Super Bowl of Welfare

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
104,796
93,896
Most Insidious
#41
Those who were against this and got submarined by their elected representatives should join together and work to make sure a state law goes on the books that makes it so this can't happen again. Stadiums don't last forever and they'll be back with their hand out in two to three decades.
 
Likes: Rasselas
Feb 2015
16,369
8,173
sadness
#42
If your delicate feelings can't handle questions about your statements or if the mere appearance of my username sends you into paranoia inducing palpitations about being a victim of this or that, maybe you should put me on ignore.

So, are you against all corporate welfare or only when it involves sports?
oh please get over yourself.
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,951
44,679
valid location
#43
No. I'm saying that this isn't a new issue. Stadiums have been receiving public funding for decades. Nothing prevented voters from insisting on a law that would prevent this in their state back in the 1980s or 1990s. Then the more recent cases wouldn't have happened.
The economic implications of stadiums were unclear in previous decades. People thought they'd pay for themselves in increased tax revenue from increased patronage of all sorts of businesses. We now know that most of the effect is lateral--commerce moves around more than it increases. People don't spend more money, they just spend it differently--but the research on this only coalesced in the late 1990's and early 2000's. I can get you a list.

Thing is, our representatives are supposed to know these things better than the average voter. When the voters have figured it out for themselves, and show this via a referendum, overriding the people as I've complained about it is misuse of office.
 
Last edited:
Likes: BigLeRoy

Southern Dad

Former Staff
Feb 2015
40,190
8,385
Shady Dale, Georgia
#44
And if they find those investors in another city then bye bye, you no longer have a franchise. Many times an owner has moved his team because another city is willing to build them a stadium.
Ask Cleveland about losing a sports franchise to Baltimore.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro
 

Southern Dad

Former Staff
Feb 2015
40,190
8,385
Shady Dale, Georgia
#45
If the Falcons owner had to pay all the costs for the stadium, it would have been built in Alpharetta or John’s Creek, not Atlanta.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro
 

One

Former Staff
Dec 2006
11,789
10,492
----> X <----
#46
I'm not saying you are wrong or that localities have every right to say build your own damn stadium. Just saying an owner also has a right to relocate his team to some place else if they will build him a shiny new stadium. A pro team does bring one hell of a lot of money to a city in hotel bookings restaurants etc and it can be worth it to build a stadium to get one.
Not to the people who the tax burden falls on.
 
Sep 2012
3,690
3,556
California
#47
Los Angeles did fine without an NFL team for years. Now we have two. It's neither good nor bad but I sure don't like it when owners hold cities hostage for their own profit. FYI, I was a lifelong Raider fan up until they fleeced Irwindale in California for a stadium, Al was a jerk. After that, I said no more to the Silver and Black.
 
Jul 2011
55,994
10,914
NYC/Москва
#48
I don't know if I'd say they were "forced" to pay for it. They put the people in office who agreed to the plan and that's largely how democracy works.

Also, keeping the stadium is indeed a huge financial benefit. Not as big as is usually touted because they conveniently leave out things like the increased demand on things like police presence as well as the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure needed to cope with the extra traffic and pedestrians.


Myth.

Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth, Stanford expert says. ... He also says the stadium costs that NFL teams expect local governments to contribute have fallen due to increased political resistance to subsidies for sports teams.Jul 30, 2015


Sports stadiums don't spur economic growth, Stanford expert says
 
Jan 2014
16,763
4,535
California
#49
Super Bowl of Welfare


Taxpayers were forced to donate more than $700 million to the owner of Atlanta's football team, billionaire Arthur Blank, to get him to build the stadium.

Interestingly many teams actually made a profit on stadium subsidies. Literally they received a subsidy greater than the cost of the facility they built.
Mr. publius,

In many ways, it is an economic boom. Camden Yards did much to revitalize the Baltimore Waterfront. PacBell SBC AT&T Oracle Park did much to encourage redevelopment of South of Market and China Basin in San Francisco. On the other hand, I can't see how subsidizing the Meadowlands helped anybody but the Giants and Jets owners.
 
Sep 2012
3,690
3,556
California
#50
The new LA stadium (home to the Rams and Chargers) was all privately funded.
We all know the sad truth about professional sports team owners having watched Al Davis screw everyone in sight and the harrigan Georgia Frontierre move our Rams to St. Louis. At least the Lakers, Dodgers and Angels are good citizens of the community. I saw a mock up of the new stadium, its gorgeous. They built it on the old Hollywood Stakes racetrack next to the House that Jack Built.
 

Similar Discussions