Posted on 12/16/2004 1:51:17 PM PST by B Knotts
The land the stadium was built on was confiscated by the City of LA under eminent domain and a sweetheart deal was struck with O'Malley, which allowed him to build the stadium at his expense.
In L.A., you'd get bigger crowds for a futbol game than for a football game.
Yes. On the other hand, they own the stadium. But, IMO, that is the right arrangement, even if it is currently the exception. Government should not be in the business of building professional sports stadiums.
I know I am in the minority on this, but I for one feel that the use of taxpayers dollars to build a stadium is a good beneficial use of public funds by a city/county or state. However, certain conditions would have to be in place for such a deal to make sense. Such as:
City owns the stadium and leases it to the primary tenant (BBall or Fball team).
City owns the rights for all other events (concerts, secondary teams etc.) and all profits generated from said events.
Construction costs to be controlled so as to be profitable within an agreed to time period of 10-15 years).
Revenue generated by the primary tenant to be shared in an agreeable method.
No Tax increases be imposed to pay for the costs of construction. (construction of stadium to be financed w/ stadium revenues)
But why should government even be in the business of building facilities primarily used for private business? I say, let business take care of that.
The Pacific Bell Park arrangement worked out great; why not more of the same in other cities? Give the taxpayer a break for a change!
Bring back barnstorming! We'd host about 10 games in anshville!
The problem with the NFL in Los Angeles is that City officials are obsessed with having any NFL team play at the Coliseum, which is in the middle of a horrible and crime-ridden area. They want to spend hundreds of millions refurbishing this money pit.
Peter O'Malley had proposed years ago building a football stadium right next to Dodger Stadium - 100% privately financed. City officials torpedoed this deal because of their Coliseum obsession.
That's not going to happen. Some other stupid city is going to shaft it's taxpayers for a sports team. It'll probably be Austin.
Someplace in the Carolinas...
To make a city a more desirable place to live, to generate tax revenues, to capitalize on advertising dollars, to help secure employment for city residents, to help draw visitors to the city, to have facilities which allow them to draw bigger acclaim (the Olympics), to provide a site to smaller groups that could not otherwise play at such a facility (small colleges, High school champioships etc.), to attract businesses (restaurants, hotels) to an otherwise less then desirable neighborhood.
"Major League Baseball on Wednesday called the proposed new deal "wholly unacceptable."
Yeah, the government shouldn't have to pay a dime for a new stadium. Let the team collapse and maybe we can stop the public funding of stadiums. If the star players need to forgo a few million dollars, so be it.
The roman coliseum was paid for with private funds, why should the expos get better treatment.
You could make the same argument about building a large office building.
Well said.
Too often people on FR always assume this has to be a gift to MLB, when in fact if done right (Exa,ple Seattle Mariners SafeCo Park) the gov always gets back its investment and a lot more.
I know nothing about the proposed DC deal. But if the team would have paid back the government (over time), then what's the problem? The Government is essentially putting up seed money for a long term revenue generator.
OTOH, if it was truely a GIFT to MLB, then I don't thing its a good idea.
I still think RFK would be the best move for the first few years - its currently a hole into which DC throws Money. It could EARN the city money while the team builds a following to justify a new park.
You forgot to mention OTHER things that Government Builds for Private Enterprise: Highways, AIRPORTS Atir Traffic Controls Systems, Harbors.
"OTHER things that Government Builds for Private Enterprise: Highways, AIRPORTS Atir Traffic Controls Systems, Harbors"
O.K., we'll build a road to the new stadium, but it should be paid for with private funds. The game of team owners playing one city off another to see who will give them the most charity has to stop. The teams generate enormous amounts of money. There is no reason the public should have to foot the bill.
Thanks for your supporting comments.
Actually, I did not 'forget' those items. I purposefully did not mention them so as to not distract from the discussion at hand (call it an editorial decision). The list is much longer also then you have given. The one that I have mentioned, in other discussions, that creates the largest "you have got to be kidding" factor, is "Airports".
The arguements for and against (airports/stadiums) are actually very similar.
...
No Tax increases be imposed to pay for the costs of construction. (construction of stadium to be financed w/ stadium revenues)
Well you were doing fine till that last point. You have essentially removed any reason for government involvement and therefore you are NOT in the minority, but with the Majority of the posters here.
The places where government gets involved is PRECISELY in the funding, usually with a special tax, (such as a limited term sales tax or bond issue).
In responsibly governed cities, this is paid back by the park over time. If not, its a gift to MLB.
The other condition shat Should be imposed (As Seattle Imposed on the Mariners for Safeco Park) is that the team is responsible for the Complete Cost of upkeep, improvements, security, and ALL operational expenses.
This can be done responsibly, and HAS been done responsibly, and in such cases its a win win situation even if the team is Lose Lose like the Mariners.
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.