That is usually the case- no actual up front public money, but $100’s of millions in tax breaks.
Right. It’s the typical stadium boondoggle that feasts on local economic activity surrounding stadium-related events (hotels, restaurants & bars, special TIF districts, etc.). It is specifically not statewide property taxes or general funds that fund public schools. Add in the $2 billion required from the Bears themselves, and it’s a relatively tame stadium deal compared to others in the last couple decades. Likely why it passed 95-5 in the Indiana House.
Not really- those numbers seem to vanish in the cold clear light of day- crime and traffic increases and other issues.
What’s your point? It will raise the taxes of Indiana residents (only some of them, granted) in exchange for the promise of “economic development”, which based on past experience will never pan out.
Note these taxes on “stadium-surrounding” activities will cover TWO ENTIRE COUNTIES surrounding the stadium! Granted, Indiana has tiny counties, but that’s still affecting a lot of businesses which won’t get any benefit at all from the stadium.
Huh? The stadium tax in Marion County (for the Colts’ Lucas Oil stadium) is a separate line item on every restaurant receipt. What are you talking about?
That your contention that this is sucking money out of public schools was fabricated.
Not a stadium deal directly, but my local State College has dollar signs in their eyes and sports fever deluding them to thinking their football team is going to be a huge money-generator:
The deal is super bad - the school is 2,000 miles from the nearest other school in that conference, and they have to pay for the other teams to travel out west, and they do not share in the conference’s revenue share. Cost $23M over five years, likely more. Meanwhile, the school has had to cut back on staffing, and raise tuition for students who, ya know, are going there to get an education. Also, other CSU schools have gotten rid of their football progams over the last few decades due to the financial strain of maintaining a team. Such as horse shit deal - my son, who is a graduate of Sac State and loves football thinks this is a very stupid move. There is also talk of building a new stadium, or refurbishing the existing one, as part of this “uplift” of the team and university, because, ya know, there is such high demand for football at this level locally (there’s not).
So you think wasting the taxpayer’s money by giving it away to billionaires isn’t going to affect the overall economy of Indiana, and therefore its tax revenue? The money will just go away and nobody will be affected by it? OK.
I
If you think that’s what I said or even implied, then you are incorrect. I’m simply correcting your misstatement. If you want to trickle the effects of standard boondoggle stadium taxes down to tertiary outcomes decades down the line, and make that your primary argument, have at it - but there are much bigger pieces of fruit hanging mere inches from the ground on this subject before you have to just start making shit up.
You seriously thought that post was presented as an informed, detailed analysis of the proposed measure in the context of the overall tax structure of Indiana?
So it’s not just a bunch of Indiana politicians trying to move the goalposts now?
Moderating:
We have several posts moving into the realm of attacking the poster, not the post. To all involved, tone it down, or take it to the Pit. No warnings issued.
Why is that a plus? And even so the extra costs involved eat up any such 'windfall".
I am not suggesting that stadiums bring economic prosperity - I’m just saying that revenue is kept track of and fairly transparent. I’m just curious what in the world your comment was meant to suggest, as I can’t parse it.
In GENERAL that is what occurs- all those great economic boons never seem to materialize.
Not a comment on just that one case. In the general sense of this tread- Stadiums are -in general- no real economic plus. The promises are lies.
Right, the amount of tax collected may be perfectly transparent. What is opaque is the magnitude of the alleged economic benefit to the area. Which, to be fair, is extremely difficult to calculate, but serious efforts to do so almost always conclude that it is a very poor use of tax revenue.
Yeah, if Indiana were to get the team to move, that sounds to me like a win-win for Chicagoans. They still have a team with their name on it, playing close enough to get to the games easily, but they don’t have to pay anything for it.
All depending on your definition of “easy,” and where you live.
For Bears fans who live in the northern or western suburbs, or the northern side of the city of Chicago (which are the wealthier areas), going to Hammond adds at least an extra half-hour to the trip, and making it at least an hour door-to-door. It’d certainly be more convenient than Soldier Field for fans in the southern suburbs closer to the Indiana state line, and those in northwest Indiana.
Arlington Heights would be more convenient for those who live in the western and northwestern suburbs, and likely still more convenient than Hammond for those in the northern suburbs.