Say Anything Blog

No they are not.

Hell no!

That’s quite a feat Rob; you managed just six words from this garrulous duo.

What they really men is, “not at the expense of our welfare checks.”

Considering what theses stadiums accomplish in the way of entertainment, employment, and assistance to the local economies…it’s really a bargain. Contrast that with the cost and benefits of our entitlement programs and it would seem petty to argue otherwise.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

LDS: 

… it’s really a bargain.

I’m in shock!  We agree on something.

Subsidized sports stadiums have historically repaid their supporting communities with expanded economies and resulting enhanced tax revenues to pay back the bonds. A win/win not usually seen in government spending.

Or, as you succinctly put it, “Contrast that with the costs and benefits of our entitlement programs.”

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

I guess I don’t see where they are a net benefit in terms of dollars to the community, either. I know sports fans see it differently, but ask yourself- how many speedways or drag strips or road courses are subsidized by their local communities? They seem to make it in most cases.
When athletes are paid millions each year to turn in substandard performances, and leagues extort millions from broadcast groups for TV rights, etc., what business do we have giving them a place to pay?
Come on somebody- I don’t want to be the only one agreeing with these two dipshits..

If you happen to be the team owner, or an overpaid player; they certainly pay. But, for the average citizen ,the locale or anyone else, no they don’t. The “jobs” created are few, lower wage jobs, how much can you make slinging dogs and beer, and are only available for a limited nimber of work days per year. The construction jobs are oversold to the public and are overly expensive. After all, no one is concerned about cost controls when spending someone else’s ,public, money. At best, taking all of the costs involved in consideration, the majority of these types of projects may breakeven after 30 years or better. This of course doesn’t include the costs of graft and corruption perpetrated by the government officials and their toadies involved in these bureaucratic boondoggles. There are exceptions, but, they represent a very tiny minority of these projects. In Philadelphia they demolished the Vet which after some 30ish years. It had turned a “profit” $175,000 or so. Over three decades to earn a couple of hundred thousand dollars, that’s not profit that’s charity and a disgusting diservice to the public. These projects buy union votes, they buy sports fans votes, but, ultimately do not serve the public ,as a whole well ,at all.

Good ol Boy,

You can make the argument that they are not a “net benefit”, although I would disagree, but certainly they are not a “net drag” on the community as entitlement programs most assuredly are.

Neither would I debate that the obviously overpaid, less than professional ( both on and off the field) athletes are worthy of a subsidy.

By the way: Indianapolis Speedway, Talladega, Birmingham International, among others are heavily subsidized.

The point of my comment was not that I agree with any of these subsidizations, (Government has no role there) but that the net gain/loss is trivial compared to the role government has played in financing and promoting social programs.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

The point of my comment was not that I agree with any of these subsidizations, (Government has no role there) but that the net gain/loss is trivial compared to the role government has played in financing and promoting social programs.

Sally- *sigh* too true, too true. If we are not going to fix the entitlement mindset, why bother with addressing sports subsidies? At least the fans are contributing members of society, huh?

Sally- *sigh* too true, too true. If we are not going to fix the entitlement mindset, why bother with addressing sports subsidies? At least the fans are contributing members of society, huh?

Since you didn’t indicate *sarcasm*, I’ll take your comment on how it’s written.

There are any number of programs at the city, state and national levels that help promote businesses, for what ever the reason. Be it tax breaks, preferred rates on water and power, or setting up agencies to help form and educate a labor force.

I’ve seen different studies that come to different conclusions as to whether or not cities that build sports stadiums benefit from a subsidized facility. I suspect that they all leave out details that give us the true picture. Some things we do know, these organizations provide a service, employ workers, entice addition spending on related goods and services, and they pay taxes. For all I, and probable most here, know the net result is favorable.

If we left it up to the GAO to mount inquires into the profitability of this endeavor, we would most surely spend more money than we could ever recoup by their recommendations and findings.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Sally- No sarcasm intended- honest. But going back to first principles, it really isn’t government’s place to encourage or discourage enterprise, is it? Perhaps we could never truly quantify whether certain economic stimulus programs are successes or not. But the track record of government in other endeavours certainly would cast doubt on it, and I think reasonable people could agree on that. The love of sports (something I do not share) may cloud our judgement in the case of stadiums. As is often the case, it seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored.

Good Ol Boy,

In principle, I agree with you.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Good ol Boy: This is a classic case of principle vs. pragmatism.  In truth, governments have subsidized enterprises since Pharoah granted a monopoly to stone masons.

Tax incentives are routinely offered to businesses whose presence in a community are precieved as beneficial. The National Endowment for the Arts has kept many orchestras, opera houses and museums in business by funding grants. And, yes, state or local bonding measures have financed the building of sports facilities.

Most of our colleges, universities, libraries, research centers and teaching hospitals survive, in part or in whole, on government subsidy.

I go back to what LayDownSally first said on this thread:

Considering what these stadiums accomplish… it’s really a bargain. Contrast that with the costs and benefits of our entitlement programs and it would seem petty to argue otherwise.

“The business of government is business.” President Calvin Coolidge

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Govt cannot produce wealth; it can only redistribute it.  In the case of bond issues for sports stadiums, my understanding is that are voted up or down by the public.  If people choose to spend their money this way, the govt is then fulfilling its legal function in implementing the will of the people.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

The public needs to subsidize
players salaries and monopoly owners
profits?

These deals always stink from the gitgo. Usually started by eminent domain taking of land.

woof: Yeah. Eminent domain. Not a good deal in the few cases where it has been used.  But more frequently invoked for roads, airports, group homes, pubic housing, [both liberal favorites], and a host of other suspect purposes.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

So a locality subsidizes a sports arena based on its perceived benefit of economic growth. Exactly what incentive does the team have to remain in that locality once its lease expires? The team goes in the tank, the city quits going to games to watch them stink up the place, the team loses money and skips town for the next town that promises to build them a state-of-the-art facility, and before long we have teams called the Louisville Dolphins and the Charlotte Texans. Now there is no longer any economic growth from the sports arena and it’s an empty shell taking up space that will be soon put to use as a parking lot. Does anyone else see the potential downside to this?

It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidize entertainment, of any sort. This truly is redistribution of wealth from those least able to pay for something to an entity that should be able to fund the project and more.

Sally,
I believe the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is probably one of the few sporting entities in this world that does NOT accept government subsidies. At least the last I knew. Tony George is often given much credit due to this.

"Can’t I just eat my waffle....”

-BHO

Do governments subsidize or do they compete?

After watching my home state of Alabama fight for auto manufacturing jobs, it looks like good old fashioned bidding to me.

If you don’t compete, you may lose the franchise (ie Mercedes plant) and the tax flows that come from it. In the case fo sports franchises, don’t forget the enormous taxes paid by the athletes and owners, who almost always live in the local area.

Some criticised Alabama for “giving away” too much to Mercedes, when, in fact, they only gave up a portion of future taxes which would not exist if the plant did not locate there. Intersting (foolish?)that Birmingham wants to build a dome in the hopes of ATTRACTING a sports franchise and improving the avaialble convention space. Maybe they can return the SEC Football Championship to the city where the SEC is headquartered.

I really need a tax subsidized place to go and buy $7 beers....

I really need a tax subsidized place to go and buy $7 beers....

No one is forcing you to go…

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.