not-so-furry discussion > debate forum

Should cities build ball league stadiums.

<< < (2/2)

Old Rabbit:
I really think it all started with team spirit, and towns competing against each
other. This was and is a friendly compitition that is good entertainment for all..

But as with all things that grow. It wasn't long before business men saw profit
in the large crowds that these games attracted.  So started the leagues, and of
course it being a business they were certinly happy to let the cities continue to
provide and maintain the stadiums and arenas they needed to play the games.

This team spirit and compition continues of course. With popularity you have those in politics
joining the fray. So now it's state against state and cities against cities. The league owners
sit back and rake in the money. I am not against free enterprise, but let's let those making
the money build the stadiums they want.

Of course if the voters of a city wish to build a multiuse arena to attract ball teams, and other
entertainment. That's fine as long as there is a clear majority wanting it. At least 2/3 of the
voters, after all a new tax or expense should require a 2/3 vote. In my opinon anyway. Also it
makes it harder for greedy people to get what they want.

Literate Lycan:
Several things which Old Rabbit mentioned did occur with the sale of the Kings. When the previous owners were negotiating with the Seattle group there was a certain resentment of the city among Sacramento area residents. Sacramento felt at a disadvantage because it's a smaller market and didn't have the big corporate backers that Seattle could muster--Amazon, Microsoft, etc. Seattle had lost its basketball team to Oklahoma City a few years earlier and saw the Kings sale as a way to bring the sport back to the Emerald City. After the sale to the present ownership group went through and the team remained in Sacramento, the resentment pretty much went away.

The Oakland Raiders have played Oakland against other cities in order to get a better stadium deal. That's why they moved to L.A. in 1982 and returned to Oakland in 1995. Now they're looking for another home city. Bouncing around like that and playing one city off against another is a rotten way to treat the fans. Make the fans mad and they'll stop coming to games and buying team merchandise. If the Raiders--or any pro sports team, for that matter--want a better stadium deal, then the team ought to pony up some serious cash to invest in one. Show the community and fan base that they're committed to staying. The city will need to foot part of the bill, if only for infrastructure improvements.  If the Raiders don't want to invest in a new stadium, then drive a little way down Interstate 880 and make a right turn onto US 101 northbound...and there's the brand-new Levi Stadium. Share it with the 49ers.

Literate Lycan:
Forgot to mention...the previous owners of the Kings did put forth an arena proposal which called for a raise in the city's sales tax (I think it was 1/4 cent on the dollar). The city put the measure on the ballot. Then the owners decided not to support the proposal and the measure, predictably, failed by a wide margin. When the new ownership group took over the city pretty much said that raising taxes to fund its share of the arena costs was not going to happen.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page