5 ms·

When I lived in Southern California the NFL and its boosters were continually trying to get the taxpayers to build a stadium complex. The arguments always went

by tsotha 13y ago

When I lived in Southern California the NFL and its boosters were continually trying to get the taxpayers to build a stadium complex. The arguments always went something like "There will be X new tax revenue and Y new jobs." And that's probably true. But if you took the same land and used the same money to build a big shopping mall your X and Y would both be much bigger. Every time local governments did a study that compared a new stadium to just about any other use of the land the alternative was better. I'm not opposed to stadiums, per se, but professional sports teams are businesses and as such need to pay their own expenses.

TwoBit 13y ago
I feel like the reason cities court sports teams to their possible economic detriment is due to the selfishness of the city leaders. Who wouldn't want to be mayor of a city with the Super Bowl?
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  Such as the mayor of East Rutherford? He seems to have gotten bypassed.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    That part of New Jersey is an exception -- it's a swampy place that was nowhereville until the 60s, when the advent of containerization pushed most of the shipping traffic from the Port of NY/NJ to NJ. Between people and companies fleeing the high costs of New York, enough money flowed in to build stadiums, elevated highways and buildings in the swamp. It's a regional thing, nobody even knows who the mayor of east Rutherford is.
brc 13y ago
I'm not opposed to stadiums either, but I am opposed to the lies and distortions invoked to validate their construction. I would much prefer it if the politicians just came out and said 'we're going to spend your taxes on a great big stadium, because we will get to open it and name it, and you, the voters, like bread and circuses'. Wrapping tax-spends up as some sort of business case just muddies the waters for people when a real business case needs to be analysed. Perhaps the answer is that, for a jurisdiction, each time there is an election, a multiple choice question could be at the bottom. We wish to take one of the below actions, please indicate your preference: 1) increase tax by x and build stadium 2) increase tax by y and build hospital 3) increase tax by z and build new water reservoir 4) decrease tax by x and you decide what you want to do with it My remark is flippant but we seem to be entering a strange world where people believe jobs and taxes can only be created through the application of tax monies to politicians ideas.
the_ancient 13y ago
There is one One Truth above all Else If Running a Stadium was profitable, the NFL or the Teams would do it, Since they do not want to touch the stadium with a 10 foot pole, then you know it will not be profitable
- avn2109 13y ago
  This is really insightful. Why didn't I think of this?
- noarchy 13y ago
  That, or they also know that they can offload the cost onto the cities whose governments are willing to pay for it, instead. In such cases, why would the teams spend the money themselves?
- chaz 13y ago
  Sorry, this makes no sense. Economic impact is measured in revenue to local businesses. Unless the NFL/team owns all of the local retail, restaurants, tolls, parking lots, tourism and associated taxes, there is no way the NFL/team could ever realize that revenue. We can debate the actual revenue impact (check out the "profitability" of the Olympics: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/23/157224211/olympic-economics-the-pre-games-show http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/23/157224211/olympic-...), but the standard you propose is incorrect.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    The economic impact of a stadium or other large public works project is based in calculators that are usually published by the state economic development agency. It's more of an art than a science, and like any projection made over a period of 30 years, they rarely hit their numbers. Public financing of something like a stadium or arena does three things: eliminates a tax liability for the teams/other users, eliminates risk, as the local taxing authority ultimately owns the debt, and keeps the labor and trade unions happy, and stadium projects keep the guys on the payroll. Ultimately, all of people in a taxing district bear the burden of these giveaways. If I could apply for a full property tax exemption in NY, the $6,000/year I pay for my modest home would be used for capital improvements like a kitchen, solar panels and siding. That would give some construction dudes jobs, and generate more value. The government easily spent $100m on Super Bowl security. That's a lot of money spent better elsewhere or not at all.
protomyth 13y ago
I'm not opposed to stadiums, but I am opposed to tax payer funded or loaned stadiums. I am also opposed to use of eminent domain to take land for any non-infrastructer project. I figure if the team doesn't want to pay for it then get a "buy a brick" drive going and see if it funds the stadium.
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  I like Gregg Easterbrook's take: if the stadium is built with public money, anything that takes place inside the stadium cannot be eligible for copyright protection.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    That would pretty much end all concerts in that stadium, and almost every conference.
    - HelloMcFly 13y ago
      The point is that the owners would quickly, very quickly, decide they don't need the public's money anymore.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        By wasting more tax payer money making examples, I am pretty sure that solution is worse than the problem.
        HelloMcFly 13y ago
        From where I'm sitting, forcing those that enrich themselves from publicly-funded stadiums to shoulder the costs (if not all of them, than substantially more of them) is better than extorting communities to pay excessive amounts for dubious returns. Which one of those is wasting taxpayer money, again? You could tweak the idea however you like. Whatever portion of the stadium is publicly funded could entitle the community to a matching portion of revenue generated from stadium events, for example. At any rate, the idea (from both Easterbrook and myself) is more philosophical and humorous commentary.

by tsotha 13y ago

TwoBit 13y ago

I feel like the reason cities court sports teams to their possible economic detriment is due to the selfishness of the city leaders. Who wouldn't want to be mayor of a city with the Super Bowl?

jamesbritt 13y ago
Such as the mayor of East Rutherford? He seems to have gotten bypassed.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  That part of New Jersey is an exception -- it's a swampy place that was nowhereville until the 60s, when the advent of containerization pushed most of the shipping traffic from the Port of NY/NJ to NJ. Between people and companies fleeing the high costs of New York, enough money flowed in to build stadiums, elevated highways and buildings in the swamp. It's a regional thing, nobody even knows who the mayor of east Rutherford is.

brc 13y ago

I'm not opposed to stadiums either, but I am opposed to the lies and distortions invoked to validate their construction. I would much prefer it if the politicians just came out and said 'we're going to spend your taxes on a great big stadium, because we will get to open it and name it, and you, the voters, like bread and circuses'. Wrapping tax-spends up as some sort of business case just muddies the waters for people when a real business case needs to be analysed. Perhaps the answer is that, for a jurisdiction, each time there is an election, a multiple choice question could be at the bottom. We wish to take one of the below actions, please indicate your preference: 1) increase tax by x and build stadium 2) increase tax by y and build hospital 3) increase tax by z and build new water reservoir 4) decrease tax by x and you decide what you want to do with it My remark is flippant but we seem to be entering a strange world where people believe jobs and taxes can only be created through the application of tax monies to politicians ideas.

the_ancient 13y ago

There is one One Truth above all Else If Running a Stadium was profitable, the NFL or the Teams would do it, Since they do not want to touch the stadium with a 10 foot pole, then you know it will not be profitable

avn2109 13y ago
This is really insightful. Why didn't I think of this?
noarchy 13y ago
That, or they also know that they can offload the cost onto the cities whose governments are willing to pay for it, instead. In such cases, why would the teams spend the money themselves?
chaz 13y ago
Sorry, this makes no sense. Economic impact is measured in revenue to local businesses. Unless the NFL/team owns all of the local retail, restaurants, tolls, parking lots, tourism and associated taxes, there is no way the NFL/team could ever realize that revenue. We can debate the actual revenue impact (check out the "profitability" of the Olympics: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/23/157224211/olympic-economics-the-pre-games-show http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/23/157224211/olympic-...), but the standard you propose is incorrect.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  The economic impact of a stadium or other large public works project is based in calculators that are usually published by the state economic development agency. It's more of an art than a science, and like any projection made over a period of 30 years, they rarely hit their numbers. Public financing of something like a stadium or arena does three things: eliminates a tax liability for the teams/other users, eliminates risk, as the local taxing authority ultimately owns the debt, and keeps the labor and trade unions happy, and stadium projects keep the guys on the payroll. Ultimately, all of people in a taxing district bear the burden of these giveaways. If I could apply for a full property tax exemption in NY, the $6,000/year I pay for my modest home would be used for capital improvements like a kitchen, solar panels and siding. That would give some construction dudes jobs, and generate more value. The government easily spent $100m on Super Bowl security. That's a lot of money spent better elsewhere or not at all.

protomyth 13y ago

I'm not opposed to stadiums, but I am opposed to tax payer funded or loaned stadiums. I am also opposed to use of eminent domain to take land for any non-infrastructer project. I figure if the team doesn't want to pay for it then get a "buy a brick" drive going and see if it funds the stadium.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
I like Gregg Easterbrook's take: if the stadium is built with public money, anything that takes place inside the stadium cannot be eligible for copyright protection.
- protomyth 13y ago
  That would pretty much end all concerts in that stadium, and almost every conference.
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    The point is that the owners would quickly, very quickly, decide they don't need the public's money anymore.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      By wasting more tax payer money making examples, I am pretty sure that solution is worse than the problem.
      - HelloMcFly 13y ago
        From where I'm sitting, forcing those that enrich themselves from publicly-funded stadiums to shoulder the costs (if not all of them, than substantially more of them) is better than extorting communities to pay excessive amounts for dubious returns. Which one of those is wasting taxpayer money, again? You could tweak the idea however you like. Whatever portion of the stadium is publicly funded could entitle the community to a matching portion of revenue generated from stadium events, for example. At any rate, the idea (from both Easterbrook and myself) is more philosophical and humorous commentary.