john oliver doesn't think we should spend money on stadiums

[RidonKs]

good bit at the end too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

"this one economist said to me, rather than spend a billion dollars on a stadium, you're actually better off flying a plane over a city and dumping the money onto the populace so they can pick it up and spend it"

when you use public money to pay for an expensive stadium, you might find yourself unable to afford something you badly need. hamilton county in ohio was estimated to spend 50 million last year on debts and other costs for the bengels and the reds stadiums. event hough, since building them they have had to sell a public hospital, cut 1700 jobs, and delay payments to schools because of budget gaps.

and it might not even end there. because there is a clause in the contract that states if 14 other nfl stadiums have something, then tax payers must buy the bengels that thing. and here is how comprehensive that clause is.

tax payers are also on the hook for all kinds of future bells and whistles, some that haven't even been invented yet. at some point, tax payers have also agreed to pay for a holograph replay machine. some day.

the bengels have a deal whereby if some day somebody invents holographic instant replay in the future, the county has to buy it for them. and that's the kind of clause owners put into a deal in order to take it out during negotiations. which begs the question: what else was in there?

and you can almost sympathize. when politicians do try to stand up to teams, it can cost them. last month the city council of glendale arizona tried to get out of an awful deal with the coyotes, who's hockey arena was costing them more than $8 per year... a giant slab of ice in arizona

what does ish think? are holographic instant replays going to revolutionize the nba?

[RidonKs]

darn i meant to put this in the main forum. oh well.

[UK2K]

If the city doesn't want the stadium, they dont have to pay for it.

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.

[DukeDelonte13]

If the city doesn't want the stadium, they dont have to pay for it.

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.

really?

[Droid101]

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.

Uh, pretty much debunked by any study about this.

Billionaires need to buy their own stadiums, period. But they won't, because rubes like you don't care that they privatize their profits and set all the risk on the taxpayer.

[Akrazotile]

Uh, pretty much debunked by any study about this.

Billionaires need to buy their own stadiums, period. But they won't, because rubes like you don't care that they privatize their profits and set all the risk on the taxpayer.

I agree with this for the most part. I'm my opinion people SHOULDNT agree to go along with most of these stadium proposals that lean on taxpayers, however if residents in a give location are okay with the way a particular proposal is drawn up and they really want a team, thats their prerogative.

But the proposal should be voted on directly by residents - not by city council or some other group of politicians easily influenced by corprate interests.

[Jailblazers7]

The Warriors story is particularly ****ed up because they plan on not paying the old debt on Oracle Arena once they move out:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnso...ll-5436777.php

Not sure if there have been any new developments tho.

[DeuceWallaces]

If the city doesn't want the stadium, they dont have to pay for it.

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.

I don't believe there's a single study that supports this claim.

[GimmeThat]

there are probably a few points of what it comes down to:

without pointing out some of the things I may find obvious to the general public.


1. this all have a lot to do with peoples ability to determine whether or not 'the new is 'good/better' and whether or not innovation plateaus. especially on the subject of dumping a billion dollar over the public and simply expect them to spend it to better the economy.

2. this really could come down to the electoral college system if you were to think about it. generally, Only a profitable franchise, would the locals want to keep the team, which means that those who are willing to spend that money already, are of course willing to spend that extra few dollars for the convenience. where as, for those who they don't care about it, due to their geographical location, their opinion might not matter on such basis. And if it isn't profitable to begin with, does the local speak to the commissioner in regards to ownership?

as for the whole money spent for the best of the economy issue.
if everyone did that, only the most intelligent profits. and really, the price point model known as favor, may as well be studied on the case of ebay.


or can we even ever say a one time auction, truly identifies the value of a being/anything

[knickballer]

The upkeep alone can be a bitch as well. I think I read that most venues need to host something like 50 games/events in a year to not even have a loss for the year. The worst are the stadiums that are built for the Olympics or World Cup and have no use after the games are over. In Brazil one of the newly built stadiums that cost a ton has been converted into a parking garage because the municipality couldn't afford the annual upkeep which could have been in the millions. I think one of the other stadiums used for last year's world cup has been abandoned and now is deteriorating because the city can't afford the upkeep. Then there's the classic Olympic venues that became obsolete the day after the games ended.


That's why I favor some of the new modern stadium projects that are happening in Europe. Some football stadiums are becoming these multi use venues where they actually incorporate a shopping mall in it, some business expos and some other creative infrastructure in it.

In America it seems that alot of these mega stadiums are being built in the middle of nowhere. Like Dallas new stadium or the new metlife stadium build absolutely nowhere. Not even good public transport to these mega stadiums. These teams just seem to think building mega stadiums is the solution like the Yankees building a 2.3 billion dollar stadium right next to the old stadium which was demolished and perfectly fine! Public had to pay for a significant part of the stadium but meanwhile the Yankees had no issue giving Alex Rodriguez a $300 million dollar contract and having an annual payroll of over $200 million.

[Akrazotile]

I don't believe there's a single study that supports this claim.

I haven't looked at any of the studies relating to this topic one way or another, but surely the city DOES at least pull in hefty tax revenue once the thing is built, no?

Property tax, sales tax on game day, and and then I would think the state also gets income tax from teams located within it, no?

I'm not saying it doesn't take a LONG time to break even against the upfront cost of financing the stadium or that taxpayers don't have every right to oppose it, but I would think the tax revenue and job creation is not negligible.

I mean, don't Democrats typically want to use tax payer money to create new jobs anyway? I'm surprised any Democrats would oppose something like this. Don't they typically want to fund public works with taxpayer dollars?

[DeuceWallaces]

Yeah it generates revenue, but it never exceeds the public's investment.

[Droid101]

I haven't looked at any of the studies relating to this topic one way or another, but surely the city DOES at least pull in hefty tax revenue once the thing is built, no?

Property tax, sales tax on game day, and and then I would think the state also gets income tax from teams located within it, no?

I'm not saying it doesn't take a LONG time to break even against the upfront cost of financing the stadium or that taxpayers don't have every right to oppose it, but I would think the tax revenue and job creation is not negligible.

I mean, don't Democrats typically want to use tax payer money to create new jobs anyway? I'm surprised any Democrats would oppose something like this. Don't they typically want to fund public works with taxpayer dollars?

They almost always produce net-negative based on the initial tax-money investment.

Example about the property tax one: the Yankees actually paid to build their own arena..... but only if they were exempted from any kind of property tax forever. Any similar build on the land would yield the city/state millions upon millions of dollars a year.

It's a racket, and until people start to care, the rich will continue to get richer at the taxpayer expense.


And you mentioned "Public works" to create jobs. This isn't public. It's not owned by the public, it's private. Private profits, no accountability to create any kind of jobs.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah it generates revenue, but it never exceeds the public's investment.

Yeah, that's what I would assume. I guess the two factors owners would push to offset that are job creation and the civic pride of having a team. Which are legitimate arguments, if not strong ones.

I personally think most of these deals are bogus, and people don't really pay that close attention to how squeezed they're getting on behalf of owners. I think cities that want teams should have to be a PART of the financial obligation, but not to the degree most currently get taken in for. But then again, some people REALLY love having a team. For me it's nice, but not critical.

[rufuspaul]

Yeah it generates revenue, but it never exceeds the public's investment.

No but it enhances the community and business looking to re-locate are attracted to cities with major league sports.

If a community doesn't build these arenas the teams will leave. Believe me. I watched my beloved Hornets leave for New Orleans. I then spent 2 years in a city with no NBA team. There was no joy in Muddville. Building a new arena and getting a team totally revitalized a section of downtown that was an urban desert before. Has the city recouped their investment? It depends on how you measure it.