HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 3:21 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
In Stadium Building Spree, U.S. Taxpayers Lose $4 Billion

In Stadium Building Spree, U.S. Taxpayers Lose $4 Billion


Sep 5, 2012

By Aaron Kuriloff and Darrell Preston

Read More: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...4-billion.html

Quote:
New York Giants fans will cheer on their team against the Dallas Cowboys at tonight’s National Football League opener in New Jersey. At tax time, they’ll help pay for the opponents’ $1.2 billion home field in Texas. That’s because the 80,000-seat Cowboys Stadium was built partly using tax-free borrowing by the City of Arlington. The resulting subsidy comes out of the pockets of every American taxpayer, including Giants fans. The money doesn’t go directly to the Cowboys’ billionaire owner Jerry Jones. Rather, it lowers the cost of financing, giving his team the highest revenue in the NFL and making it the league’s most-valuable franchise.

- “It’s part of the corruption of the federal tax system,” said James Runzheimer, 67, an Arlington lawyer who led opponents of public borrowing for the structure known locally as “Jerry’s World.” “It’s use of government funds to subsidize activity that the private sector can finance on its own.” Jones is one of dozens of wealthy owners whose big-league teams benefit from millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Michael Jordan’s Charlotte, North Carolina, Bobcats basketball team plays in a municipal bond-financed stadium, the Time Warner Cable Arena, where the Democratic Party is meeting this week. The Republicans last week used Florida’s Tampa Bay Times Forum, also financed with tax-exempt debt. It is the home of hockey’s Lightning, owned by hedge-fund manager Jeffrey Vinik.

- Tax exemptions on interest paid by muni bonds that were issued for sports structures cost the U.S. Treasury $146 million a year, based on data compiled by Bloomberg on 2,700 securities. Over the life of the $17 billion of exempt debt issued to build stadiums since 1986, the last of which matures in 2047, taxpayer subsidies to bondholders will total $4 billion, the data show. Those estimates are based on what the Treasury could have collected on interest from the same amount of taxable bonds sold at the same time to investors in the 25 percent income-tax bracket, the rate many government agencies assume. In fact, more than half the owners of tax-exempt bonds pay top rates of at least 30 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So they save even more on their income taxes, a system that U.S. lawmakers of both parties and President Barack Obama have described as inefficient and unfair.

- Including the Cowboys’ Jones, there are 21 NFL owners whose teams play in stadiums built or renovated in the past quarter- century using tax-free public borrowing. Such municipal debt helped build structures used by 64 major-league teams, including baseball, hockey and basketball. The new generation of publicly owned stadiums was designed to increase revenue from high-priced seating as well as concessions and retailing. The venues have helped double the value of sports franchises since 2000, according to W.R. Hambrecht & Co., a financial services firm. That growth occurred even after Congress tried in 1986 to bar cities and states from building stadiums with tax breaks originally set up to help local governments cut their borrowing costs for building roads, sewers and schools. Lawmakers’ revisions instead unintentionally encouraged local officials to borrow even more for pro sports, according to Dennis Zimmerman, a retired Congressional Research Service economist who analyzed the act’s effects.

- Team owners covet income from luxury seating, naming rights, retail, parking and concessions because it is generally exempt from league requirements for pooling and sharing revenue from television broadcasts and ticket sales, according to Grant Long. During the past decade, studies by Grant Long; Robert Baade of Lake Forest College near Chicago; Victor Matheson, an economist at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts; and others have found that stadiums are poor municipal investments. Nonetheless, political leaders are still willing to offer taxpayer-funded aid to team owners -- including muni-bond financing -- to lure or avoid losing a franchise and the civic pride and event-related jobs that go with it.

- Without the NFL’s Vikings, Minnesota is in “flyover” country, said state Senator Geoff Michel, an Edina Republican, in an April discussion of financing a $975 million stadium. “This is one of the things that puts us on the map,” he said. Because leagues control the supply of teams, the threat of relocation has proved powerful and credible. In March 1984, the Colts left Baltimore one snowy morning for Indianapolis and a new $95 million stadium built partly with public debt. Baltimore lured the Browns from Cleveland after the 1995 season with a $229 million muni-bond-financed structure. To land an expansion team in 1998, Cleveland provided a $315 million publicly financed building. The tax-exempt bonds for the new Baltimore and Cleveland venues cost federal taxpayers $69.3 million.

- The Tax Reform Act of 1986 removed sports facilities from the types of projects that could qualify for the subsidy. It required such bonds to become taxable if more than 10 percent of the debt for a facility built mainly for nongovernment use was to be repaid with revenue from a private business. The lawmakers who thought this would call a halt to tax-exempt stadium financing were wrong, according to Zimmerman, the economist. The wording of the law encourages cities and states to offer more-favorable terms to pro teams wanting financial assistance while preventing the borrowers from using stadium revenue to pay off the bonds, he wrote. The measure functions as “an open-ended matching grant” for stadiums, he said. Cities and states borrowed more money backed by tax revenue, not less, to make sure that no more than 10 percent of a stadium’s debt payments came from a private business, Zimmerman said.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 4:21 AM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
I Couldn't Tell Anyone
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,988
We all love sports and many of us are willing to pay up to be all involved. Municipalities, for a variety of reasons, either long to lure a team within their borders or are loath to lose the ones they have and team owners know and use that. It's typical government spinelessness.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 5:29 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,851
Doesn't apply to California at all. Can't get a dollar of public money towards sports stadiums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2012, 3:35 AM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Doesn't apply to California at all. Can't get a dollar of public money towards sports stadiums
Well, cities do 'help' with other costs like land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, team-friendly concessions agreements etc.

Many cities that are considering new stadiums like San Jose and Oakland are severly impacted by the loss of redevelopment funds that was taken away by Governor Brown.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2012, 5:08 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Well, cities do 'help' with other costs like land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, team-friendly concessions agreements etc.

Many cities that are considering new stadiums like San Jose and Oakland are severly impacted by the loss of redevelopment funds that was taken away by Governor Brown.
I agree that nothing can be clean nowadays with the expansion of government regulation into every area. Given this, I have less problem with governments easing some of the zoning and site related issues, improving utilities and facilities that have a bona fide benefit for the locals generallly (traffic improvements, multi-use parking areas), expediting processes, even eminent domain in extreme cases, etc. These often just clear obstructions (government-made or otherwise) and are the kinds of things they should do for any business that offers a desirable product that helps the local coffers.

Redevelopment funds are in theory a good idea if used like you a cautious investor would us them; but they were so subject to waste, abuse and just plain theft and bribery that it was time to shut them down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2012, 12:09 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I agree that nothing can be clean nowadays with the expansion of government regulation into every area. Given this, I have less problem with governments easing some of the zoning and site related issues, improving utilities and facilities that have a bona fide benefit for the locals generallly (traffic improvements, multi-use parking areas), expediting processes, even eminent domain in extreme cases, etc. These often just clear obstructions (government-made or otherwise) and are the kinds of things they should do for any business that offers a desirable product that helps the local coffers.

Redevelopment funds are in theory a good idea if used like you a cautious investor would us them; but they were so subject to waste, abuse and just plain theft and bribery that it was time to shut them down.
It was only $1.7 Billion---if cities used those funds to help secure projects and capital improvements, I dont see why Jerry Brown, a man who used that money when he was my mayor, should then begrudge those who sought to do exactly what he did.

I think the solution should have been stricter oversight. Now cities are scrambling.

As far as the budget, Brown annually spends 5 times more on prisons and corrections. He should have cut waste there first.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 7:41 AM
Jasonhouse Jasonhouse is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 23,744
^Thank your lucky stars!

This shit should be illegal.

Wanna see a real taxpayer ass raping? Check out the financial details of the new Miami Marlins stadium. By the time that monument to corporate welfare is paid off, taxpayers will have shelled out $515 million for actual construction, and another $1.9 BILLION in finance charges!!! (stadium will cost taxpayers just under $2.4 billion by the time all debt is retired in the 2040s)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2012, 8:02 PM
min-chi-cbus min-chi-cbus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasonhouse View Post
^Thank your lucky stars!

This shit should be illegal.

Wanna see a real taxpayer ass raping? Check out the financial details of the new Miami Marlins stadium. By the time that monument to corporate welfare is paid off, taxpayers will have shelled out $515 million for actual construction, and another $1.9 BILLION in finance charges!!! (stadium will cost taxpayers just under $2.4 billion by the time all debt is retired in the 2040s)
WOW!

I sure wish I could "build" a stadium by spending other people's money and then taking the revenues that come from it! That's business-made-easy!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 12:18 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,866
Such an awful concept; I have never understood why cities put up with borderline blackmail to get/retain sports teams, who apparently have little loyalty to where they reside.

I could never imagine my football club relocating to another city (my club has resided at its home ground for 120 years), let alone receiving government monies (usually it is the other way around with contributions to local infrastructure) to build a stadium.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2023_07_12 | London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2022_03_09
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03 | High Speed 2 updated: 2021_09_24
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2012, 6:05 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post
Such an awful concept; I have never understood why cities put up with borderline blackmail to get/retain sports teams, who apparently have little loyalty to where they reside.

I could never imagine my football club relocating to another city (my club has resided at its home ground for 120 years), let alone receiving government monies (usually it is the other way around with contributions to local infrastructure) to build a stadium.
The great majority agree with you in most cities. But the teams only need to get the city council on board, which requires some adept PR work, some hefty campaign contributions and some season tickets with all the perqs.

This is one of the reasons why well managed cities strictly limit the power of city councils to spend money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 3:53 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,865
Just got back from London (annual trip to visit relatives) and I gotta ask...what in the hell were they thinking with that logo? It's clearly a BJ.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 6:44 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
All true, but why talk about sports teams?

This applies to all sorts of businesses and every city from NY to rural southern towns. Property tax exemptions, subsidized water and power, cheap loans, waiver of environmental rules, use of eminent domain, enhanced road and other city services, cheap credit, inflated contracts, waivers of fees, etc., are given to 10,000 ag, manufacuring, assembly, s/w, tech, food processing, waste disposal, etc., companies every year. Shopping centers. Amusement parks. Developers. Highrises. Airports. Seaports. Hundreds of billions a year, with a good hunk sliced off for bribery, political payoffs to unions and local shakers and campaign constributions.

Cities want businesses; and politicians want funds for their campaigns. A lethal combination for the taxpayer. Sports is a very small part of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 8:40 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,428
Cities subsidize sports because sports are a form of culture that millions of people want to have available to them. It's not an investment that's supposed to pay for itself, any more than an art museum or a performing arts center. You may not personally enjoy the particular brand of culture being subsidized here, but that's just elitism of your part. It's every bit as legitimate as the opera.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2012, 9:03 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Cities subsidize sports because sports are a form of culture that millions of people want to have available to them. It's not an investment that's supposed to pay for itself, any more than an art museum or a performing arts center. You may not personally enjoy the particular brand of culture being subsidized here, but that's just elitism of your part. It's every bit as legitimate as the opera.
Unlike other cultural venues, the owners/operators of sports stadia stand to make millions/billions from their state-funded infrastructure. Professional sports IS a business.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2012, 5:59 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Cities subsidize sports because sports are a form of culture that millions of people want to have available to them. It's not an investment that's supposed to pay for itself, any more than an art museum or a performing arts center. You may not personally enjoy the particular brand of culture being subsidized here, but that's just elitism of your part. It's every bit as legitimate as the opera.
You live in a dream world.

Did you ever notice that these all-knowing legislators avoid popular votes like the plague, but readily accept campaign contributions, tickets to games, VIP seating and similar perks? The fact that semi-literate fans make a lot of noise doesn't mean anything but add some cover to the decision process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2012, 8:32 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
You live in a dream world.

Did you ever notice that these all-knowing legislators avoid popular votes like the plague, but readily accept campaign contributions, tickets to games, VIP seating and similar perks? The fact that semi-literate fans make a lot of noise doesn't mean anything but add some cover to the decision process.
Do you think a popular vote to fund the arts would win every time? Way to prove my point about elitism, btw, with that semi-literate shot.

You guys can insult me, or people who like sports, all you want. But you know that objectively there's no real difference. I'm sorry it upsets you that government funds cultural institutions.

If someone can think up some argument that doesn't also apply to non-sports cultural facilities, I'll be happy to reconsider. Until then, insulting me just makes you look close-minded.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2012, 4:56 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Do you think a popular vote to fund the arts would win every time? Way to prove my point about elitism, btw, with that semi-literate shot.

You guys can insult me, or people who like sports, all you want. But you know that objectively there's no real difference. I'm sorry it upsets you that government funds cultural institutions.

If someone can think up some argument that doesn't also apply to non-sports cultural facilities, I'll be happy to reconsider. Until then, insulting me just makes you look close-minded.
Poor reading and poor reasoning. I never argued for supporting the arts either, elite, plebian or otherwise; I would generally oppose it without clear public support. This is what private donors are for.

However, leaving principle aside, they are enormously different as a practical matter. How often are there talks of pulling the symphony or art museum out of town if they don't get a new concert hall? Or of either of them bribing the city council? Think the councilmembers would sell their votes for a pass to the Frida Kahlo exhibit? Again, what alternate world do you live in?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2012, 5:28 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
How often are there talks of pulling the symphony or art museum out of town if they don't get a new concert hall? Or of either of them bribing the city council? Think the councilmembers would sell their votes for a pass to the Frida Kahlo exhibit?
These are merely traits of sports being the most popular cultural amenity cities can have. It's simple supply and demand. Every city badly wants to have a top-tier sports team, and there aren't enough to go around. By the way, there are plenty of examples of similar competition for other cultural events with uneven supply/demand, such as subsidies for movie filming locations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto
Again, what alternate world do you live in?
Seriously. You're making yourself look bad. Just try leaving that sentence out. It doesn't add anything to your argument, and it makes you look like a child. I'm trying to help you.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2012, 6:38 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Again, what alternate world do you live in?
Curious what you're saying here. Aren't you saying the same thing? Sports are vastly more popular than the arts. And elected officials respond accordingly. So what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2012, 10:43 AM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Cities subsidize sports because sports are a form of culture that millions of people want to have available to them. It's not an investment that's supposed to pay for itself, any more than an art museum or a performing arts center. You may not personally enjoy the particular brand of culture being subsidized here, but that's just elitism of your part. It's every bit as legitimate as the opera.
Two points.

The first is that typically when a city/nation subsidieses a cultural venue such as the opera/museum, it is typically the owner of such a venue and receives the revenues generated from said venue. In the example of NFL, does the city take an equity stake and share of revenue generation from the stadium/team, or is it simply a case of handing the keys over and hoping that the team doesn't depart for pastures new a few years down the line?

Secondly, is there an insufficient supply of teams and is it possible to start a brand new NFL team to compete against the top flight, or is it a closed shop?


Also out of curiosity when a NFL team moves from one city to another - what happens to the original fan base?
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2023_07_12 | London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2022_03_09
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03 | High Speed 2 updated: 2021_09_24
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.