Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
-
- Posts: 36525
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: Nowhere you want to be.
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
FWIW, there is no US market larger than San Diego that doesn't already have a team. The next largest market without a team is...St. Louis.
Black Lives Matter
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82770
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Portland and Orlando are the next two. Another FL team might be a hard sell.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- El Guapo
- Posts: 41538
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Could we move them to Portland, rename them the SuperSonics, and solve that problem while we're at it?Isgrimnur wrote:Portland and Orlando are the next two. Another FL team might be a hard sell.
Black Lives Matter.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 15063
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
To be fair, I've been to playground ballparks that compare favorably to the Great American Ballpark.Isgrimnur wrote:Pretty much. Went to a game this year, and it's an excellent venue. Even better than when I compared it favorably to the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82770
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Good to know my reaction wasn't attributable to an unreasonable bias.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Jaymann
- Posts: 19745
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
It would be sweet if the Chargers moved to LA and the Raiders moved to San Diego.Jeff V wrote:FWIW, there is no US market larger than San Diego that doesn't already have a team.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
- Fitzy
- Posts: 2030
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
- Location: Rockville, MD
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
And then the Raiders could change their name to the Chargers and the Chargers could change their name to the Raiders!Jaymann wrote:It would be sweet if the Chargers moved to LA and the Raiders moved to San Diego.Jeff V wrote:FWIW, there is no US market larger than San Diego that doesn't already have a team.
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
When the Browns moved to Baltimore and then another Browns team was created in Cleveland which team owns the historical franchise records?Fitzy wrote:And then the Raiders could change their name to the Chargers and the Chargers could change their name to the Raiders!Jaymann wrote:It would be sweet if the Chargers moved to LA and the Raiders moved to San Diego.Jeff V wrote:FWIW, there is no US market larger than San Diego that doesn't already have a team.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82770
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Cleveland
Subsequent legal actions by the city of Cleveland and Browns season ticket holders led to a compromise that saw the Browns history, records, and intellectual property remain in Cleveland, while Modell was permitted to move to Baltimore and establish the Baltimore Ravens, who are officially regarded as a 1996 expansion team.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Thanks!Isgrimnur wrote:Cleveland
Subsequent legal actions by the city of Cleveland and Browns season ticket holders led to a compromise that saw the Browns history, records, and intellectual property remain in Cleveland, while Modell was permitted to move to Baltimore and establish the Baltimore Ravens, who are officially regarded as a 1996 expansion team.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Outline emerges of Oakland stadium deal to keep Raiders
With the clock ticking, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is betting big that a combination of $600 million in private money from Ronnie Lott’s investment group, $200 million in public money and an equal amount from the National Football League will be enough to keep the stadium-hungry Raiders from moving to Las Vegas.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Arizona’s Terrible Hockey Team Wants a Third Taxpayer Funded Stadium Since 1996
A bill that would have committed $225 million in public funds—part coming from state coffers and part from the city of Tempe—does not appear to have enough votes to pass the state legislature, but lawmakers could still resurrect the stadium deal as part of the budget plan. The Arizona Republic reported this week that Senate President Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler) says it's "unlikely" the legislature would approve the stadium in the budget bill, but, frankly, that's not good enough, because the whole idea should be rejected out of hand. There is no good argument for building the Coyotes another new stadium after they've failed to attract much interest from fans in Phoenix or Glendale, where they've played since 2003.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- Enough
- Posts: 14688
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
- Location: Serendipity
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Reason has a good rundown up on how the new Atlanta Braves stadium is a disaster for taxpayers and fans alike.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
- Scuzz
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:31 pm
- Location: The Arm Pit of California
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
No city, county etc should build a stadium for any professional sporting team unless that team is willing to pay for, or come up with the financing for, at least half the building.
If ever there is an example of economists dreaming up fake stats it is probably those surrounding how much a pro team "brings into the community".
If ever there is an example of economists dreaming up fake stats it is probably those surrounding how much a pro team "brings into the community".
Black Lives Matter
- stessier
- Posts: 29916
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
- Location: SC
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Im sorry, but half is still a joke. They pay for it all and if there is infrastructure that needs upgrading, then a government can get involved.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
- Scuzz
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:31 pm
- Location: The Arm Pit of California
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Well, I would assume 5% is probably infrastructure to start with when it comes to a modern stadium. Also, if the municipality has some control of the stadium it can be used for other things.stessier wrote:Im sorry, but half is still a joke. They pay for it all and if there is infrastructure that needs upgrading, then a government can get involved.
But yea, stadiums are a huge loss leader for any city.
Black Lives Matter
- em2nought
- Posts: 5503
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Not being any kind of sports fan whatsoever, taxpayers funding stadiums is really a pet peeve with me.
...and if they do build them in Florida they should also at the very least be built as hurricane shelters and not just torn down every twenty years.
...and if they do build them in Florida they should also at the very least be built as hurricane shelters and not just torn down every twenty years.
Re-electing Biden is like the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again!
-
- Posts: 36525
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: Nowhere you want to be.
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
They need to go back to the sport's roots and play outside. That's a popular thing now, right?Moliere wrote:Arizona’s Terrible Hockey Team Wants a Third Taxpayer Funded Stadium Since 1996
A bill that would have committed $225 million in public funds—part coming from state coffers and part from the city of Tempe—does not appear to have enough votes to pass the state legislature, but lawmakers could still resurrect the stadium deal as part of the budget plan. The Arizona Republic reported this week that Senate President Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler) says it's "unlikely" the legislature would approve the stadium in the budget bill, but, frankly, that's not good enough, because the whole idea should be rejected out of hand. There is no good argument for building the Coyotes another new stadium after they've failed to attract much interest from fans in Phoenix or Glendale, where they've played since 2003.
I went to a Coyotes game in Glendale once. My cousin lives there and coaches youth hockey teams, some have one state championships it seems. The stadium was mostly empty (but we couldn't get tickets a few days earlier when the Blackhawks were in town) and I swear my cousin knew every person in the stands -- many of them were family with kids who had played for him.
Black Lives Matter
- Grifman
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Outside hockey in Arizona?Jeff V wrote:They need to go back to the sport's roots and play outside. That's a popular thing now, right?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 15063
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Grifman wrote:Outside hockey in Arizona?Jeff V wrote:They need to go back to the sport's roots and play outside. That's a popular thing now, right?
That's my purse! I don't know you!
-
- Posts: 36525
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: Nowhere you want to be.
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
I still don't get the above-and-beyond effort to keep hockey in the desert. I'm sure there is someone of power behind it; someone who is willing to spend whatever it takes of OPM to keep a team there.
They cite popularity with snowbirds, but from what I understand, they only come out in droves for two teams, the Blackhawks and the Flyers. The popularity of visiting teams shouldn't be a problem, however...there should be some affinity between the community and the home team and in Arizona there seems to be none. Relocating to another part of town isn't going to fix this root cause.
They cite popularity with snowbirds, but from what I understand, they only come out in droves for two teams, the Blackhawks and the Flyers. The popularity of visiting teams shouldn't be a problem, however...there should be some affinity between the community and the home team and in Arizona there seems to be none. Relocating to another part of town isn't going to fix this root cause.
Black Lives Matter
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82770
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Vegas is going to demonstrate whether it's the desert or the team.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
There's a lot of gray area in there. Local sports teams have a significant entertainment and pride value for a locale. We can argue about the relative value of sports, museums, parks, or any other civic entertainment, but the fact remains that a large portion of the populace cares about sports.stessier wrote:Im sorry, but half is still a joke. They pay for it all and if there is infrastructure that needs upgrading, then a government can get involved.
I think it's too much as well, but there's certainly room for compromise.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Because a few thousand people care whether a particular team wins their game the rest of us need to have hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue pissed away? We're talking about tax subsidies for Billionaires to own a team full of Millionaires to play a game.noxiousdog wrote:There's a lot of gray area in there. Local sports teams have a significant entertainment and pride value for a locale. We can argue about the relative value of sports, museums, parks, or any other civic entertainment, but the fact remains that a large portion of the populace cares about sports.stessier wrote:Im sorry, but half is still a joke. They pay for it all and if there is infrastructure that needs upgrading, then a government can get involved.
I think it's too much as well, but there's certainly room for compromise.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- Remus West
- Posts: 33595
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
There is also a huge economic impact on businesses in the community to consider. That is really what drives these things. The threat by the teams to take their economic booms elsewhere.Moliere wrote:Because a few thousand people care whether a particular team wins their game the rest of us need to have hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue pissed away? We're talking about tax subsidies for Billionaires to own a team full of Millionaires to play a game.noxiousdog wrote:There's a lot of gray area in there. Local sports teams have a significant entertainment and pride value for a locale. We can argue about the relative value of sports, museums, parks, or any other civic entertainment, but the fact remains that a large portion of the populace cares about sports.stessier wrote:Im sorry, but half is still a joke. They pay for it all and if there is infrastructure that needs upgrading, then a government can get involved.
I think it's too much as well, but there's certainly room for compromise.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Have you not read all the previous articles? There is no economic boom. Pro teams are a net negative economic impact.Remus West wrote:There is also a huge economic impact on businesses in the community to consider. That is really what drives these things. The threat by the teams to take their economic booms elsewhere.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- Remus West
- Posts: 33595
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
A little sarcasm. Having the teams around does present the possibility for improvement in the areas of the stadiums though and losing them certainly creates blight - look at Tiger stadium, the team didn't even leave the city, or the Silverdome - ugh.Moliere wrote:Have you not read all the previous articles? There is no economic boom. Pro teams are a net negative economic impact.Remus West wrote:There is also a huge economic impact on businesses in the community to consider. That is really what drives these things. The threat by the teams to take their economic booms elsewhere.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Not a few thousand. A few hundred thousand if not millions. The annual attendance at a pro baseball stadium is approximately 2 million. That doesn't count the number of people who follow casually including watching on TV or listening to broadcasts. Football television broadcasts for the Texans last year was over 900,000 per week. Over free TV. The Houston Museum of Natural Science averages 2 million visitors per year. The Houston Zoo is 2.5 million per year.Moliere wrote:Because a few thousand people care whether a particular team wins their game the rest of us need to have hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue pissed away? We're talking about tax subsidies for Billionaires to own a team full of Millionaires to play a game.noxiousdog wrote:There's a lot of gray area in there. Local sports teams have a significant entertainment and pride value for a locale. We can argue about the relative value of sports, museums, parks, or any other civic entertainment, but the fact remains that a large portion of the populace cares about sports.stessier wrote:Im sorry, but half is still a joke. They pay for it all and if there is infrastructure that needs upgrading, then a government can get involved.
I think it's too much as well, but there's certainly room for compromise.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
I don't want my tax money subsidizing Billionaires so they can own a team full of Millionaires to play a game. If they can't find enough revenue via tickets, advertising, merchandise, and TV broadcasting then they shouldn't be in business.noxiousdog wrote:Not a few thousand. A few hundred thousand if not millions. The annual attendance at a pro baseball stadium is approximately 2 million. That doesn't count the number of people who follow casually including watching on TV or listening to broadcasts. Football television broadcasts for the Texans last year was over 900,000 per week. Over free TV. The Houston Museum of Natural Science averages 2 million visitors per year. The Houston Zoo is 2.5 million per year.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
That's fine, but it's not how democracy works. There's all kinds of things that I don't care about but I have to fund anyway.Moliere wrote:I don't want my tax money subsidizing Billionaires so they can own a team full of Millionaires to play a game. If they can't find enough revenue via tickets, advertising, merchandise, and TV broadcasting then they shouldn't be in business.noxiousdog wrote:Not a few thousand. A few hundred thousand if not millions. The annual attendance at a pro baseball stadium is approximately 2 million. That doesn't count the number of people who follow casually including watching on TV or listening to broadcasts. Football television broadcasts for the Texans last year was over 900,000 per week. Over free TV. The Houston Museum of Natural Science averages 2 million visitors per year. The Houston Zoo is 2.5 million per year.
You get a vote like everyone else (assuming it's in your neck of the woods).
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70463
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Cork town has been "gentrified" like you would not believe over the last decade. That area is way more upscale and wealthy than it ever when Tiger Stadium was around in my lifetime.Remus West wrote:A little sarcasm. Having the teams around does present the possibility for improvement in the areas of the stadiums though and losing them certainly creates blight - look at Tiger stadium, the team didn't even leave the city, or the Silverdome - ugh.
Of course correlation is not causation.
I do think that Illitch was a great man for the city of Detroit and the that Ford family has sunk crazy amounts of money in to the city for the good of the city but I do not think CoPa or Ford Field have done a damned thing to improve the area. I don't think Little Ceasar's Arena will either. They are more the cost of doing business with families that have been great philanthropists. I wouldn't give a damned thing to Gores, Devos, or Gilbert and raise an eyebrow before helping the Karmonos'.
- hitbyambulance
- Posts: 10357
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:51 am
- Location: Map Ref 47.6°N 122.35°W
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
noxiousdog wrote:
You get a vote like everyone else (assuming it's in your neck of the woods).
assuming the stadium referendum actually goes to a vote...
my experience with these is they tend not to.
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
I'm pretty sure the standard is for a referendum. Regardless, that's still how a representative democracy workshitbyambulance wrote:noxiousdog wrote:
You get a vote like everyone else (assuming it's in your neck of the woods).
assuming the stadium referendum actually goes to a vote...
my experience with these is they tend not to.
And, for the record, I would vote no but I still understand why people feel differently.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Detroit City Council approves $34.5 million in bonds for Detroit Pistons to move into new arena
Millionaire athletes > school childrenThe Detroit Pistons are one step closer to playing downtown again.
Despite backlash from some residents, Detroit city council has approved $34.5 million in bonds so the Pistons can move into the Little Caesars Arena downtown.
Some Detroiters are unhappy with the deal because the bonds are taxpayer funded with money originally intended for schools and parks.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
- gbasden
- Posts: 7723
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
- Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
This is just one of the reasons I hate sports.Moliere wrote:Detroit City Council approves $34.5 million in bonds for Detroit Pistons to move into new arena
Millionaire athletes > school childrenThe Detroit Pistons are one step closer to playing downtown again.
Despite backlash from some residents, Detroit city council has approved $34.5 million in bonds so the Pistons can move into the Little Caesars Arena downtown.
Some Detroiters are unhappy with the deal because the bonds are taxpayer funded with money originally intended for schools and parks.
- em2nought
- Posts: 5503
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Apparently, we can agree on something.gbasden wrote:This is just one of the reasons I hate sports.Moliere wrote:Detroit City Council approves $34.5 million in bonds for Detroit Pistons to move into new arena
Millionaire athletes > school children
Re-electing Biden is like the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again!
- gbasden
- Posts: 7723
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
- Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
I knew you weren't *all* bad...em2nought wrote:Apparently, we can agree on something.gbasden wrote:This is just one of the reasons I hate sports.Moliere wrote:Detroit City Council approves $34.5 million in bonds for Detroit Pistons to move into new arena
Millionaire athletes > school children
- Enough
- Posts: 14688
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
- Location: Serendipity
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Good thing Kevyn Orr didn't have to approve this.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
- hitbyambulance
- Posts: 10357
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:51 am
- Location: Map Ref 47.6°N 122.35°W
- Contact:
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
something Moliere will love Seattle for!
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... m-swindle/
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... m-swindle/
After two decades of warring over the fundamental question of whether government should help finance pro-sports enterprises, Seattle now finds itself in the polar-opposite position: The billionaires are fighting to do business with us.
We have one billionaire group offering to rebuild the old KeyArena for $600 million of its own money, including $40 million in transportation fixes. We have another billionaire group offering a privately financed $600 million Sodo arena, plus the sweetener of a $90 million conversion of KeyArena into two music theaters.
Both proposals involve some public subsidy in the form of foregone taxes. But there are no bonds, no borrowing, no 30 years of taxes to pay it all back.
It’s such a remarkable turnabout that Seattle is now seen as a national model for how to beat the pro-sports vampires at their own game, says Neil deMause, author of the book “Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit.”
“What did Seattle do, and how can my city get some of that backbone?” daMause, of New York, wrote in a recent article at Deadspin. It was titled: “Want to Avoid Getting Screwed on Arena Deals? Look to Seattle.”
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Do taxpayers *always* have to pay for stadiums now?
Seattle does something right!
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow