Should taxes be raised to build stadiums?

Great Debates
1

Today my wife and I toured the open house of “Miller Park” the new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers. I might as well see what was inside, I helped pay for the damn thing. This stadium was built by raising a sales tax. I was and still am strongly opposed to this. But let’s go over a few facts first:

*In the early 1990s Bud Selig, Owner of the Brewers, said that his team needed a new stadium. If he didn’t get one, he would move the team. He never askedfor a new stadium, he demanded one. I said let them move. I love baseball, but the Brewers haven’t been anywhere near the playoffs since 1982! We’d have gotten another team soon enough.

*In 1994 a referendum was placed on the ballot asking if a special state-wide sports lottery should be started to build the Brewers a new stadium. I supported this idea because it made paying for it voluntary. If you didn’t want to pay, don’t play. If you didn’t mind paying, play the sports lottery. You might even win some money. I was aware that if the sports lottery didn’t pass, a tax would be rammed down our collective throats. Either way, we were going to pay for the stadium. The lottery was the lesser of 2 evils.

*The referendum failed. So, as I predicted, a sales tax was heaved upon us. Then Governor, Tommy Thompson said, publicly, "Stick it to them"The tax passed by 1 vote. The state senator who cast the tie breaking vote, George Petak, had ran for office on a promise that he would not vote for a stadium tax. For the first time in stae history an elected official was recalled. The stadium issue cost George Petax his job.

*You can not buy stock in the Milwaukee Brewers. It is not a publicly owned team.

Most of the arguments I’ve heard for paying a tax for this set of emporers new clothes is that it supplies jobs. But so do other businesses. Should I have to pay a tax the next time Wal Mart wants to build a new store? Besides, the only new jobs a new stadium creates is during the construction of it, and those jobs are done once it’s built. Other than that, it will supply no more jobs than the old stadium. The fact that I have to pay a tax while the lousy players make hundreds of millions of dollars makes me furious!:mad:

The tax is small, but that’s not the only point. It’s the precedent it sets. Next, our mayor will want a sales tax to build a billion dollar light rail system that Milwaukee is too small for. Once these taxes start, they never end. Never! As I mentioned above, there are other ways to fund these projects.

I did not oppose the building of a new stadium. I oppose being forced to pay for a building for a private business entity. The public has no ownership of the Milwaukee Brewers in anyway. It is no different that paying a tax to build a building for any other private business.

Those of you who support these types of taxes, I ask you to justify it.

2

It is not the responsibility of Government to pay for the entertainment of its citizens. It is especially not the responsibility of government to support the morally fetid and intellectually imbecilic world of professional sports.

In short, I’m wit’ ya, bro.

Perhaps if your town lost the team they would have found better ways to raise money.

3

NO NO NO.

Stupid Dan Rooney and Kevin McClatchy. Here in Pittsburgh, we voted NO for tax funded stadiums. Well, they went ahead and did it anyway, tearing down Three Rivers, while our roads are in horrible shape. GREAT, going Mayor Murphy you (WORD THAT BELONGS IN THE PIT).

Sure, you decided to cut funding to CCAC a few years back, you county commissioners, even though you, Bob Cranmer, happen to be a CCAC Alumni. And you supported the stadium tax.

But no, I’m not bitter. :mad:

4

“…the morally fetid and intellectually imbecilic world of professional sports.” Good description, Friedo! I find annoying the assumption that pro sports are of any importance in the sceme of things.

I agree that tax money should not be spent on stadiums (stadii?). If a team threatens to leave, let 'em. If the city really wants a team, they can attract (or create) another.

5

I say, if the government want’s to create a Stadium Tax, let them tax the tickets. Personally, I could give a rats ass if the Sox ever get a new Fenway Stadium or if the Pats move to Hartford, CT. But, professional sports ARE important to a lot of people. And teams like the Yankees or the Red Sox become an important part of their home cities. The teams can’t have it both ways though. They can’t be part of the city and have the government support them financially whilw acting like independent corporations that leave town whenever a better opportunity presents itself.

6

‘stadia’, as ‘agenda’ to ‘agendum’ (or ‘fora’ to ‘forum’, a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance).

I agree than public money should not go toward subsidizing a sports team. I was living in Seattle when an initiative was on the ballot to raise taxes to finance a new stadium for the Mariners. The initiative failed, the state legislature changed some of the details and passed it anyway. The deal also gave the Mariners the final say on all details about the stadium, which they decided in their interest and not the people’s.

I do have a couple questions that might change my thinking, though. First, I believe sports teams enter into a lease with the city (for municipal stadia). Can a city negotiate the terms of that lease so that it pays back the cost of construction? I seem to remember that the Kingdome actually made money during its first few years of operation.

Second, what about other organizations that use expensive public facilities. The Seattle Symphony, Opera and Ballet all used to perform in the Seattle Opera House on the Seattle Center grounds, and the Symphony recently moved to a new concert hall downtown. Are those organizations privately owned, like the Mariners, and did any public money go into the construction of the facilities?

7

Oh, be happy that you’re just paying for one stadium that was voted down.

The opera house is funded with public money. The difference is that the public voted to spend public money on the opera house (rather than voting against doing so.) [url http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=oper&date=19991103]see here. I can’t find anything quickly on the symphony hall. ((My guess would also be that neither of those are for profit organizations, but I’m not sure))

8

someday I will learn how to link. on the first try…really

9

My question: why aren’t more sports teams publicly owned? In the NFL, the only such team 9to my knowledge) is the Green Bay Packers. Most of the stock is held by the local fans, so any money spent 9through public bonds for example) would be paid by the people who actually own the team. I don’t see anything wrong with this scheme of things. What I DON’T SUPPORT is a thief like Bob Kraft (owned of the NE Patriots) extorting money from me (via taxes, subsidies, tax breaks), to pay obscene salaries for his players. I don’t havew the opportunity to benefit from the team (as if I owned shares in it), so why should I pay higher taxes to benefit a multi-millionaire like Kraft!!
This is welfare in its worst form…and these team owners have no loyalty-htye will move their franchise to whoever is able to extort more from the local citizenry. In the case of kraft, he was all set to move his crappy team to hartford, CT.-all the bribes were pais, and local hacks hired…till Masachusetts made a better offer!

10

You’re preaching to the choir, PK.

I am a big pro sports fan, but, as I’ve said on this board and in other forums, using public money to support private enterprises such as pro sports teams is completely indefensible. It would be cheaper in the long run for the government to seize the teams by eminent domain and run the teams themselves than it is to subsidize them by building new stadiums. I live in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and voted against the sales taxes on alcohol and tobacco that went to pay for Jacobs Field, Gund Arena and the new Browns Stadium.

11

There was a double-extra stupid situation in Houston where Bud Adams demanded a new stadium for the Oilers. He was told to hit the road. Victory! Or so we thought. Now, we just finished building a new stadium for the Astros, and are building another one for the new football team (the Texans, which is the worst name possible, IMHO). I agree. Using public money to build a stadium for a sports team is an unconscionable waste of money.

12

Hear, hear!

Municipalities should not spend money on sports stadia for privately-owned sports teams unless:

a) It has been approved by public referendum, or
b) The city takes a portion of the team’s revenue and returns it to the taxpayer after the stadium is completed.

13

Up front: I am categorically opposed to government subsidies for private businesses. I believe in the free market, I believe in free enterprise, and that means entrepreneurs are responsible for building and maintaining their own facilities. Rudy Giuliani would LAUGH if George Steinbrenner demand that the city of New York build him new shipyards, free of charge, and let him use them in perpetuity for free. Dallas mayor Ron Kirk would laugh if Jerry Jones demanded that taxpayers drill him new oil wells, and let him keep all the profits from the oil. So, why don’t cities laugh when millionaire sports franchise owners demand handouts?

But I will say this, on behalf of sports franchise owners: I can’t blame THEM for demanding handouts, if the taxpayers are stupid enough to grant them. Heck, wouldn’t YOU demand that your hometown build you a mansion and let you live in it for free, if there were ANY chance they’d agree to it?

And while I WANT to encourage taxpayers to stand firm and say “No,” when their favorite teams demand new stadiums, I ALSO want to say clearly: don’t kid around. Sports fans, if you’re going to wimp out, if you’re going to knuckle under, if you’re going to drop your pants and bend over, DO IT RIGHT AWAY! Don’t string this out, the way Houston, Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis fans did.

I mean, Houstonians refused (understandably) to subsidize Bud Adams. When he threatened to move to Tennessee, they told him “Bye bye, Bud, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.” But as soon as he left, Houstonians coughed up FAR more money to get a new team than Bud Adams ever asked for! Cleveland fans thumbed their noses at Art Modell (understandably), but then gave Al Lerner far MORE than Art Modell ever asked for! Only in one place- Los Angeles- have fnas and taxpayers held firm, and refused to shell out big bucks for a new stadium, even after the local team moved out. If Baltimore and St. Louis taxpayers weren’t willing to subsidize Bob Irsay or Bill Bidwill, why did they throw money at Art Modell and Georgia Frontiere???

Anyway, as I said: I believe in free enterprise. Some people believe in socialism. But what we have in big time sports is a system that combines the worst elements of capitalism and socialism! Taxpayers take all the risks and pay all the costs, while a private business takes all the profits. This makes NO sense for the taxpayer.

Bear in mind, a LOT of the “old, outdated, decrepit” stadiums that owners complain about are fairly new! It’s not the fans complaining about these stadiums- it’s the owners. The owners don’t want big stadiums filled with 50,000 blue-collar fans. They want small, luxurious stadiums filled with suites they can lease to corporate CEOs and VIPs. In short, when an owner asks for a new stadium, he’s REALLY telling the taxpayers, “Build me a new stadium where my rich clients won’t have to rub elbows with riff-raff like YOU.”

Well, think about this: it costs about $300 million to build the kind of state-of-the-art stadium most baseball teams want. MOST baseball teams are worth about HALF that amount. So, in for a penny, in for a pound! Why shell out $300 million for a stadium, when you could have the city pay $150 million to buy the team itself, and keep them right where they are.