referenda in the past?

[darksabre]

@d4rk:

 

I guess that's the question, then.

 

Do our elected officials simply carry out the apparent desires of a vocal segment of the population (even if it's most of us, it ain't everybody) and accept a bad (or even awful) deal with the local pro sports franchise because the people can't do without their beloved team(s)?

 

Or are our elected officials obliged to exercise independent judgment and perhaps even defy the apparent will of the electorate if they believe that the local pro sports franchise is looking to fleece the public fisc without offering anything of nearly fair or equal value in return?

 

Have stadium financing deals been made part of referenda in the past?

I really don't know the answer to any of these things. I just think there's a lot of support for sports teams as part of regional identity, and publicly funded stadiums end up being part of that. 

[LGR4GM]

I would need to see economic impact studies for individual locations to make a decision on whether a publicly funded stadium is a good or bad thing. We know how important the Bills and the Ralph are to people in OP. Imagine the economic impact of that stadium leaving?

 

I think there are arguments to be made for and against publicly funded stadiums. But we know that communities find sports to be important, regardless of economic cost. Think about all the money people have willfully given to bad Bills teams over the last decade.

 

Like it or not, publicly funded stadiums, and the teams who get great lease deals on them, often have more meaning to the community that outweighs the perceived negative impact of public dollars being taken from people.

 

Pro sports may be raking us over the coals with publicly funded stadiums, and maybe we're not coming out ahead in every situation, but we don't seem to want to stop them. We're too emotionally attached to our teams.

I will add it but I disagree with the economic argument. The Ralph hosts what? 8 games a year. If I built a 500 million dollar aquarium in OP it would make more money for OP and the county than a new football stadium and its 8 games a year. 

Part of my anti-economic portion especially for the Bills is that the NFL is one of if not the richest sports league in the world and our owner is one of the 100 most wealthy people on the planet. Let them pay for it and if they respect the community and how much it means to them, their fans and customers, they will have no problem forking over the money. 

[Eleven]

Washington is already considering replacing Fedex Field.  That stadium is not yet 20 years old. It is younger than the FNC.  They consider it to be obsolete.  Let me tell you, it is worlds more modern and luxurious than the Ralph is.  It has cigar rooms, FFS.  It would be insane for public money to be involved in a replacement.

 

The Ralph will turn 50 soon enough.  It truly is obsolete.  I would not mind if some state and some county money were invested in a replacement.  50 years seems like an appropriate life cycle for such a thing.

[nfreeman]

I think the "it depends" option might fairly be rephrased as "if the team is going to leave unless the public pays for a new stadium, then yes I will go along with it, but otherwise no."

 

Because that's really the question here, right? Without that threat, no one would support spending public money on stadiums. So the question should be "are you OK with an increase in your property, sales and income taxes -- or would you rather lose your team?"

 

If your position is "no public funding for stadiums, but I don't want to lose my team," you haven't taken a position. It's the same as saying "I want the Sabres to sign Stamkos but I don't want them to give him more than $5MM per year."

[Eleven]

I think the "it depends" option might fairly be rephrased as "if the team is going to leave unless the public pays for a new stadium, then yes I will go along with it, but otherwise no."

 

Because that's really the question here, right? Without that threat, no one would support spending public money on stadiums. So the question should be "are you OK with an increase in your property, sales and income taxes -- or would you rather lose your team?"

 

Because if your position is "no public funding for stadiums, but I don't want to lose my team," you haven't taken a position. It's the same as saying "I want the Sabres to sign Stamkos but I don't want them to give him more than $5MM per year."

 

 

I think both parts of this paragraph are wrong.  First, maybe not in Buffalo so much, but there are plenty of reasons why cities want stadiums.  They're landmarks, they bring in concerts and tourists, etc.  I mean, a stadium is considerably less a waste of money than something like the St. Louis Arch or the Seattle Space Needle, neither of which were built under threat of anything, right?

 

Second, there are other ways to fund it.  Hospitality taxes are often used for that purpose.

[Stoner]

I think the "it depends" option might fairly be rephrased as "if the team is going to leave unless the public pays for a new stadium, then yes I will go along with it, but otherwise no."

 

Because that's really the question here, right? Without that threat, no one would support spending public money on stadiums. So the question should be "are you OK with an increase in your property, sales and income taxes -- or would you rather lose your team?"

 

If your position is "no public funding for stadiums, but I don't want to lose my team," you haven't taken a position. It's the same as saying "I want the Sabres to sign Stamkos but I don't want them to give him more than $5MM per year."

Are you suggesting that Pegula would move the Bills without taxpayer dollars for a new stadium? Are you speculating? Do you have a link?

[nfreeman]

I think both parts of this paragraph are wrong.  First, maybe not in Buffalo so much, but there are plenty of reasons why cities want stadiums.  They're landmarks, they bring in concerts and tourists, etc.  I mean, a stadium is considerably less a waste of money than something like the St. Louis Arch or the Seattle Space Needle, neither of which were built under threat of anything, right?

 

Second, there are other ways to fund it.  Hospitality taxes are often used for that purpose.

 

What city has built a football stadium without a team?

 

What city other than KC has built a hockey/basketball arena without a team?

 

What city has spent large amounts of public money on either a stadium or an arena without increasing the taxes I cited?

Are you suggesting that Pegula would move the Bills without taxpayer dollars for a new stadium? Are you speculating? Do you have a link?

 

I am neither "speculating that" nor "speculating whether."

 

I am simply pointing out that the question is pretty much meaningless without considering the consequences of a "no" response.

 

FWIW, I don't think TP will hold the city/state hostage for a fat public contribution to a stadium project, although I expect that there will be some public money as part of it (and for the record I think the Ralph is great and I would greatly prefer no new stadium).

[Taro T]

What city has built a football stadium without a team?

 

What city other than KC has built a hockey/basketball arena without a team?

 

What city has spent large amounts of public money on either a stadium or an arena without increasing the taxes I cited?

1. San Antonio. St. Petersburg (though pretty sure "Thunderdome" was built w/ intentions of landing a baseball team rather than football)

 

2. Didn't OKC build their stadium prior to the Thunder agreeing to move there?

[beerme1]

 

 

What city other than KC has built a hockey/basketball arena without a team?

 

What city has spent large amounts of public money on either a stadium or an arena without increasing the taxes I cited?

 

 

 

 

Hamilton Copps Coliseum. Still waiting for that hockey team like KC is.

[Eleven]

1. San Antonio. St. Petersburg (though pretty sure "Thunderdome" was built w/ intentions of landing a baseball team rather than football)

 

2. Didn't OKC build their stadium prior to the Thunder agreeing to move there?

 

Don't even have to go that far.  What about UB?  That stadium was built before there was any commitment to D-I.  Or Exhibition Stadium in Toronto?

Edited June 7, 2016 by Eleven

[Radar]

Simply stated......NO! I'm tired of subsidized billionaires and their money grabbing league threatening to leave. Then Roger take your team.

[LGR4GM]

I think the "it depends" option might fairly be rephrased as "if the team is going to leave unless the public pays for a new stadium, then yes I will go along with it, but otherwise no."

 

Because that's really the question here, right? Without that threat, no one would support spending public money on stadiums. So the question should be "are you OK with an increase in your property, sales and income taxes -- or would you rather lose your team?"

 

If your position is "no public funding for stadiums, but I don't want to lose my team," you haven't taken a position. It's the same as saying "I want the Sabres to sign Stamkos but I don't want them to give him more than $5MM per year."

I am leaving depends deliberately vague. " in some case the spending is justified" that is where you can include whatever justification you want, whether that be economic or in your example because the team has personal value to the league.

 

 

 

In my view the sports leagues make a ton of money so if they want to move a successful franchise because the fanbase won't spend hundreds of millions more for a product they already support that is their business. For example the Bills have been supported by the fans for decades but the team and league won't support the fans by building a new stadium themselves, they need public money or they move, that's them not caring about me or the money or emotion I have invested in the team so goodbye. Same would go for my beloved Sabres. There's more important things in life than sports. 

 

If I recall correctly didn't St Louis refuse to give the Rams money for a new stadium? Am I remembering this incorrectly? 

Edited June 7, 2016 by LGR4GM

[That Aud Smell]

50 years seems like an appropriate life cycle for such a thing.

 

I think that's fair. OTOH, they've spent a goodly amount of money upgrading the place over the years.

 

If your position is "no public funding for stadiums, but I don't want to lose my team," you haven't taken a position. 

 

Don't disagree with this either. The public is going to be asked to pony up. My position would be: "I want a defensible and arguably fair deal when it comes to public funding, and failing that I am okay with losing my team."

 

I mean, a stadium is considerably less a waste of money than something like the St. Louis Arch or the Seattle Space Needle, neither of which were built under threat of anything, right?

 

It is? They are? I'm not so sure. Truly apples and oranges, in any case.

 

If I recall correctly didn't St Louis refuse to give the Rams money for a new stadium? Am I remembering this incorrectly? 

 

Maybe initially, but eventually I recall that they rolled over and gave the owner everything he'd asked for -- and they still moved. 

[That Aud Smell]

Second, there are other ways to fund it.  Hospitality taxes are often used for that purpose.

 

I dunno, man. Taxes are taxes.

 

It's far from nothing when a market like Buffalo has to tack on that sort of thing onto its hotel costs. 

[PromoTheRobot]

Back in the late 90's the mayor of Manchester NH wanted to build a 10K arena. Despite the usual opposition it was built at a cost of $68MM, paid for mostly through bonds and hotel taxes. It's home to the former AHL, now ECHL Manchester Monarchs, as well as numerous other sports, concerts and events. It's become a centerpiece of the city, influencing the decision to build a baseball stadium in 2005 that attracted AA Eastern League ball. In fact it's been so successful it's managed to pay off most of the bonds on time, though the last few years attendance for hockey has fallen off. This is one instance where an arena project proved to be mostly a good thing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Wireless_Arena

[That Aud Smell]

There are exceptions to every rule, I imagine.

 

$68M seems pretty manageable. I reckon that'd be a little shy of ~$100M in today's dollars.

 

As it happens, I think $100M is also around what it would cost to build another St. Louis Arch in today's economy. (I used an online inflation calculator for some rough math.)

 

But these NFL robber barons, man -- they're playing a whole different sort of game.

[TheAud]

I will add it but I disagree with the economic argument. The Ralph hosts what? 8 games a year. If I built a 500 million dollar aquarium in OP it would make more money for OP and the county than a new football stadium and its 8 games a year. 

Part of my anti-economic portion especially for the Bills is that the NFL is one of if not the richest sports league in the world and our owner is one of the 100 most wealthy people on the planet. Let them pay for it and if they respect the community and how much it means to them, their fans and customers, they will have no problem forking over the money. 

Come on man, he's only #380 per Forbes.  :doh:

Seriously though I am OK with funding for ancillary public services like roads, utilities, maybe some parking that can be used for other events, etc. to support a large private investment in the community.  Maybe even part of the stadium if it were somehow truly multi-use and could be utilized say 40-50% of the days of the year by various organizations or functions. But for a true NFL palace that gets used maybe 5% of the year, no, the NFL and the owner can pay for that. 

Back in the late 90's the mayor of Manchester NH wanted to build a 10K arena. Despite the usual opposition it was built at a cost of $68MM, paid for mostly through bonds and hotel taxes. It's home to the former AHL, now ECHL Manchester Monarchs, as well as numerous other sports, concerts and events. It's become a centerpiece of the city, influencing the decision to build a baseball stadium in 2005 that attracted AA Eastern League ball. In fact it's been so successful it's managed to pay off most of the bonds on time, though the last few years attendance for hockey has fallen off. This is one instance where an arena project proved to be mostly a good thing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Wireless_Arena

I saw Paul Simon there in 2008. Nice arena. I like this example but it's not the same thing as an NFL stadium (and I don't think you are saying it is).

Edited June 7, 2016 by Sakman