not-so-furry discussion > debate forum

Should cities build ball league stadiums.

(1/2) > >>

Old Rabbit:
Seems cities are always worrying about where some ball team is moving, and
think building a stadium will keep them. Perhaps it would, but it's bad for
the taxpayer.

I know major ball leagues playing in cities does increase tax revenue.  But
not enough to pay the cost of building the huge stadiums the leagues want.
Along with cost of maintaining them.

They make huge profits, then turn around and ask tax payers to fund their
playgrounds. I say let them build their own stadiums. The large cities shouldn't
worry. They would build them where the market is anyway, and the local governments
would get the tax revenue without spending all that tax money in the first place.

Some politicians say government needs to get out of the way of private interprise.
This would be a good way to start.

cause the rat:
No. because it doesn't guarantee you'll keep a team. We have a practically brand new domed stadium. Now the Rams want an open one. So they left. Probably more to it than that. Doesn't matter. They're not staying in St Louis. From what I understand the stadium will get plenty of use. So it's not going to be downtown dead space.

My tax money goes to pave roads. Keep schools open and maintained. Goes to pay for police, fire and all that. Pays for street lights and local, state and federal governments. Pays for snow plows and bridge maintenance.  All of this I'm more than happy to  do my part. To pay for a playground for the already overpaid? That's an insult. I benefit from all the above mentioned things. Except a stadium. The revenue generated from a stadium has no effect on anything where I live. So I don't think I should have to help pay for it.

As far as those who think government should get out of the way of privet enterprise. Remember just a few years ago when they de regulated banks? What kind of moron what's that to happen again.

Old Rabbit:
I think the leagues bank on the popularity of the teams to get the stadiums they want.
I am not much of a sports fan, So I probably look at it in a different light. I just can't see paying
hundreds of dollars to watch something I could see on video, and wouldn't care if I couldn't.  :P

Sports are fine for those who like it. :orbunny:

IMO, I think the only reason all these cities want new sports stadiums is to "out do" another city. It's simply one city trying to be "bigger and better" than another.  Bragging rights. :P  Same thing has been going on with convention centers across the nation. Sure, there are other reasons too like aging stadiums that need replacing, or stadiums that are too small. But to me, it's all about "My stadium is bigger and better than your stadium. LOL!"

Literate Lycan:
I don't believe that local or regional governments ought to be underwriting the entire cost of a sports complex for the primary benefit of a single team. However, even a large privately-funded project, whether it's a stadium, industrial park, shopping center, or whatever, usually incurs some kind of financial participation from the local governmental agency.

The Sacramento region, where I live, is a fairly large media market (about #20 nationally in size) with a single major-league sports team, the Kings. The previous owners had an increasingly strained relationship with the city and the fans, had no serious interest in building a new arena, and just wanted to sell the team to buyers in Seattle. Local civic and business leaders came together and put together an ownership group committed to keeping the team here, and outbid the other contenders. The NBA required a new arena to be built as a condition of approving the sale to the local buyers.

The team and the city chose a downtown location and agreed to split the costs roughly equally. There were several court challenges to the city's method of financing its share, but the court cases were all dismissed as the plaintiffs were unable to prove their claims of backroom deals, financial disaster, and gridlocked traffic. Construction started about a year ago and the new arena is more than halfway complete. Opposition seems to have receded into the shadows. The arena project has sparked a surge of investment in the surrounding area, including a new hotel, office space, and revitalizing older structures to bring in additional business. The arena itself won't be the biggest and flashiest in the NBA, but that's OK. It works for us.

Major league teams bring a certain recognition to a city which might not exist without the team. Sacramento is like that. We don't have a Fortune 500 company headquartered here. The biggest employer by far is the state government. We're less than 100 miles from San Francisco and there's a long, complex history of rivalries between the two cities which has lasted for a century and a half. There's a huge fan base in Sacramento for Bay Area teams, especially the 49ers and the Giants. But the Kings are ours (yeah, I know, they've been a sub-.500 team for several seasons). And without that public-private partnership arrangement to build the arena, they'd be probably playing in Seattle.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version