Stadiums (1 Viewer)

[-OZ-]

I assume most cities have dealt with this issue in the last few years.

The question is pretty simple I think, but the answer may not be. Who should pay for the stadium's construction and upkeep?

 

[Bri]

The team and/or players and/or NFL, not the fans. The high ticket prices are for stadium lease, player salaries, and stadium upkeep(among other reasons they give). To then ask for tax money is unfair IMO.

I'm torn a bit though on some teams. Giant fans have to wait thru a gigntic waiting list for season tickets. I'd guess 8-10 years. If they can't see the team play well then that's not right that they get taxed for the stadium they can't use.

An expansion team, I think if a city wants a team they could pony up some $.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think there's any real evidence that stadium projects benefit the city or the residents. Football stadiums, in particular, get used to their capacity only a handful of times per year; most of the time they sit empty, in a dead part of town. Public funding for stadium projects is one of the worst forms of corporate welfare.

 

[cstu]

I don't think there's any real evidence that stadium projects benefit the city or the residents.  Football stadiums, in particular, get used to their capacity only a handful of times per year; most of the time they sit empty, in a dead part of town.  Public funding for stadium projects is one of the worst forms of corporate welfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of money gets spent on 8 Sundays, not to mention during Super Bowl week which brought $274M to Detroit.http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-03-16-sb-detroit_x.htm

 

[Serenity Now]

Owner, all the way. If they can get the NFL to kick in, so be it.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think there's any real evidence that stadium projects benefit the city or the residents.  Football stadiums, in particular, get used to their capacity only a handful of times per year; most of the time they sit empty, in a dead part of town.  Public funding for stadium projects is one of the worst forms of corporate welfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of money gets spent on 8 Sundays, not to mention during Super Bowl week which brought $274M to Detroit.http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-03-16-sb-detroit_x.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The money that gets spent on 8, or even 10 days a year, for the most part doesn't go to the people of the city; it goes to the team, and the hotel owners, and the media conglomerates. And looking at a raw number (like "the Super Bowl brought in $273.9 million") is really meaningless, because you have to compare not against zero, but against what could be brought in on an ongoing basis in the same space and with the same governmental subsidy. The city would always be better off by putting that investment into businesses and industry which would be there every day, not 10 days a year.

 

[5Rings]

I don't think there's any real evidence that stadium projects benefit the city or the residents.  Football stadiums, in particular, get used to their capacity only a handful of times per year; most of the time they sit empty, in a dead part of town.  Public funding for stadium projects is one of the worst forms of corporate welfare.

The money that gets spent on 8, or even 10 days a year, for the most part doesn't go to the people of the city; it goes to the team, and the hotel owners, and the media conglomerates.  And looking at a raw number (like "the Super Bowl brought in $273.9 million") is really meaningless, because you have to compare not against zero, but against what could be brought in on an ongoing basis in the same space and with the same governmental subsidy.  The city would always be better off by putting that investment into businesses and industry which would be there every day, not 10 days a year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is why Al and the Yorks are going to have to ante up.

 

[Big Score]

I voted the taxpayers of course.

The owners couldn't be lying to us could they? All I ever hear them say is how they could lose money and that Tax Dollars have to be part of any new stadium deal.

Of course once it's built, then they say they need all the revenues....because they say they could lose money dontcha' know.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who should pay for the stadium's construction and upkeep?

Whoever owns the stadium should pay for its construction and upkeep.It can be the team, a private corporation, Paula Abdul -- I don't care.But not the city. City governments are for providing police and stuff, not entertainment.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A lot of money gets spent on 8 Sundays, not to mention during Super Bowl week which brought $274M to Detroit.

Even if that's meaningful (and I generally think it's not very meaningful -- a lot of money gets spent in lots of cities with tourist attractions, but that doesn't mean that local governments should subsidize Le Cirque du Soleil in Vegas, or the gentlemen's clubs in Montreal), it's a zero-sum game. Thirty-two NFL stadiums are going to be built one way or another. The only question is who should pay for them. NFL clubs are getting city governments to pay for them by playing different cities off of one other. If San Diego refuses to pay for a stadium, the Chargers will get Los Angeles to pay for one. But it's a zero-sum game. Whatever economic benefit there is for a city to have a team, one city's gain is exactly offset by another city's loss. There's no overall increase in social welfare when a stadium gets built in Detroit instead of Houston. "The government should pay for it because it will bring $274M to Detroit" is just another way of saying "The government should pay for it because it will re-direct $274M away from Houston." Which doesn't seem like a very compelling argument at all from a public policy perspective.

 

[~OMM~]

I feel it should be either the team or a mixture of team and private corporation. Whatever works out best for each unique situation. I did not vote mixture as it looked like that option included city taxes, so I voted other. *2 cents - OMM*

 

[cstu]

A lot of money gets spent on 8 Sundays, not to mention during Super Bowl week which brought $274M to Detroit.

Even if that's meaningful (and I generally think it's not very meaningful -- a lot of money gets spent in lots of cities with tourist attractions, but that doesn't mean that local governments should subsidize Le Cirque du Soleil in Vegas, or the gentlemen's clubs in Montreal), it's a zero-sum game. Thirty-two NFL stadiums are going to be built one way or another. The only question is who should pay for them. NFL clubs are getting city governments to pay for them by playing different cities off of one other. If San Diego refuses to pay for a stadium, the Chargers will get Los Angeles to pay for one. But it's a zero-sum game. Whatever economic benefit there is for a city to have a team, one city's gain is exactly offset by another city's loss. There's no overall increase in social welfare when a stadium gets built in Detroit instead of Houston. "The government should pay for it because it will bring $274M to Detroit" is just another way of saying "The government should pay for it because it will re-direct $274M away from Houston." Which doesn't seem like a very compelling argument at all from a public policy perspective.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you think that there will be no net economic loss to SD if the Chargers move to LA? Even if the city puts up $100M they move than get that back with the revenue generated by the team. All the money that gets spent in the city not only helps local businesses but also gets taxed. Then you have to think about all the jobs - construction, etc. - all having an NFL team is a boon to local economies. The loss to LA from not having an NFL team for over a decade is easily over a billion dollars.

 

[cstu]

A lot of money gets spent on 8 Sundays, not to mention during Super Bowl week which brought $274M to Detroit.

Even if that's meaningful (and I generally think it's not very meaningful -- a lot of money gets spent in lots of cities with tourist attractions, but that doesn't mean that local governments should subsidize Le Cirque du Soleil in Vegas, or the gentlemen's clubs in Montreal), it's a zero-sum game. Thirty-two NFL stadiums are going to be built one way or another. The only question is who should pay for them. NFL clubs are getting city governments to pay for them by playing different cities off of one other. If San Diego refuses to pay for a stadium, the Chargers will get Los Angeles to pay for one. But it's a zero-sum game. Whatever economic benefit there is for a city to have a team, one city's gain is exactly offset by another city's loss. There's no overall increase in social welfare when a stadium gets built in Detroit instead of Houston. "The government should pay for it because it will bring $274M to Detroit" is just another way of saying "The government should pay for it because it will re-direct $274M away from Houston." Which doesn't seem like a very compelling argument at all from a public policy perspective.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you think that there will be no net economic loss to SD if the Chargers move to LA? Even if the city puts up $100M they move than get that back with the revenue generated by the team. All the money that gets spent in the city not only helps local businesses but also gets taxed. Then you have to think about all the jobs - construction, etc. - all having an NFL team is a boon to local economies. The loss to LA from not having an NFL team for over a decade is easily over a billion dollars.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So you think that there will be no net economic loss to SD if the Chargers move to LA?

There would be no net economic loss, full stop. Any loss to SD would be offset by a corresponding gain to LA; and from a public policy standpoint, neither city should be favored.Both SD and LA (along with every other city) would be better off if all city governments refused to pay for stadiums.

 

[cstu]

So you think that there will be no net economic loss to SD if the Chargers move to LA?

There would be no net economic loss, full stop. Any loss to SD would be offset by a corresponding gain to LA; and from a public policy standpoint, neither city should be favored.Both SD and LA (along with every other city) would be better off if all city governments refused to pay for stadiums.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what you are saying, but there's a thing called supply and demand. NFL teams are a finite resource and cities know that having that resource means increased revenues. This isn't the same thing as paying Starbucks to open up a franchise.

 

[FUBAR]

Mixture.

I'll gladly pay $20-50 a year to have a local team to cheer for, even if I never attend a game.

 

[Baracuda]

As a diehard capitalist and football fan, I see no reason why teams (which are private companies) shouldn't pay for their own facilities. There's really no good justification for using any type of tax dollars for this purpose. There is no other business that I can think of where the government pays for a company's building. For instance, the drug company Pfizer can't raise $300 million in taxes to build a manufacturing plant for research. And that's going to something that could save lives one day.

Owners want a free ride and will get it, if people let them. It's disgusting when they use this ploy as leverage holding a community hostage ("build me a new stadium or else I'll move the team"). Let them invest in their own businesses, the same way every other business owner must. And you know what, 9 times out of 10 the owners will build that stadium because their internal rate of return exceeds the cost of their capital on that investment.

Don't be seduced by crafty owners preying on your love of football.

 

[apalmer]

I heard all these arguments for years as Pittsburgh politicians fought over who would pay for PNC and Heinz (and are still arguing over building a new arena for the Penguins). Yeah, owners want a "free ride" by having someone else pay for their stadium--just like the majority of fans want a free ride by having the team build a stadium and play there so that the "fan" can watch "their" team play on TV. I've seen all the economic studies that prove a stadium doesn't provide economic benefits to a community, but they all fail to address the psychological aspects of having major league teams: when a business is trying to decide where to locate,do they perceive a city as being viable and "alive" or is it dead and decaying? A city that has sports teams leaving is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as lacking. A city that develops a new stadium and shows off its sports teams is perceived (again, rightly or wrongly) as "alive". Sure, MT is right--in the end, it's a zero sum game and LA's gain is SD's loss. But gambling is also a zero sum game--does that mean you shouldn't play poker and improve your bottom line at someone else's expense? Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis? Should BGP be satisfied that the Steelers won the Super Bowl because doing so is zero sum (after all, if Pittsburgh didn't somebody would)? Get serious. Nobody in Pittsburgh is going to worry about whether LA suffers because it doesn't get a team, and nobody in LA is worried about the effect of taking a team from another city. Zero sum nationally does not equal zero sum locally.

But beyond economics, I view sports teams and stadiums as a "quality of life" issue. Some of my most enduring childhood memories are of going to Forbes Field with my father, who died while I was still in school. I have a nephew who taught himself to add when he was 4 so that he could understand scoring at Steeler games. When my grandfather was in a nursing home during the last years of his life, he lost touch with much of reality, but the one thing he was able to hold onto was "his Pirates". He watched or listened to every game and the next day would be able to sit and discuss the game with me. He might not know what month it was, or the names of any of his nurses, but he could tell you who was hitting the ball, who was "a bum" and what the Buccos needed to do to improve. He wasn't able to go to the stadium, and he didn't gain one dollar from its existence, but he certainly benefitted from the fact that it was there. Somehow I just can't see him sitting around listening to the radio excitedly as Pfizer announces how much profit it made that day. Am I willing to pay a few extra dollars of taxes so my children and grandchildren can have memories like that? You bet I am.

My vote is that nobody (owner or TV watcher) gets a fee ride: combination financing.

 

[Baracuda]

I understand you point, but wanted to tweak something you said. Fans are customers. They pay money to watch games be it at the game or via cable TV. They do not get a free ride at all. It is the responsibility of OWNERSHIP to invest in their business, not the customers.

I also have great memories of sports teams. But you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. Owners will always do what's in their best interests, which is what they should do. Our job as a community is to not let them take advantage of us. Unfortunately, it happens way too often.

 

[apalmer]

I understand you point, but wanted to tweak something you said.  Fans are customers.  They pay money to watch games be it at the game or via cable TV.  They do not get a free ride at all.  It is the responsibility of OWNERSHIP to invest in their business, not the customers.

I also have great memories of sports teams.  But you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment.  Owners will always do what's in their best interests, which is what they should do.  Our job as a community is to not let them take advantage of us.  Unfortunately, it happens way too often.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? What did my grandfather pay when he was listening to those games on the radio? There are hundreds of thousands of people in western PA watching Steeler games on free over the air broadcasts who will never set foot in Heinz Field. What are they paying? Watching commercials? Most of them leave the room during commercials, and my grandfather sure wasn't buying anything those ads were selling. Even most of those paying for cable don't do so because of the games. They would pay for it whether or not the games were on. Nope--the "fans" are freeloading as much as any owner.

 

[-OZ-]

As a diehard capitalist and football fan, I see no reason why teams (which are private companies) shouldn't pay for their own facilities.  There's really no good justification for using any type of tax dollars for this purpose.  There is no other business that I can think of where the government pays for a company's building.  For instance, the drug company Pfizer can't raise $300 million in taxes to build a manufacturing plant for research.  And that's going to something that could save lives one day.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you disagree with providing tax breaks to new businesses?

I realize there's a difference, but the principle is pretty much the same.

 

[Baracuda]

As a diehard capitalist and football fan, I see no reason why teams (which are private companies) shouldn't pay for their own facilities.  There's really no good justification for using any type of tax dollars for this purpose.  There is no other business that I can think of where the government pays for a company's building.  For instance, the drug company Pfizer can't raise $300 million in taxes to build a manufacturing plant for research.  And that's going to something that could save lives one day.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you disagree with providing tax breaks to new businesses?

I realize there's a difference, but the principle is pretty much the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends, I think tax breaks are fair and provide reasonable incentives in certain cases. As you suggested, there's a big difference between that and building a "poor starving team" a new stadium.

 

[BlueOnion]

Metrodome

The Metrodome was built with tax payer money and tax payers have seen a good return on their investment.

The State [Government] of Minnesota built the Metrodome fairly cheap in the early 80s, I believe it was built for about 150 million and is currently completely paid off. The Metrodome is a huge revenue stream for the State's annual budget. They get a very large cut of concession stands, local parking and ticket sales for all events held at the Metrodome (Twins, FInal-4, Vikings et al). In addition to these revenue streams, the Vikings and Twins have to pay the State to play their games in the Metrodome.

The Tax-payers of Minnesota paid for the Metrodome and for anyone to even hint that this was bad for the tax-payers is greatly exagerating a lie. The NFL is big business and home games and stadium revenue generate a lot of money; there is a reason the Vikings are at the bottom of the food-chain for local revenue and the State of Minnesota is one of the biggest socialist States in the Union. The Viking home games generate a lot of money and the Vikings get a small cut while the State gets a large cut.

This situation also hand-cuffs the Vikings from being a dynamic franchise in terms of revenue and growing their local revenue; much of the decision making in regards to their home stadium is managed by the State Legislature.

"The Cooker" \ Jack Kent Cooke Stadium \ FedEx Field at Redskin Park

This stadium was built completely with Redskin capital and revenue.

The State (of Maryland, Virginia or DOC) do not gain any immediate financial benefit from the Stadium. The Redskins (Cookes or Snyder) have complete autonomy over the Stadium. This allows Daniel Snyder to be very flexible and dynamic when it comes to expanding local revenues.

I don't believe you can purchase a luxury box at Redskin park exclusively for Redskin home games. I believe the luxury boxes are more like timeshares, meaning individuals (companies) actually lease the luxury boxes for the year. Meaning the owners can come and go as they please regardless of what is happening at Redskin Park. Companies could have corporate meetings on Tuesday afternoon in their luxury suite, they can show up in April if their is a concert at Redskin Park so on and so on.

Personally

Ideally I think the NFL (the league) should purchase all the stadiums and built all the future stadiums to attempt to coral the growing discrepency in local revenue streams. The Pittsburgh Steelers got a really good deal from their city\state governments to build Heinz Field, but because of this relationship Pittsburgh's diversity and autonomy over their own stadium is compromised. To expect the Steelers to keep up with the business intuition of the Redskins is unrealistic. In addition, to expect NFL owners (like Daniel Snyder, Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones) to subsidize other teams (like the Vikings) by sharing local revenue but then have no input on how the local market is being managed is entirely not fair. Resolving this problem is almost impossible because the NFL has no domain when it comes to telling individual state\city legislation how to manage their individual assets (stadiums), even if they have a large share in an NFL Stadium.

Some Funding

I think the each city and state should be responsible for funding and building the infrastructure for the stadiums. These items consist of building the new roads to the stadium and any utility infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage) extending to the Stadium. This is usually about 75 to 150 million (educated guess).

 

[-OZ-]

Some Funding

I think the each city and state should be responsible for funding and building the infrastructure for the stadiums.  These items consist of building the new roads to the stadium and any utility infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage) extending to the Stadium.  This is usually about 75 to 150 million (educated guess).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does any city not do this?

 

[BlueOnion]

As a diehard capitalist and football fan, I see no reason why teams (which are private companies) shouldn't pay for their own facilities.  There's really no good justification for using any type of tax dollars for this purpose.  There is no other business that I can think of where the government pays for a company's building.  For instance, the drug company Pfizer can't raise $300 million in taxes to build a manufacturing plant for research.  And that's going to something that could save lives one day.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well what you said is true, but not entirely. You know which State in the Union Pfizer is located? New Jersey. Do you know which State in the Union has the largest share of Pharmaceutical companies? New Jesery. Do you wonder why this is? Because the State of New Jersey caters to these companies to ensure these companies choose New Jersey to do most of their business in. Some could say Pfizer choose Jersey, but a case could be made that Jersey choose the Pharmceutical industry.

 

[BlueOnion]

Some Funding

I think the each city and state should be responsible for funding and building the infrastructure for the stadiums.  These items consist of building the new roads to the stadium and any utility infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage) extending to the Stadium.  This is usually about 75 to 150 million (educated guess).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does any city not do this?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. But it becomes very grey area. The Vikings new stadium proposal is about 750 million and much of the reaction is, "The Vikings and Zygi should pay for it all." Of that 750 million, about 125 million of it is going to be for infrastructure. As it stands now, Zygi is going to kick in 250ish million, Anoka County will kick in 250ish million and the State is going to kick in 250ish million. But of the State's 250ish million, 125 of it is solely for infrastructure. So of the 750 million (proposed to build the Stadium), only 125 million is being asked from the State (outside of infrastructure).In addition, part of the proposal (to compensate for the 125 million non-infrastructure monies) is for Zygi to also develop commercial zones around the Stadium. He is pledging an addition 900 (to 1 billion) dollars to addtionally be invested in the State.

 

[-OZ-]

As a diehard capitalist and football fan, I see no reason why teams (which are private companies) shouldn't pay for their own facilities.  There's really no good justification for using any type of tax dollars for this purpose.  There is no other business that I can think of where the government pays for a company's building.  For instance, the drug company Pfizer can't raise $300 million in taxes to build a manufacturing plant for research.  And that's going to something that could save lives one day.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well what you said is true, but not entirely. You know which State in the Union Pfizer is located? New Jersey. Do you know which State in the Union has the largest share of Pharmaceutical companies? New Jesery. Do you wonder why this is? Because the State of New Jersey caters to these companies to ensure these companies choose New Jersey to do most of their business in. Some could say Pfizer choose Jersey, but a case could be made that Jersey choose the Pharmceutical industry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have guessed Delaware, extremely business friendly.

 

[BlueOnion]

As a diehard capitalist and football fan, I see no reason why teams (which are private companies) shouldn't pay for their own facilities.  There's really no good justification for using any type of tax dollars for this purpose.  There is no other business that I can think of where the government pays for a company's building.  For instance, the drug company Pfizer can't raise $300 million in taxes to build a manufacturing plant for research.  And that's going to something that could save lives one day.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well what you said is true, but not entirely. You know which State in the Union Pfizer is located? New Jersey. Do you know which State in the Union has the largest share of Pharmaceutical companies? New Jesery. Do you wonder why this is? Because the State of New Jersey caters to these companies to ensure these companies choose New Jersey to do most of their business in. Some could say Pfizer choose Jersey, but a case could be made that Jersey choose the Pharmceutical industry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have guessed Delaware, extremely business friendly.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would think so because Delaware has no State Sales Tax (I believe) and is very business friendly. But New Jersey does make special exceptions for Pharmaceutical companies (Which I am not privey to at this point). I suspect New Jersey sacrifices revenue streams to make these concessions.Similar but probably not applicable is the potential for Stem Cell Research. Some states (like Jersey) are trying to push through legislation to legalize Stem Cell Research in hopes of keeping big bio-tech companies in State.

 

[thayman]

I don't think there's any real evidence that stadium projects benefit the city or the residents.  Football stadiums, in particular, get used to their capacity only a handful of times per year; most of the time they sit empty, in a dead part of town.  Public funding for stadium projects is one of the worst forms of corporate welfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of money gets spent on 8 Sundays, not to mention during Super Bowl week which brought $274M to Detroit.http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-03-16-sb-detroit_x.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The money that gets spent on 8, or even 10 days a year, for the most part doesn't go to the people of the city; it goes to the team, and the hotel owners, and the media conglomerates. And looking at a raw number (like "the Super Bowl brought in $273.9 million") is really meaningless, because you have to compare not against zero, but against what could be brought in on an ongoing basis in the same space and with the same governmental subsidy. The city would always be better off by putting that investment into businesses and industry which would be there every day, not 10 days a year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I work in tourisim...and those 8 to 10 days a year are HUGE. Even more so in a seasonal area like Maryland. Take the Ravens stadium, it is built downtown a short stroll from the inner harbour. After games you have an influx of thousands of fans, that wander downtown spending $$$ as they go. You get fans coming in from out of town which is fantastic, yes it benefits the hotel owners, but that allows me to keep more waiters, housekeepers, bellmen, front desk agents, etc... on staff throughout the slow winter months.

 

[dutch]

A user tax in the form of specially designated scratch-off lottery tickets was, and still is, used by Baltimore to finance both Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium. There was no general tax increase to the public and participation to funding was voluntary.

There is a hidden drawback to this type of paln however. Folks who buy lottery tickets tend to be one-or-the-other type of people. So, when they buy stadium designated scratch-offs that then decreases the amount of other scratch-offs sold which in turn decreases money to other lottery generated funds. Intersting tradeoff.

 

[BlueOnion]

A user tax in the form of specially designated scratch-off lottery tickets was,  and still is,  used by Baltimore to finance both Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium.  There was no general tax increase to the public and participation to funding was voluntary. 

There is a hidden drawback to this type of paln however.  Folks who buy lottery tickets tend to be one-or-the-other type of people. So,  when they buy stadium designated scratch-offs that then decreases the amount of other scratch-offs sold which in turn decreases money to other lottery generated funds.  Intersting tradeoff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is always a trade-off and this is often lost. The lottery ticket trade-off is a great example. The Metrodome is another one; the trade-off there was the State incurred the cost to build the Stadium (not the Vikings), but then got a large portion of autonomy over the Stadium's revenue (again, not the Vikings).This is the crux of the Stadium issue in Minnesota. On one hand, the State owns (and paid off the Metrodome) and is bringing in a lot of money annually to fund the State's other programs. If the Vikings and Twins build their own stadiums without any State funding help, this would still be a significant blow to the State's local revenue and the State's budget. The kicker is the State is being asked to fork over money to destroy one of it's current revenue streams.

 

[The Ref]

Once again the Pariots are ahead of the game on this. They built the stadium but the government agreed to upgrade and fix all of the roads going in and out of the stadium and to build/upgrade public transportation to and from the stadium.

The fact that $1 from every ticket to every game goes to the local town helps as well.

 

[BlueOnion]

Once again the Pariots are ahead of the game on this.  They built the stadium but the government agreed to upgrade and fix all of the roads going in and out of the stadium and to build/upgrade public transportation to and from the stadium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am pretty sure this was part of Redskin park a good 8 years earlier and is often referred to as infrastructure. This has always been status quo with any sort of building; city\state have to bring the infrastructure to the zone.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But gambling is also a zero sum game--does that mean you shouldn't play poker and improve your bottom line at someone else's expense?

The government shouldn't.

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.

 

[apalmer]

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Owner, all the way. If they can get the NFL to kick in, so be it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[CalBear]

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Property values are higher when streets are maintained. And every city can maintain its streets and increase property values thereby.

 

[BlueOnion]

Owner, all the way. If they can get the NFL to kick in, so be it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would prefer this idea, but there are some legit problems with this.

 

[-OZ-]

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

jobs?

 

[BlueOnion]

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of revenue as well. Lets just looka at the scope of a 52 man roster; that is 106 million dollars (and growing annually) that is taxable income and and taxable commerce (for purchases like automobiles, new homes and other expenses).And that is just the scope of a 52 man roster and in the scope of one year. You start throughing in your owner (Zygi Wilff) who is a billionaire looking to invest his billion of dollars into his local market (Currently Minnesota but could be LA). You got your VPs, other executives and your coaching staff and you are talking about a lot of commerce in a State.

We still haven't touched on the local blue-collar work force who work the concessions, administrative assistances and so forth.

 

[apalmer]

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

jobs?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly my point. Making a city attractive draws jobs. Sweeping streets may make it attractive. Having professional sports franchises (along with quality theater and other entertainment) also does that. MT seems to be suggesting that it shouldn't matter because if Sony builds in Pittsburgh instead of San Diego, it's San Diego's loss in the zero-sum game and "redirecting" growth is non-productive. Whether it's sweeping or building stadiums that makes your city more attractive, and brings jobs to the people there, why shouldn't you do it?

 

[apalmer]

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of revenue as well. Lets just looka at the scope of a 52 man roster; that is 106 million dollars (and growing annually) that is taxable income and and taxable commerce (for purchases like automobiles, new homes and other expenses).And that is just the scope of a 52 man roster and in the scope of one year. You start throughing in your owner (Zygi Wilff) who is a billionaire looking to invest his billion of dollars into his local market (Currently Minnesota but could be LA). You got your VPs, other executives and your coaching staff and you are talking about a lot of commerce in a State.

We still haven't touched on the local blue-collar work force who work the concessions, administrative assistances and so forth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Productive street-sweeping" doesn't produce that. That's from the "zero-sum" sports franchise.

 

[BlueOnion]

In short, deals can be worked out between owners and cities. Each stadium costs $X and brings in $Y revenue. The owners and the States (when working together) want to play the smallest part of $X and receive the largest part of $Y.

If a city\state could build a stadium all by itself and keep all the revenue for the tax payers, I find it hard to believe any tax payer would oppose such a bill. However, the NFL Franchise would suffer greatly (See the Vikings and the Metrodome).

If an owner builds his own stadium, he will then reap all the benefits for himself. However, the owner has two obstacles to overcome.

1) Acquiring the capital to build the stadium.

2) Sharing the revenue. This is somewhat comlicated and I can give a high level summary of how this can be avoided.

 

[BlueOnion]

Does it mean cities shouldn't make themselves attractive to businesses because whether or not the business locates there is a zero sum game on a national basis?

Becoming attractive (by, for example, keeping the streets clean, etc.) isn't zero-sum. It's productive.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it produce other than incentive for businesses to stay or relocate there?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of revenue as well. Lets just looka at the scope of a 52 man roster; that is 106 million dollars (and growing annually) that is taxable income and and taxable commerce (for purchases like automobiles, new homes and other expenses).And that is just the scope of a 52 man roster and in the scope of one year. You start throughing in your owner (Zygi Wilff) who is a billionaire looking to invest his billion of dollars into his local market (Currently Minnesota but could be LA). You got your VPs, other executives and your coaching staff and you are talking about a lot of commerce in a State.

We still haven't touched on the local blue-collar work force who work the concessions, administrative assistances and so forth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Productive street-sweeping" doesn't produce that. That's from the "zero-sum" sports franchise.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was driving so fast I didn't see the interstate split. My bad and apologies.