Should taxpayers fund stadiums and arenas for pro sports teams?

[Bloodshot Scott]

This topic has once again become heated in my community (at least the third time within about a decade, and maybe forth if I include TCF Stadium) and there are a lot of opinions on the matter.

I know when we brought the NHL and the 'X' to town, a number of people found work and $20 mixed drinks on Club level bring in nice tax revenue for the county and city.

Should taxpayers foot (some of) the bill for stadiums and arenas? Does doing so recoup said dollars and in so doing help the counties, cities and states that make taxpayers pay these increases?

I'm interested in this, as this may be a referendum on my ballot very soon here where I am. I have heard what appear to be logical arguments on both sides and wonder why billionaires shouldn't be entirely funding these stadiums which only line their pocketbooks further.

:dunno:

 

[HeartBroker]

If they want to.

Many don't, many do.
Entirely up to the vote!

 

[Will E Worm]

With a stipulation that the team actual do something.

 

[lurkingdirk]

I think this is bollocks. This is private enterprise, and it should be treated as such. The money of tax payers should not be used for this. Eventually (in the relatively near future), this will create profit, and the tax payers will receive exactly none of this profit. Yes, some jobs will be created, but they would if they used the same money to fix roads, build libraries, or improve schools.

Private investors. That's the way stadiums should be run.

:2 cents:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I think this is bollocks. This is private enterprise, and it should be treated as such. The money of tax payers should not be used for this. Eventually (in the relatively near future), this will create profit, and the tax payers will receive exactly none of this profit. Yes, some jobs will be created, but they would if they used the same money to fix roads, build libraries, or improve schools.

Private investors. That's the way stadiums should be run.

:2 cents:

But how often does that actually happen? The only one in recent memory to me (and I pay A LOT of attention to sports news) is Jerry Jones in Dallas. I could even be wrong on that one.

 

[HeartBroker]

I think this is bollocks. This is private enterprise, and it should be treated as such. The money of tax payers should not be used for this. Eventually (in the relatively near future), this will create profit, and the tax payers will receive exactly none of this profit. Yes, some jobs will be created, but they would if they used the same money to fix roads, build libraries, or improve schools.

Private investors. That's the way stadiums should be run.

:2 cents:

If I asked you if you'd like to contribute to a huge party I was throwing and you said yes, would it make any more sense?


If you said no, I would not expect to see you at the party.
Would you just crash it and come anyway?
Just because you married my half sister?


Huh, would ya'?

 

[lurkingdirk]

But how often does that actually happen? The only one in recent memory to me (and I pay A LOT of attention to sports news) is Jerry Jones in Dallas. I could even be wrong on that one.

Yes, I understand that. However, I fully believe that if the tax payer dollars disappeared, there would be quite a few private investors who would step up.

And I don't understand how it came to this - sports are so lucrative. Why do they need taxpayer dollars? The team/organisation/investors/owners may have to take out a fucking mortgage to build a new stadium just like the rest of the fucking world. They just want to make money in the first season. That's baloney. Get a mortgage, build a stadium, run a good team, pay the mortgage off, profit!

 

[HeartBroker]

Yes, I understand that. However, I fully believe that if the tax payer dollars disappeared, there would be quite a few private investors who would step up.

And I don't understand how it came to this - sports are so lucrative. Why do they need taxpayer dollars? The team/organisation/investors/owners may have to take out a fucking mortgage to build a new stadium just like the rest of the fucking world. They just want to make money in the first season. That's baloney. Get a mortgage, build a stadium, run a good team, pay the mortgage off, profit!

I see.
Don't want to address your wife, do ya'?

 

[lurkingdirk]

I see.
Don't want to address your wife, do ya'?

:dunno:

 

[HeartBroker]

If I asked you if you'd like to contribute to a huge party I was throwing and you said yes, would it make any more sense?


If you said no, I would not expect to see you at the party.
Would you just crash it and come anyway?
Just because you married my half sister?


Huh, would ya'?

:rofl2:

 

[TheOrangeCat]

no ...

 

[HeartBroker]

Of course you don't .
I was talking about someone that's actually in a relationship with a female.


Sorry if You Misunderstood.

 

[Rey C.]

This question was asked on an economics board that I used to post on. I found it incredibly amusing how many of the self-described "fiscal conservatives" on there said yes. Many of those same people, who were against the auto and banking bailouts, were for taxpayer support of sports stadiums and such. Even the TEA Party darling, Rick Perry, is going to allow $25-$30 million of Texas taxpayer money to be used to pay the sanction fee for the Austin Formula One race next year. I'm looking forward to taking advantage of Perry's willingness to give away taxpayer funds, as I hope to be there. But these people are hypocrites that speak out of both sides of their mouths.

What's even more ridiculous is that these stadiums are often built near areas that can't afford to build decent schools. So to me, it's just another sign of the decline of our society and the republic.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Of course you don't .
I was talking about someone that's actually in a relationship with a female.


Sorry if you misunderstood.

Didn't see your first post, somehow.

I don't see your analogy as relevant, however. If you're going to argue that way, let's talk about concert halls for classical and popular music. Just as many people would get a bang for their buck then. In fact, likely more, as it would happen all year 'round, not just during a particular sport season.

My point stands. I think there are a hell of a lot better ways to spend tax dollars than on stadiums.

 

[HeartBroker]

PEOPLE

It's voted on.

Vote it down: It doesn't happen

Vote for it: It does


Entirely dependent upon the community.
Please!

 

[HeartBroker]

Didn't see your first post, somehow.

I don't see your analogy as relevant, however. If you're going to argue that way, let's talk about concert halls for classical and popular music. Just as many people would get a bang for their buck then. In fact, likely more, as it would happen all year 'round, not just during a particular sport season.

My point stands. I think there are a hell of a lot better ways to spend tax dollars than on stadiums.

She wants you to call her btw...

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

This is a really heated topic in Canada actually. Regina, Edmonton, Quebec, Hamilton, and others all want federal funding for new stadiums and it won't happen for any team except hamilton's. The problem in Canada is that we lack the revenue sources cities in the States have. There aren't many owners who have the money or the will to pay for a stadium or arena, particularly for the CFL... Regina wants to build a $430 million - $1 billion dollar stadium. That will not happen.

 

[lurkingdirk]

She wants you to call her btw...

She hates you, btw.


I thought it was time someone told you.

 

[HeartBroker]

It's common knowledge.
Your Father-In-Law is a drunken idiot!



Whereas I am a drunken genius, I guess it really doesn't run in the family!

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

This question was asked on an economics board that I used to post on. I found it incredibly amusing how many of the self-described "fiscal conservatives" on there said yes. Many of those same people, who were against the auto and banking bailouts, were for taxpayer support of sports stadiums and such. Even the TEA Party darling, Rick Perry, is going to allow $25-$30 million of Texas taxpayer money to be used to pay the sanction fee for the Austin Formula One race next year. I'm looking forward to taking advantage of Perry's willingness to give away taxpayer funds, as I hope to be there. But these people are hypocrites that speak out of both sides of their mouths.

What's even more ridiculous is that these stadiums are often built near areas that can't afford to build decent schools. So to me, it's just another sign of the decline of our society and the republic.

It's funny that you mention that, because our new gov' is VERY liberal (Mark Dayton) and in addition to him supporting it, of the seven county commissioners, several are liberal and support this idea as well. This, as far as I have seen, is a bipartisan issue. I'm in the county of the proposed tax increase and if credible evidence can be relayed to me about the positives v. the negatives, I could swing either way on the matter.