Are you in support of teams building new stadiums if some $$$ is tax payer supplied?

745
10
Joined Jan 1, 2010
I don't know how many of you are familiar with this, but when GeorgeBush bought the rangers and built a new stadium, he funded the newstadium entirely with tax payer's money and then he sold the rangers andmade $100 million off of that.


Mostnew stadiums that are built are funded with at least some tax payer$$$, and often times cities will lobby to have stadiums built becausethey generate revenue and are good for business.
However, it endsup negatively effecting tax payers because despite the fact that theypay for it, they still don't get any discount to attend games or eventsthere. And not to mention the traffic problems that arise.

*Iask this question because out here in the bay area the A's, Raiders& 49ers are all being rumored to have a new stadium built in thenear future.

And not surprisingly, the city of oakland is lobying hard for the A's and Raiders to build in Oakland.
Idon't know how I feel about this considering I love the local teams andwould love to have a new stadium, but at the same time I very stronglydisagree with the methods in which many teams acquire their newstadiums...

your thoughts?
 
17,888
3,093
Joined May 30, 2006
Bush owned the Rangers, not Astros... And I don't remember for certain, but the Ballpark in Arlington I don't think it was entirely funded by tax dollars...
 
745
10
Joined Jan 1, 2010
Nowitness41Dirk wrote:And I don't remember for certain, but the Ballpark in Arlington I don't think it was entirely funded by tax dollars...

i guess my economics teacher who read Free lunch
which talks about this incident was wrong then...
 
17,888
3,093
Joined May 30, 2006
Your teacher was wrong... Or at least what he/she read was wrong...
 
7,213
13
Joined Feb 26, 2005
Hypothetically, no, I would not support my tax dollars going into building a new stadium.

I would rather that money go into building or creating after school programs for the youth or to other stuff more important.
 
5,456
11
Joined Aug 12, 2008
Originally Posted by TheCalculator

Mostnew stadiums that are built are funded with at least some tax payer$$$, and often times cities will lobby to have stadiums built becausethey generate revenue and are good for business. However, it endsup negatively effecting tax payers because despite the fact that theypay for it, they still don't get any discount to attend games or eventsthere. And not to mention the traffic problems that arise.
With or without local govt help, there still won't be any discounts and there still will be traffic problems near the stadium. If building a new stadium with some tax money will generate future revenue that will offset the initial tax money required, then of course go for it. Oakland trying to get the Raiders and 49ers to share stadiums. Good luck with that.
 
17,888
3,093
Joined May 30, 2006
Originally Posted by KB8sandiego

Hypothetically, no, I would not support my tax dollars going into building a new stadium.

I would rather that money go into building or creating after school programs for the youth or to other stuff more important.
In general, I agree...

The city and surrounding area reaps LOADS of benefits from having these stadiums, but the tax payers really don't... Then again you look at the math and it's really not a huge impact... Using BPIA as an example, tax payers funded $135M of the $191M... Roughly, that's less than $5 on average per resident... *shrugs*
 
1,427
10
Joined Jul 15, 2003
I feel taxes that are repaid through players salaries are legit. There was a bill passed in Oregon a few years ago during the Expos move that allowed about 150 mil to be used from players that played for a team in Portland to be used to pay for that portion by being taxed. That is a perfect idea, as if the players dont make enough. That is about all I would want a city to put on the hook.
 
19,427
3,337
Joined Feb 22, 2007
Honestly I dont like when owners beg for new stadium every 15-20 years with tax payer money. I hate it when they complain about luxury boxes etc. Why should taxpayers have to pay for a stadium thats primarily used for private interests?
 
9,252
4,738
Joined Feb 23, 2010
no, but remember owners can hold their cities hostage if they refuse to build a publicly funded stadium (see: SuperSonics, Seattle)

supply and demand...there are a limited number of teams, theoretically the owners can just find a city that will build them a stadium and move the team.
 
6,685
1,779
Joined Jul 14, 2003
IMO things would be a lot simpler if these teams learned how to build serviceable stadiums at a lower price. But they usually don't. They have to one up each other, they have to have every single bell and whistle, etc. So now we are at a point where stadiums are a billion+. When we know damn well these markets (the ones who play in dumps and really do need something else) can build something for half that or less and have it be 10 times better than their current building.

With that said I am completely in favor of cities saying no. But I also am in favor of teams then having the option to say we need to leave (if they really have a market that will take them).
 

Swolemeats

formerly 40inchboost
3,938
1,344
Joined Jul 16, 2009
Oregon FTW cause we dont really have to deal with all of this as much as other states with only 1 real pro team
 
1,427
10
Joined Jul 15, 2003
Originally Posted by 40inchBoost

Oregon FTW cause we dont really have to deal with all of this as much as other states with only 1 real pro team
Currently, but there will be a situation soon in this state to build a new stadium (for football or baseball) and I would be all for the use of tax payers money. It would be such a money maker for the state and just like they are setting up with the MLS team they can use taxes on player's ridiculous contracts to help pay for the stadium. In some situations it makes sense, when there is no stadium. But some of these markets, like Seattle, had a venue that was quite capable and that had just been renovated within the last like 10 years.
 
16,054
2,187
Joined Feb 11, 2008
i look at it this way, if my team is winning i dont think it would bother me, if we were losing, yeah i'd have an issue
 
Top Bottom