HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

US Senators aim to stop use of municipal funds to finance stadiums

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-15-2017, 12:33 PM
  #26
93LEAFS
Registered User
 
93LEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post
Why though? Cause the Yankees were going to pack up and move to Montreal?
Move out of NYC tax jurisdiction to the Meadowlands area where the Giants and Jets play.

93LEAFS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2017, 05:02 PM
  #27
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
It does highlight the complexities of the discussion.

The federal taxpayers didn't spend $3.2B of their money on the municipal bonds. The argument is that the federal government forewent $3.2B it might have hypothetically collected if all the facilities were built and financed for the same amounts without municipal bonds.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I don't consider a dollar actually spent by a government entity as being equivalent to a dollar never collected by that government entity.
You can make the case that they did not create these bonds to build toys for billionaires, but to repair/upgrade roads and important infrastructure. If you max out your debts exposure on stupid crap something else more important does not get done. Credit is not infinite, and the more debts you have the more it cost to borrow more.

madhi19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 10:51 AM
  #28
tony d
Irish Spring Soap
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,480
vCash: 500
This is great news. I enjoy sports, the same as everyone else here, but no to my tax dollars being used to subsidize a sports stadium.

__________________


Celebrating 10 yrs. at hfboards today. Thanks everyone for making the past decade so memorable. Here's to 10 more years.
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:10 AM
  #29
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Should change the title to 'US Senators'. I thought the Ottawa franchise had come up with some great plan to finance their new arena without public money.

$3.2B for 36 venues isn't that bad. The tax revenue, jobs created, areas cleaned up, etc. are the benefit.

As gstommylee said...other businesses get tax breaks all the time, so what's the difference?
It has been proven a few times that the benefit to a city is far outweighed by the cost of building a stadium/arena.

There is also a big difference between giving tax breaks to small businesses and spending hundreds of millions of dollars so a billionaire owner can have a pretty stadium.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:12 AM
  #30
Tom ServoMST3K
Eff the DH
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,940
vCash: 949
Instead of Giving 100's of millions to create a big arena/stadium, why not set up 10 fields/arenas in a city, with equipment, so Kids can play organized sports for free, or close to it.

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:14 AM
  #31
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93LEAFS View Post
There are actually valid reasons to want to clean that area up and get upper-middle class people to move in (and therefore increase local tax base).

Also, taxpayer subsidies are more than just giving the teams cash to build. It can include building new infrastructure (such as subways or roads) and giving the team land to build on.
Why would upper-middle class people want to live near a stadium? Infrastructure? All that means is usually an extra exit ramp off a highway or some re-paving of roads. Nothing that is going to truly benefit the city.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:16 AM
  #32
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daximus View Post
Sports teams can be great for local economies if they have a supportive following. Whenever I head to Winnipeg to watch Jets games which I plan on doing much more often now. I spend a fair bit of cash on local hotels, cuisine and post-game entertainment. I always see it as a win-win-win situation for the tax payers, the local economy and the team. Of course the local tax payers have to be supportive of the team or it's pointless.
So, it helps hotels and bars? They should spend a billion dollars so bar owners and waitresses can make more money? Again, sports teams are really not beneficial for local economies. Unless by local economy, you are referring to the approximate 1/4-1/2 mile radius around the arena/stadium.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:52 AM
  #33
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,559
vCash: 50
Yeah study after study has shown that it pro sports doesn't boost any overall prosperity, it just shifts peoples' fixed entertainment spending from somewhere else (a local restaurant visit, trip to movies, etc) to the sport.

If you want to argue for pro sports subsidies the best argument is probably a spiritual one, that's it's for civic pride/prestige/moral, which is what cities like Quebec City and Vegas openly seek in their recent pursuits, because a major league sports team puts these cities on new continental maps with 30 of their large peers, and gets their name mentioned a lot more in prominent publications (especially if the team manages to do well). I can tell you as a Montrealer that the city felt the wound to its pride in losing its MLB club, that we were now diminished by it. It was a punch in the face that laid bare Montreal's difficulties and now getting it back would be a widely applauded marker that the city is on the right track, back in the big leagues.

So go ahead with that sort of spiritual argument, but don't give us the bunk that it's good for the economy, that has been blown out of the water by decades of economic studies. Usually the economy argument is done by existing clubs looking for handouts in building a new stadium to win over a skeptical public that they actually need one (they usually can make do, and are usually looking for a way to raise prices too). The extra slap is when it's a very wealthy and successful club also (Yankees).

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:59 AM
  #34
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Yeah study after study has shown that it pro sports doesn't boost any overall prosperity, it just shifts peoples' fixed entertainment spending from somewhere else (a local restaurant visit, trip to movies, etc) to the sport.

If you want to argue for pro sports subsidies the best argument is probably a spiritual one, that's it's for civic pride/prestige/moral, which is what cities like Quebec City and Vegas openly seek in their recent pursuits, because a major league sports team puts these cities on new continental maps with 30 of their large peers, and gets their name mentioned a lot more in prominent publications (especially if the team manages to do well). I can tell you as a Montrealer that the city felt the wound to its pride in losing its MLB club, that we were now diminished by it. It was a punch in the face that laid bare Montreal's difficulties and now getting it back would be a widely applauded marker that the city is on the right track, back in the big leagues.

So go ahead with that sort of spiritual argument, but don't give us the bunk that it's good for the economy, that has been blown out of the water by decades of economic studies. Usually the economy argument is done by existing clubs looking for handouts in building a new stadium to win over a skeptical public that they actually need one (they usually can make do, and are usually looking for a way to raise prices too). The extra slap is when it's a very wealthy and successful club also (Yankees).
Exactly. Do people in Santa Fe NOT spend money on entertainment? Would the economy of Santa Fe suddenly boom if the city built a baseball stadium and an MLB team moved there?

Politicians will also claim it is creating jobs when they are justifying why the approved the spending. There are more efficient ways to spend that money that will also create jobs.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 12:07 PM
  #35
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,559
vCash: 50
And one thing I forgot to say, if the people of Santa Fe really want that MLB team for civic patriotic reasons, that's fine, let them have a referendum on public financing and go for it. What the US Senate is saying is that find another way to finance it than municipal bonds, which are subsidized by the Federal taxpayer. Municipal bonds were designed so Uncle Sam helps with critical municipal infrastructure, not vanity projects.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 12:21 PM
  #36
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Exactly. Do people in Santa Fe NOT spend money on entertainment? Would the economy of Santa Fe suddenly boom if the city built a baseball stadium and an MLB team moved there?

Politicians will also claim it is creating jobs when they are justifying why the approved the spending. There are more efficient ways to spend that money that will also create jobs.
You could make the same argument against almost any downtown revitalization, or really any civic improvements that don't address growth.

I'm not all gung ho for taxpayer money to be spent on major league sports, but it's not really a binary issue.

__________________
You pressed You, referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is You.
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 12:35 PM
  #37
Daximus
Aces Charles
 
Daximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Five Hills
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,169
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
So, it helps hotels and bars? They should spend a billion dollars so bar owners and waitresses can make more money? Again, sports teams are really not beneficial for local economies. Unless by local economy, you are referring to the approximate 1/4-1/2 mile radius around the arena/stadium.
I'd like to see Calgary's downtown without the Flames and Stampeders or Edmonton's without the Eskies and Oilers. Guarantee it would be vastly different. And yes that would be part of the local economy.

Daximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 12:37 PM
  #38
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
You could make the same argument against almost any downtown revitalization, or really any civic improvements that don't address growth.

I'm not all gung ho for taxpayer money to be spent on major league sports, but it's not really a binary issue.
What other public good though goes through a market where cities are played off each other like predators. I cant view them the same way for that very reason.

Much prefer the environment in Europe where a lot of public money is spent, but at least its not pitting Manchester against Liverpool in a closed racket so the money on stadiums/arenas is a little more sensible.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 12:42 PM
  #39
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
What other public good though goes through a market where cities are played off each other like predators. I cant view them the same way for that very reason.

Much prefer the environment in Europe where a lot of public money is spent, but at least its not pitting Manchester against Liverpool in a closed racket so the money on stadiums/arenas is a little more sensible.
It's just a different, more passionate business.

I'm sure places like The Cheesecake Factory have said they'd put a location in a place if the city builds a light rail line nearby. I'm sure real estate investors play municipalities off each other for improvements. It goes on and on, it's just not as public and the normal ham and egger population doesn't care nearly as much about a mixed use development helped by a local government as they do their favorite sports team.

Every stadium/arena provides benefit, it's just a matter of the scope through which you look for the benefit. Same for almost every other government effort.

Like I said, I'm not all in 100% public funding, but these things should be handled on a case by case basis. It seems like the people opposed are 100% opposed to any assistance, which seems just as silly to me as being for 100% public funding in all cases.

BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 12:51 PM
  #40
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,102
vCash: 500
I look at it this way, let's say the proposed change was in place prior to the discussed "$3.2B in lost federal taxes". At the extreme ends, two possibilities:

a) Municipalities don't build anything. No federal tax dollars are generated, the $3.2B remains "lost". I know many would be happy with this outcome, and that's fine. I do think it's disingenuous to frame the issue as one of "lost" federal taxes though.

b) Municipalities built all the same stuff, but used non-tax exempt bonds to do it. The federal government collects their $3.2B in taxes. But where did that tax money come from? It came from the municipalities--they'd have to pay higher interest rates on the bonds if they're not tax exempt.

Obviously what would have actually happened is something in between. But I don't think either end of the spectrum is a great solution for the "lost tax revenue" issue. You might see more private spending on sports venues possibly generating federal tax revenue, you could also see municipalities get more creative in tax breaks or other avenues to get around the inability to use tax-exempt bonds as well.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 01:49 PM
  #41
93LEAFS
Registered User
 
93LEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Why would upper-middle class people want to live near a stadium? Infrastructure? All that means is usually an extra exit ramp off a highway or some re-paving of roads. Nothing that is going to truly benefit the city.
Have you seen prices of a decent place in Manhatten? In the case of Yankee stadium, it actually brings something to the area, and can help create local bars and somewhat of a scene. Maybe not upper-middle class, but atleast young urban professionals. Infrastructure in the case of alot of cities can mean extending a subway line or adding a new station.

It really varies by city, but how densely populated the area around the ACC and Skydome has become ridiculous. Although, Toronto has always had a very livable downtown.

93LEAFS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:02 PM
  #42
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93LEAFS View Post
Have you seen prices of a decent place in Manhatten? In the case of Yankee stadium, it actually brings something to the area, and can help create local bars and somewhat of a scene. Maybe not upper-middle class, but atleast young urban professionals. Infrastructure in the case of alot of cities can mean extending a subway line or adding a new station.

It really varies by city, but how densely populated the area around the ACC and Skydome has become ridiculous. Although, Toronto has always had a very livable downtown.
I have lived in NY my whole life. I am well aware of the prices in Manhattan. Very little residential buildings near MSG. Yankee Stadium is nowhere near MSG. Yankee Stadium is in a slum to the point that a lot of people do not go to Yankee games because of the area. They have a few Yankee themed bars, and a McDonalds. It has done NOTHING to help the area. An extra subway stop?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:05 PM
  #43
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daximus View Post
I'd like to see Calgary's downtown without the Flames and Stampeders or Edmonton's without the Eskies and Oilers. Guarantee it would be vastly different. And yes that would be part of the local economy.
Never been to either, but not sure why it matters. Why does "downtown" have to matter? "downtown" would likely have a lot less traffic without the teams, at least on gamenights and people will spend their money elsewhere. It is a VERY small radius of real estate that benefits from the arena/stadium and does nothing for the City/State?Province as a whole.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:10 PM
  #44
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
It's just a different, more passionate business.

I'm sure places like The Cheesecake Factory have said they'd put a location in a place if the city builds a light rail line nearby. I'm sure real estate investors play municipalities off each other for improvements. It goes on and on, it's just not as public and the normal ham and egger population doesn't care nearly as much about a mixed use development helped by a local government as they do their favorite sports team.

Every stadium/arena provides benefit, it's just a matter of the scope through which you look for the benefit. Same for almost every other government effort.

Like I said, I'm not all in 100% public funding, but these things should be handled on a case by case basis. It seems like the people opposed are 100% opposed to any assistance, which seems just as silly to me as being for 100% public funding in all cases.
Is this sarcasm? You think The Cheesecake Factory or any other restaurant would have that kind of pull with a municipality? The Cheesecake Factory will open a location wherever the franchisee wants to put it, within their own company guidelines.

If every stadium provides benefits, please post some data to back off your claim. Simply saying people go and spend money in bars and restaurants or take the train which generates fares is not evidence. If you THINK they provide an economic benefit, I suggest you do some further research. I admit, I was very surprised when I saw some of the numbers.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:19 PM
  #45
93LEAFS
Registered User
 
93LEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I have lived in NY my whole life. I am well aware of the prices in Manhattan. Very little residential buildings near MSG. Yankee Stadium is nowhere near MSG. Yankee Stadium is in a slum to the point that a lot of people do not go to Yankee games because of the area. They have a few Yankee themed bars, and a McDonalds. It has done NOTHING to help the area. An extra subway stop?
I could be wrong, but I had heard the new parkland and some of the stuff around the game had helped start to somewhat revitalize that area of the Bronx. But, since you are a native of that city, I will take your word for it. Granted, pretty much any area like the area near Yankee stadium, or areas in Brooklyn like East New York, while still bad have just generally improved from the 80's because it was near impossible to get much worse.

I do realize there are series issue with stadium financing. But, I do think it can work in very specific situations. Putting a stadium in the suburbs and hoping it brings customers and a tax base is always a disaster, as shown by the two Glendale stadiums. I am glad I cheer for one of the few teams in Sports who completely financed their own building (Leafs and Raptors) and I know the Skydome ended up being a somewhat raw-deal for the city and province, but that area has massively developed since. Granted, it is very hard to attribute that to just the stadium, and is probably more reflective of a young generation more interested in moving downtown due to how far the suburbs have stretched.

93LEAFS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:23 PM
  #46
Rorschach
Fearful Symmetry
 
Rorschach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 8,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I look at it this way, let's say the proposed change was in place prior to the discussed "$3.2B in lost federal taxes". At the extreme ends, two possibilities:

a) Municipalities don't build anything. No federal tax dollars are generated, the $3.2B remains "lost". I know many would be happy with this outcome, and that's fine. I do think it's disingenuous to frame the issue as one of "lost" federal taxes though.

b) Municipalities built all the same stuff, but used non-tax exempt bonds to do it. The federal government collects their $3.2B in taxes. But where did that tax money come from? It came from the municipalities--they'd have to pay higher interest rates on the bonds if they're not tax exempt.

Obviously what would have actually happened is something in between. But I don't think either end of the spectrum is a great solution for the "lost tax revenue" issue. You might see more private spending on sports venues possibly generating federal tax revenue, you could also see municipalities get more creative in tax breaks or other avenues to get around the inability to use tax-exempt bonds as well.
My problem is the government having that 3.2B in the first place. I'd rather that money come back to the private sector.

Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:26 PM
  #47
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Is this sarcasm? You think The Cheesecake Factory or any other restaurant would have that kind of pull with a municipality? The Cheesecake Factory will open a location wherever the franchisee wants to put it, within their own company guidelines.

If every stadium provides benefits, please post some data to back off your claim. Simply saying people go and spend money in bars and restaurants or take the train which generates fares is not evidence. If you THINK they provide an economic benefit, I suggest you do some further research. I admit, I was very surprised when I saw some of the numbers.
Cheesecake Factory was just the first thing I thought of. A developer putting a mall up was probably a better example.

Like I said earlier, you can find benefit to almost any government action depending on the scope through which you search. You then have to decide if it's worth it.

For example, Yankee Stadium, as mentioned above, provided a benefit to a couple Yankees bars, the people that own that property, and a McDonalds. That's a fairly tiny amount, but there it is. Looking larger, it may have diverted some revenue from Manhattan (or somewhere else in the city) to that area of The Bronx, and while it's revenue neutral to the City as a whole, The Bronx borough benefited. To the State of New York and the United States in general, it has almost zero impact, yet there's that neighborhood that was improved in some way by the stadium.

Take it to something else. If the City of Las Vegas decides it wants to build a nice public park in an area, it doesn't benefit the city as a whole, it disproportionately benefits the property owners and citizens directly near the park. If you look at it from a metropolitan area perspective, it just created a small area that's nicer that in was prior to the park, to the state it means even less.

When cities decide to beautify their downtowns and clean things up a little, that benefits the businesses in downtown through (hopefully) increased revenues and more tourism-type money. It doesn't really serve a purpose for the overall population of a city to make sure the downtown area is nice, if it's not nice businesses will move to where the business is within the city. It's neutral.

What I'm saying is that there's a lot of stuff that governments do that doesn't have a major benefit. The secret is, and what I suggest people do, is decide if the benefit that's gained from a stadium project is worth the government investment. If it's not, don't do it. Saying governments shouldn't help construct sports facilities at all seems obtuse. There is a benefit, you've just got to find it. Sometimes the benefit comes at a crap value in relation to the investment. That's the decision-maker's fault, not the stadium's.

BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 02:37 PM
  #48
Daximus
Aces Charles
 
Daximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Five Hills
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,169
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Never been to either, but not sure why it matters. Why does "downtown" have to matter? "downtown" would likely have a lot less traffic without the teams, at least on gamenights and people will spend their money elsewhere. It is a VERY small radius of real estate that benefits from the arena/stadium and does nothing for the City/State?Province as a whole.
You must be from a massive city if you don't know the economic impact a downtown core has on the city as a whole. Places the size of Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa have a lot of benefits to having their teams in their downtown core. Winnipeg's downtown core has been completely revitalized because of the Jets. Why do you think Ottawa wants to get the Sens in the downtown core? Obviously some don't want to pay for it but it's mutually beneficial. Is it more beneficial for the team? Absolutely, but to suggest there is no benefit to the public at all is asinine.

Daximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 03:30 PM
  #49
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
Cheesecake Factory was just the first thing I thought of. A developer putting a mall up was probably a better example.

Like I said earlier, you can find benefit to almost any government action depending on the scope through which you search. You then have to decide if it's worth it.

For example, Yankee Stadium, as mentioned above, provided a benefit to a couple Yankees bars, the people that own that property, and a McDonalds. That's a fairly tiny amount, but there it is. Looking larger, it may have diverted some revenue from Manhattan (or somewhere else in the city) to that area of The Bronx, and while it's revenue neutral to the City as a whole, The Bronx borough benefited. To the State of New York and the United States in general, it has almost zero impact, yet there's that neighborhood that was improved in some way by the stadium.

Take it to something else. If the City of Las Vegas decides it wants to build a nice public park in an area, it doesn't benefit the city as a whole, it disproportionately benefits the property owners and citizens directly near the park. If you look at it from a metropolitan area perspective, it just created a small area that's nicer that in was prior to the park, to the state it means even less.

When cities decide to beautify their downtowns and clean things up a little, that benefits the businesses in downtown through (hopefully) increased revenues and more tourism-type money. It doesn't really serve a purpose for the overall population of a city to make sure the downtown area is nice, if it's not nice businesses will move to where the business is within the city. It's neutral.
. Saying governments shouldn't help construct sports facilities at all seems obtuse. There is a benefit, you've just got to find it. Sometimes the benefit comes at a crap value in relation to the investment. That's the decision-maker's fault, not the stadium's.
My thought how anything different between a non sports business and a sports business. There are going to be subsidies no matter what it is and if business can't get that subsidies from one state or city, they'll go to another location that will give it.

So the feds wants to stop federal tax exemption for sports stadiums? So its perfectly okay to be federal tax exempt as long as your business isn't a pro sport franchise? That sounds like discrimination to me and something that should be illegal. I'll be perfectly okay with feds getting rid of Federal tax exempt for sports if they are going to do the same thing for non sports businesses too.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2017, 07:49 AM
  #50
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post

For example, Yankee Stadium, as mentioned above, provided a benefit to a couple Yankees bars, the people that own that property, and a McDonalds. That's a fairly tiny amount, but there it is. Looking larger, it may have diverted some revenue from Manhattan (or somewhere else in the city) to that area of The Bronx, and while it's revenue neutral to the City as a whole, The Bronx borough benefited. To the State of New York and the United States in general, it has almost zero impact, yet there's that neighborhood that was improved in some way by the stadium.

Take it to something else. If the City of Las Vegas decides it wants to build a nice public park in an area, it doesn't benefit the city as a whole, it disproportionately benefits the property owners and citizens directly near the park. If you look at it from a metropolitan area perspective, it just created a small area that's nicer that in was prior to the park, to the state it means even less.
Yankee Stadium originally opened in 1923. The new stadium is at the same location. The bars and McDonalds were there long before the new stadium went up. It did nothing for those places. Even if the McDonald's was new and opened with the arrival of the new stadium, does that really improve a neighborhood?

The park example is completely different. It is a public space for everyone to use and not expected to generate revenue or line the pockets of a few billionaires. The cost to convert empty land into a park is not nearly as astronomical and often comes with city-wide initiatives to build more than 1 park in more than 1 neighborhood.

The whole point is that you are asking ALL the tax payers of a city to cover the cost of an arena/stadium that will benefit a billionaire that likely does not even live within the city limits and a few business owners within 1/4-1/2 mile of said arena/stadium.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.