David Letterman: "This is a quote from President Bush, he says that Saddam Hussein has crawfished his way out of every agreement. Knock it off Festus, you went to Yale for god sakes. ... " Friday 9/6/02
> Yes, owners/investors in sports franchises that > build 71/29 public/private financed stadiums are > just horrible. If by this you mean the stadium was 29% financed by private means, of course it is wrong. I can't believe you use this as a defense. How does the fact that it was not 100% change the fact that taxpayer money was used to help friends of the guy in power (and the guy in power as well) to help a rather small industry at the expense of program that could use the money, or the taxpayers who have to pay more money.
So everyone who responded to my earlier post is against any public financing of any sports stadiums? Just want to be sure you guys say the same thing here in the politics forum as you would in the MLS one. Personally, I'm for the public deciding yes or no on public financing.
I think you might miss the point. Letterman's saying, you have a degree from an ivy league school, quit pretending to be a yocal.
If there's public financing, the private owners should not reap the profits of the stadium when they re-sell the franchise.
You want a limit on what a potential owner can pay the old owner for a team? Why can't Tom Hicks pay whatever he wants for the Rangers? If he feels a team that gets to play at a new stadium is worth more, why can't he pay more? And what would "the profits of the stadium" be worth to a franchise? Given that 29% of that particular stadium is privately funded.
> If he feels a team that gets to play at a new > stadium is worth more, why can't he pay more? Because the increase in value comes from the new stadium, not from anything the team did. > And what would "the profits of the stadium" be > worth to a franchise? Given that 29% of that > particular stadium is privately funded. I'm sure the government would be happy with 71% of the profit.
He can pay as much as he wants, but the money has to go to the original investors (i.e. the taxpayers). By the way, your 29% number has already been called into question. Got any proof they put up 29% of the stadium cost?
OK, according to ballparks.com, the Ballpark at Arlington was in fact a 71/29 venture. That means that taxpayers should be getting $135 million plus interest and appreciation on any sale of the team since that's their original stake.
Why, the team is being sold/bought, not the stadium. The taxpayers weren't a investor in the Texas Rangers, why should they get a profit on the sale of the franchise? If the stadium is sold for however much, then the government should get its cut.
Because (and I'll speak slowly) teams generally factor in the value of the stadium when determining the value of the franchise. Stadiums come with the teams. Edit: This, by the way, was definitely the case with the Texas Rangers, which were sold for 3 times their original sale price to Tom Hicks from the Bush group (they factored in the new stadium in the purchase price). All you folks in Arlington give me a call when you get your money back.
What? Ballparks are never sold. They are payed for by the taxpayers even after the team that uses it has left or tricked the government into giving him a new one. Seatle is still paying for that dome that was turned into rubble and pollution a long time ago. Why is the government paying for the largest capital expense for such a small business anyway? It provides very few jobs - no new jobs if it is a new stadium for a team that is already there. It rarely provides taxes because teams are mostly money losers. There are wineries in the San Francisco Bay Area that have 4 times the income of NFL teams. Manufacturing or high tech industries make sports teams seem pathetic. The Rangers are more valuable now only because they now have more luxury boxes they can sell. Because those boxes were largely payed for by the governemnt, the government should get the profit that results from them.
Stadiums are not always owned by the teams. DC United/MLS does not own RFK stadium, for example. So you're saying that Hicks now owns 100% of the Ballpark in Arlington? I seriously doubt it. Oh yeah, I want my money back from any taxes collected that was given to someone else through welfare.
And they didn't sell DC United and jack up the price because of RFK, did they? Well he sure paid for it and the Bush group sure profited from it. If he doesn't own it, he's pretty stupid. Yeah, 'cause that's exactly the same thing. Doofus.
Thats your opinion, and I respect it, you can vote "no" anytime its up to you. And please write it in any of the MLS stadium threads, we'll talk about it there. Theres a whole "E-mail campaign for Harrison Stadium" thread, why dont you argue with the taxpayers there? They're actively petitioning for public financing. Thats a joke. Taxpayers should've known that the government wouldn't get the profit from the sale of the team. And I believe they did.
Mr. "Stadiums come with teams", the owner(s) of DC United cannot sell RFK. But I'm sure they would sell DCU for as much as they can, if you call it "jacking up the price" go ahead. Well he sure paid for it and the Bush group sure profited from it. If he doesn't own it, he's pretty stupid. Please document where he paid for 100% of the Ballpark in Arlington. Yeah, 'cause that's exactly the same thing. Doofus. [/QUOTE] Oh you're right, they get to go to a real nice baseball stadium and I get nothing.
> why dont you argue with the taxpayers there? I am certainly against it. But I have enough forums to read. > Thats a joke. > > Taxpayers should've known that the government > wouldn't get the profit from the sale of the team. It is a joke because something like this should never get the dignity of being on the ballot in the first place. Is there any other industry where people vote on providing large capital costs to benefit a single private company? It is nothing less than communism. And besides that, the voters have no say in how the bill is written. Why don't they get a choice in voting how much property taxes are being paid, or what cut of ticket prices the city gets? They get a crappy deal or none at all. So it is not democracy either.
Sure there are. But if you choose the wrong one, you and perhaps your family are not heard from again.
Personally, living in NJ I've had it with high property taxes. Screw the teams. Let them be whores and move to some place stupid enough to build them a new stadium. The idea that taxpayers should foot the bill for these businesses is a bad sick joke. They even are exempt from antitrust actions by the government. They have a real sweet deal and many want more. Honestly, the return in terms of corporate taxes is minimal. I'd like to see the Metros get a new stadium, but not if it's coming out of my tax dollar.