This is going to be true of more or less any special treatment of any part of the population. People bitch and white in nice neighborhoods if a three-storey complex goes up because they think it’ll hurt their view. Someone who loves opera wants a new opera house. Sports fans are oddly passionate but it’s the same general problem that a few people can be a VERY squeaky wheel.
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas kind of agrees with you. He still wants them in MO but whatever works.
I am dead set against providing public money to support profitable businesses, full stop. And I find it hard to respect citizens who think the community owes them a team. And I really wish cities would recognize that the extortion only works because they let it.
Anyway, I’m really here because The Economist just ran this article in this week’s edition (well, this week’s until tomorrow). Hopefully a gift link:
But the city also doesn’t get anything from it. Like property taxes on land that is now extremely valuable.
My county refused to allow a new shopping mall to be built back in the day. The developers went a mile down the road, over the line to the next county. That mall was fantastically successful and spawned a bunch of mini-malls and restaurants and stuff. Taxes in the next town went nearly to zero, making it a hub for fancy little shops. The land on my county’s side of the line still hasn’t been developed 40 years later. Hope that was what they wanted.
There’s a difference between not allowing something to be built and simply not paying for it to be built .
And about the property taxes - maybe. If the stadium isn’t built on public property.
Keeping something from being built because of zoning reasons or whatever is functionally not different from keeping something from being built by not paying for it. The something does not get built there, for better or worse. The something may get built elsewhere, for better or worse. If for better, the original reason doesn’t look good.
For the record, I’m still against using public money to build stadiums for billionaires. However, siting a stadium can bring benefits to different communities depending on where it is sited and where the attendees will come from. That’s a different issue.
Shopping centers are different. They dont benefit multimillionaire team owners.
However, shopping centers are dying all over America.
Here goes the first salvo from Kansas…
The bill passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and sent to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly would allow Kansas to issue bonds to cover up to 70% of the costs of a new stadium in the state for the Chiefs and another for Major League Baseball’s Kansas City Royals.
The state would pay off its bonds over 30 years with revenues from sports betting, Kansas Lottery ticket sales and new sales and alcohol taxes collected from shopping and entertainment districts around the sites for the new stadiums.
Sounds familiar!
They should at least legalize weed to get more taxes.
If your neighboring county paid to build the mall, their taxes wouldn’t be near zero. Their taxes might be every bit as high as yours, and while you both get to go to the mall, they get more of the traffic and noise problems.
You don’t actually keep something from being built simply by not paying for it. If the zoning in your town doesn’t allow for shopping malls, then the shopping mall won’t be built in your town regardless of who is willing to pay for it. If your town doesn’t pay to build the stadium, there is no reason the team(s) can’t pay for it to be built in your town. Maybe they won’t , if the town down the road is willing to pay for it , but they could.
FRom what my son tells me there is mostly ego involved here. The host city’s name is on the news all the time because of the sports casts. Occasionally the team may win a championship and so everybody is excited, (the “champion” effect lasts for decades after the big win) The overall effect is psychological NOT economical, in his opinion. Neither of us are psychologists or economists BTW.
Maybe- There has been a baseball team playing in Anaheim since 1966. They were the Anaheim Angels from 1997 to 2004 and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim from 2005-2015 (lease requirement) . Anaheim built and owns the stadium but was only part of the name for about 17 years. It’s not at all uncommon for a team not to play in the city it’s named for - and sportscasts don’t mention Arlington when they talk about the Dallas Cowboys.
In their first years they were the California Angels.
They were - but Anaheim wasn’t getting mentioned on the sports casts “all the time” when they were the California Angels.
Correct. I knew you knew that. I was just adding it for completeness. I grew up in West LA so I went to Dodger games much more frequently but we went to a number of Angel games as well. We’d always get In n Out before the game because it only existed in OC at the time.
The public radio program Planet Money a few years ago did a story (link is to the story transcript) about how cities and states offer incentives to lure companies. They focused on the twin cities of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas, because they’re right across from each other. One company’s move was so close that they could see their old offices from the window of their new offices. My guess is that most of their employees aren’t moving when the company moves, but instead continuing to live where they are, so any benefits to the city are limited.
@cheesesteak and @doreen, the answer in both cases is money. Don’t like a zoning regulation? Speak to the officials and cough rationally induce cough a zoning change or variance or exception. These happen all the time for small things and large things. Get stubborn and things don’t happen.
I don’t follow - sure, the guy who wants to build a mall can probably find a way to get the zoning changed. Teams that want the public to build a stadium aren’t worried about zoning. Unless you’re suggesting outright bribing the public officials to spend public money to build the stadium- which I suppose can happen, but I’ve never heard of it. Apparently threats to move are effective enough.
A proposed design for the new Chiefs/Royals stadium straddles the state line and they’re pushing that as a “Feature”. I’m envisioning a new Baseball stat “# homeruns out of state”