http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dougbandow/db20040927.shtml This is a fun article, if for no other reason than you get to read a bigwig at the Cato Institute quote Marion Barry. But government-subsidized pro sports stadiums; yes, even the new Fire & FC Dallas stadiums are Welfare For Billionaires. MLS stadiums are less heinous than NFL/MLB stadiums, but that, at least to me; and call Godwin's Law on me if you will, falls under the Mussolini Made The Trains Run On Time doctrine.
Of course they are, but the argument is that a decent collection of the millionaires that live in them will live in the same city they play. As a result, a decent amount of this welfar returns to the city in the form of employees who all work there. Not to mention that it is a business which also purchases products. Also, don't forget the biggest gravy, to bribe the cities the sports organizations make promises of All-Star games and/or Superbowls, etc. That in turn brings in serious revenue for the city. So it is good for the economy of the city (how good no one every really knows). Now that being said, don't ask me why the city doesn't get the "naming" rights for the stadium (or at least the portion of the bill they paid). Oh yeah, greed. The threat of losing your sports team causes the people to vote for the stadiums. Typically costs to build the stadium are taken out of increased taxes on hotels and rental cars. As a result, it is corporate welfare provided to billionaires that people vote to fund through taxing tourists. It is extremely convuluted.
Considering the amount of government welfare, loans, bailouts, tax breaks, etc... that many major corporations receive every year, taxpayer subsidized stadiums are just a drop in the bucket. They just happen to be more visible and people actually get to vote on those versus many of the handouts that Congress grants each year. I'll take direct democracy for stadiums, the people know what they are getting into. Although I still resent Pat Bowlen for suggesting that the Broncos would move from Denver without a new stadium, then extorting the naming rights to Invesco. BARF!! Just look at the airline industry right now, that is a government welfare case and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
True enough, Malaga. Airline subsidies are welfare, too. But to me, airline subsidies are a little less heinous because the money trickles down to baggage handlers, unionized machinists at Boeing, shareholders, etc. Htown, you'd know more about this than I would. But I read that the Dallas Crackheads, errr, Cowboys bid for a tax on hotels & car rentals was killed by Mary Kay. Mary Kay threatened to stop holding their conventions in Dallas if taxes went up. Now Mary Kay; that's a Billion Dollar Colossus that you don't mess around with..........
It is just the pre-emptive action towards the real need for some re-regulation. Baseball in DC again? I guess thanks to welfare.
I believe stadiums are justified by the fact that they bring a great deal of money into the community and can truly change the makeup of the neighborhood in which they are located. The prime example in DC is the MCI Center and the impact it has had in the area around it. Of course this effect is seen far more in stadiums and arenas built in the city as opposed to the suburbs where there isn't much in existence or zoning laws really don't allow them to build up too much. I think that people are also less rational when it comes to their sports teams that is why they will vote for a tax increase to pay for a stadium that an owner can pay for themselves, but won't vote for a much smaller tax increase to allow them to build badly needed roads and other infrastructure improvements.
Well, airlines are probably the most visible example of government welfare outside of these large stadiums, but there are plenty of examples of tax breaks/incentives/land grants given to large corporations by municipalities and states trying to attract jobs and revitalize their economy and/or rundown neighborhoods. The most recent example I can think of is when Boeing was planning to move their headquarters from Seattle and Dallas, Denver, and Chicago were the finalists. It all came down to which city provided the incentives and the greased the wheels at Boeing, so to speak. In the end, Chicago got it. It happens all the time, in all industries. I don't have a problem with the government bailing out the airlines either, clearly, they are a crucial piece of the transportation infrastructure. Coors Field in Denver is a perfect example of a taxpayer funded stadium that completely turned around an otherwise completely worthless area of downtown. That's the place to be, now. I do resent owners who are simply trying to leverage new stadiums to increase their revenue streams, skim more money out of concessions and parking. These owners should be willing to pony up some cash and not just milk the goodwill of their fanbase or extort a stadium by scaring them with relocation threats. It makes a little more sense when cities are trying to attract a team that isn't already there, or there is a solid plan to revitalize an area of a city that has turned into a slum. The SSS in Colorado is taking an area of metro Denver (Commerce City) that has been in serious need of rebuilding/economic development, and KSE is putting up some of the cash and backing the municipal bonds that will be issued to finance the rest of the project. Overall, that's going to be a good thing for that area as well, but KSE is certainly pulling their own financial weight.
In every bushel of apples, there's always a few worms. Read into this the recently departed Wolstein of Cleveland. For the most part, I love new stadiums being built and operated. Blitzz Boy mentioned the people that benefit from the government bailout of airline operation without thinking of the common people that profit from a stadium. The people that profit span from architects, electricians, pipefitters, other general construction personel, ticket-takers, concessions workers, EMT staff, funding to the police department for crowd control, and even additional tax money for the city. In Columbus, the city levies an income tax on visiting sports athletes, ala Chitcago and Cleveland. The last numbers I recall seeing was that the tax received from visiting athletes for just the NHL was ~$50,000 per team. Of course, this only winds up being ~$1.5 mil a year, but it is a nice perk to having a pro team in town.
This discussion is very relevant to the people here in the Sacramento area, who are mulling over if, how and where a new arena for the Sacramento Kings franchise should be built. Arco Arena, which opened in 1988, is seen by many as outdated and in need of replacement. There are an "insufficient" number of luxury boxes (whatever that means) and some inherent design flaws, such as the support beams on each corner of the arena which severely restrict pedestrian flow on the upper concourse of the building. But there are major stumbling blocks. Sactown doesn't yet have a corporate base like the Bay Area and SoCal, so it would be VERY difficult to follow the example of SBC Park and Staples Center and build a facility solely with private money. The Kings owners, the Maloofs, are willing to put up some money, but not anywhere near the nine-figure tab it would take to see the project to completion. And while the City of Sacramento would really hate to lose the team, there are a lot of residents who don't want to see millions in taxpayer dollars (whether by sales tax or other means) go to a new arena which is seen as only benefiting the Kings and Maloof Sports & Entertainment. Obviously there is a huge difference between L.A. not having an NFL franchise and Sacramento losing the Kings. Even the most near-sighted Sactown provincialist must acknowledge that the Kings are what gives this town a national and international profile. (Well, that and the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger has an office here.) I've become a hard-core Kings fan in the decade I've lived in the area, but I question having the city pay the bulk of the money for a new arena. Even the $175 million the City Council is willing to put up I'm not happy about. But the Maloofs aren't happy about that figure either - they stormed out of the meeting when the City Council put that cap on what they are willing to put up. Just a bit greedy? We're at an impasse now, unless sources other than the city and the Kings are willing to put up money for a new building. Am I willing to see the Kings go if another city dangles a new arena? While it would rip the hearts out of thousands of sports fans in this region, I'm afraid the answer for now must be yes.