Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Stadium Deals Fizzle, Taxpayers Always Lose
Capitol Confidential ^ | 2/15/2012 | Jarrett Skorup

Posted on 02/17/2012 10:58:08 AM PST by MichCapCon

The Detroit Tigers were a few wins short of going to the World Series last year. Getting that close has encouraged team ownership to open up its wallet and sign All Star first baseman Prince Fielder to a 9-year, $214 million deal in the hopes that he will help push the team over the top as well as continue strong attendance at Comerica Park.

Since the club has all that extra revenue available and expect more from higher attendance, will they consider repaying Michigan taxpayers for the hundreds of millions of dollars that were used to subsidize the team's stadium?

Comerica Park opened in 2000 after three years of construction and a total cost of about $300 million. The stadium was subsidized by taxpayers at somewhere between $115 million and $189 million, depending on the source. The Tigers are also supported in many other ways by city taxpayers. Meanwhile, the city has a $200 million budget deficit and an emergency manager running the schools.

Sports teams often make the argument that they bring economic benefits to the cities in which they are located, but the research on this is specious at best.

The conclusion of a 2000 report from the Cato Institute says, “Despite the beliefs of local officials and their hired consultants about the economic benefits of publicly subsidized stadium construction, the consensus of academic economists has been that such policies do not raise incomes. The results that we describe in this article are even more pessimistic. Subsidies of sports facilities may actually reduce the incomes of the alleged beneficiaries.”

Numerous other studies have examined the question of stadium construction projects and found that “in virtually every case” there was no statistically significant positive correlation between construction and economic development.

Real life examples bear this out, and there is a great one here in Michigan: The Pontiac Silverdome.

The Silverdome, where the Detroit Lions played before moving into Ford Field in Detroit, was built in 1975 for $55.7 million ($227 million today). Besides tax benefits from the city of Pontiac, the Lions received $800,000 per year from state taxpayers. After the Lions moved, Pontiac paid $1.5 million a year in upkeep and eventually sold the stadium to a Canadian developer for $583,000 in 2009.

Michigan residents can take solace in one thing; the Silverdome is far from the worst stadium boondoggle. In 2010, the New York Giants and New York Jets football teams (who actually play in New Jersey) broke ground on their shared New Meadowlands Stadium. In the meantime, the old Giants Stadium, which was demolished to make room for the New Meadowlands, still carries $110 million in debt from when it was built in 1976.

In sum: The bill for a now-demolished stadium is being subsidized by New Jersey residents who are, again, subsidizing a new stadium on top of the old one for two teams named for New York.

The New York Times reports, “New Jerseyans are hardly alone in paying for stadiums that no longer exist. Residents of Seattle’s King County owe more than $80 million for the Kingdome, which was razed in 2000. The story has been similar in Indianapolis and Philadelphia. In Houston, Kansas City, Mo., Memphis and Pittsburgh, residents are paying for stadiums and arenas that were abandoned by the teams they were built for.”

The preponderance of the research shows that stadium subsidies provide no net economic benefit for cities, states or taxpayers. Beyond that, they are a direct subsidy from mostly middle-class and poor citizens to rich owners and teams.

But not all sports teams operate this way. Instead of taking money from taxpayers, many pay for their stadium, property and repairs themselves — including one of the NFL's most storied franchises, the New England Patriots.

As Michigan and other states continue to consider stadium financing, remember that this subsidy game has continuously been played and taxpayers always the losers.


TOPICS: Government; Sports
KEYWORDS: nfl

1 posted on 02/17/2012 10:58:14 AM PST by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

Generally speaking, the opposite from this headline is the truth...


2 posted on 02/17/2012 11:17:43 AM PST by next media
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

Also, the unions lose.


3 posted on 02/17/2012 11:29:24 AM PST by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

One of the most fascinating scams going is professional sports teams. When GE wants a new factory or headquarters building, they pay for it themselves. The same for BofA or Lockheed Martin or John Doe’s Hot Dog City!!

But, when a pro sports team wants a new building to go to work in, not only do taxpayers end up paying for it (1), they also have to pay (2) to get in and WATCH the pro team go to work in the facility they purchased for them and, if the new work site needs maintenance or modifications, the taxpayers are on the hook for that as well (3)!!!

Meantime, the team owners (typically multi-millionaires) sit back and count their millions as do the players on the team because, God forBID that these people actually pony up for their own work place!!

What a scam!!


4 posted on 02/17/2012 1:42:52 PM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
“Despite the beliefs of local officials and their hired consultants about the economic benefits of publicly subsidized stadium construction, the consensus of academic economists has been that such policies do not raise incomes.

Had this discussion a couple weeks ago here. Lots of people still believe that publicly-funded stadiums generate economic growth. Stadium construction puts union labor to work for a couple years and then creates a bunch of minimum-wage concession jobs.

Stadiums also provide a place for people to transfer their money to team-owners. Nothing wrong with that -- it's entertainment and we all crave some from time to time.

But I think many confuse economic activity with economic growth.

5 posted on 02/17/2012 3:18:18 PM PST by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson