TubeNet

I submit Boston, MA as an example to the contrary. Even before the professional teams' string of successes, they were always a uniting force and required less financial backing than, say, the airport.

Biggs wrote:I submit Boston, MA as an example to the contrary.

Two words: "Big Dig".

bloke wrote:Here's how:

- The team either comes to town or has been in town for years.
- Every few years, the team demands a new arena/stadium to be built for them by the taxpayers.
- Politicians ignore the will of the people, absolutely LOVE the nearly infinite opportunities for kickbacks, and rubber-stamp any new arena/stadium proposal.
- Within 2 - 5 years, property tax rates double, and (because of the cost of servicing the debt on the new arena/stadium) crime problems are ignored.
- All productive people (middle and upper middle class) who CAN do so, leave the city because of crime and taxes. The only people left behind are the very rich, the very poor, the politicians, the athletes, and the criminals.

City destroyed. Game over.

http://thesportseconomist.com/labels/st ... sidies.htm

Also:

bloke wrote: the very rich, the very poor, the politicians, the athletes, and the criminals.

Not that these are mutually exclusive, either.

bloke wrote:

I submit Boston, MA

What a curious example of a city near the top of the list of cities in which I would NEVER choose to live...

bloke "...and no, not because of the 'chilly' weather."

Wanna talk about Philly?...

Mark wrote:

Biggs wrote:I submit Boston, MA as an example to the contrary.

Two words: "Big Dig".

I fail to see how that is related to economic impact of professional sports franchises. Plus, that was paid for with federal tax money. Thanks, we appreciate it!

bloke wrote:

I submit Boston, MA

What a curious example of a city near the top of the list of cities in which I would NEVER choose to live...

bloke "...and no, not because of the 'chilly' weather."

Here are my reasons against living in Boston:

1.) The cost of living is very high; unjustifiably so to many.

2.) Traveling into and out of town is challenging compared to other cities of comparable size.

3.) The populace has a reputation for being pretty self-absorbed, like many other cities. However, I feel that this grounded in reality as far as Boston is concerned.

I am curious to know some of your reasons.

We lost the Braves farm team becuse we reufsed to build a new stadium : http://rvabusiness.typepad.com/rvabusin ... raves.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... p&c_id=mlb" target="_blank" target="_blank

Does this prove the point of this thread ? Me thinks so .

No stupid amounts of money ....... no AAA ballclub . F. U. Richmond !!!

oldbandnerd wrote:We lost the Braves farm team becuse we reufsed to build a new stadium : http://rvabusiness.typepad.com/rvabusin ... raves.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... p&c_id=mlb" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Does this prove the point of this thread ? Me thinks so .

No stupid amounts of money ....... no AAA ballclub . F. U. Richmond !!!

Unfortunately, that's how it is. In San Antonio, we have the Spurs. Personally, I like having the Spurs here, but I am adamantly against subsidizing them. Because of this, I have my own cheer for the Spurs. San Antonio cheers, "Go, Spurs, Go!" My cheer goes, "Go, Spurs, Go! Far away!"

I would believe that a baseball franchise has a bit more of an economic impact on a city than any other sport. They play 80 home games, a few more if they make the playoffs, which seems to me that could make an impact on an area. They sell alot of hot dogs, sodas, peanuts, etc at each game. They employ other people for 80 nights a year, etc. Visitors do come tot hte city to see a game and rent hotel rooms (which I just did in Cleveland last week and may do in Boston next week)

Pro football however plays 8 home games, for that you pay to build a multi million dollar stadium that gets used 8 times a year??? No wonder the teams want the city or state (in the case of PA) to subsidize them.

A previous poster mentioned Philly, The state of PA paid big bucks for stadiums in Philly and Pittsburgh. Was it worth it??? Would the Phillies or Pirates have left ???

don't know....
ken "who likes baeball better than football and/or basketball" k

Interestingly, the San Francisco Bay area has gone the opposite tack. Due to the SF Giants building their own stadium that only needed a zoning change of one corner of the property from the San Francisco and it's taxpayers, and the mismanagement of the Oakland Raiders situation at the colluseum (sp is wrong) in Oakland...there is no support for new stadiums that require more than incidental public effort to happen. So the 49'ers are going to build a new stadium to replace the 45 yr old baseball stadium they use now, on thier own dime; The Oakland A's who share the colleseum with the raiders are going to build a new smaller ballpark closer to the center of their season ticket base, on their own dime.

bloke wrote:Here's how:

- The team either comes to town or has been in town for years.
- Every few years, the team demands a new arena/stadium to be built for them by the taxpayers.
- Politicians ignore the will of the people, absolutely LOVE the nearly infinite opportunities for kickbacks, and rubber-stamp any new arena/stadium proposal.
- Within 2 - 5 years, property tax rates double, and (because of the cost of servicing the debt on the new arena/stadium) crime problems are ignored.
- All productive people (middle and upper middle class) who CAN do so, leave the city because of crime and taxes. The only people left behind are the very rich, the very poor, the politicians, the athletes, and the criminals.

City destroyed. Game over.

I won't argue Memphis had this exact thing pretty much happen to them.

But to generalize it down to new stadiums = urban disaster is simply ludicrous. For example, here in the D.C. area in the last 15 years they've built 3 new facilities. Two of these facilities have been built with team money with the local government picking up the cost of infrastructure, and the third being completely funded by the local government. All 3 were built on time and either at or under budget. The Verizon Center (about 15 years old), home to the Wizards and the Capitals, has completely revitalized a section of D.C. (mostly around Chinatown) that was a prime example of urban blight. Now it's considered an upscale area to live, and has excellent shops, restaurants and entertainment within a several block radius. Fedex Field (about 12 years old) brought enough infrastructure with it to allow for a VERY large shopping and restaurant area to be built, injecting some life into a pretty much passed over area. Nationals Park (funded completely by the D.C. Government) just opened this spring and has already exceeded forecasts for the year for generated revenue back to D.C.. It was also built in one of the worst areas in D.C., and has already revitalized an entirely different part of the city. The construction in progress down there is going to result in some pretty cool places to live, work, eat, and play. As part of getting a MLB team the city had to agree to build a new stadium. Yes, they had to pony up roughly $600 million for the baseball stadium, but they project recovering that expense within 12-14 years (they have a 30-year lease with the team in the new stadium) via the revenue from the facility.

Yes, I will agree again that Memphis has screwed the pooch with the basketball arenas they've built, and frankly I don't know if Memphis has the economic base to support a top-tier professional franchise. Frankly, they should have let the Grizzlies leave rather than build a new facility.

It seems to me that if the jurisdiction is going to pay for the stadium they had best get a good chunk of change from the revenue it generates as part of the deal. It also seems to me that when teams pony up a good chunk of change for the building, it's usually a win-win for everyone.

bloke wrote:

kingrob76 wrote:
But to generalize it down to new stadiums = urban disaster is simply ludicrous. For example, here in the D.C. area in the last 15 years they've built 3 new facilities.

To compare D.C. to ANY OTHER CITY in the United States is ludicrous; D.C. will NEVER DIE - NO MATTER WHAT...and no matter what idiotic decisions are made by its leaders - as long as it is the nation's capital and is able to vampirously drain lifeblood from every other locale in the country.

Good point. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress ultimate authority over the District of Columbia. In 1973 Congress enacted the District of Columbia Self-Rule and Governmental Reorganization Act, providing for an elected mayor and city council for the District. So instead of simply running the city themselves, Congress handed over the keys to the locals, and cuts them a check every year, but it's not all that much - these funds totaled $38 million in 2007, approximately 0.5 percent of the District's budget. In addition to those funds, the Federal government operates the District's court system, which had a budget of $272 million in 2008.

D.C. Residents pay federal taxes (without representation in Congress) just like every other U.S. Citizen, but since every state in the union receives federal funding, I don't know if saying they "vampirously drain lifeblood from every other locale in the country" is all that accurate.

Ex-Seattle Supersonics' new owner recently bundled them off to his Oklahoma home when we wouldn't build him a new stadium. Understandably vexed - in view of our recent stadium building history you'd think it only fair if we'd build him one too. We also were delighted to disappoint the NASCAR people recently, if I remember right.

I surmise that in the basketball case, people are moving back into the city so fast that restaurants and bars are doing fine without the people drawn by sports spectacles, so they're not as eager to pay the entertainment taxes that have been partially funding the spectacles.

bloke wrote:...poor Baltimore: ' just a few too many miles away to not *quite* be in the "metro area" of D.C.

Baltimore has tried to capitalize on it... Areas around the train stations (Camden Yards and Penn Station) are regularly advertised in DC as affordable alternatives to living in DC.

Apart from that, it seems that many people in Baltimore really could care less about being close to DC. We're close to a lot of other cities and DC is just another one of them. It's a different place with a different feel entirely. Classic Baltimore apathy...

...poor Baltimore: ' just a few too many miles away to not *quite* be in the "metro area" of D.C.

And thank God for that.
Baltimore=Blue collar town

DC= White collar town with a noticeable lean to the left, even more so than Baltimore.

bloke wrote:
To compare D.C. to ANY OTHER CITY in the United States is ludicrous; D.C. will NEVER DIE - NO MATTER WHAT...and no matter what idiotic decisions are made by its leaders - as long as it is the nation's capital and is able to vampirously drain lifeblood from every other locale in the country.

I guess we can add DC to Bloke's list of places where he'll never live.

Mojo workin' wrote:

...poor Baltimore: ' just a few too many miles away to not *quite* be in the "metro area" of D.C.

And thank God for that.
Baltimore=Blue collar town

DC= White collar town with a noticeable lean to the left, even more so than Baltimore.

I have to agree. When I first drove into Ballmer, I smelled the air and said, "This is a town where they make things."

All they make in DC is hot air and piles of paper.

Have a hobby that requires a relationship with a local fabrication shop? Machine shop? Welder? Metals supply? Or even a really good auto parts store? Chances are MUCH better in Baltimore than DC.

But they are better still in, say, Houston.

Speaking of Houston, they built one of the first stadiums built with public money. And they made a fortune off of it for decades, renting it out every week of the year. It's called the Astrodome. It's the people who manage such efforts that make the difference in the outcome, not the mere fact that they work for government. Of course, I have zero expectation that Reliant Stadium will deliver the same good deal to the citizens of Houston as did the Harris County Domed Stadium.

Rick "thinking Ballmer and DC both have more than their fair share of wall-leaners" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Speaking of Houston, they built one of the first stadiums built with public money. And they made a fortune off of it for decades, renting it out every week of the year. It's called the Astrodome.

[Pedantry alert]

The Astrodome may have been one of the first stadium in the US built specifically to house a major professional sports franchise, but there's a LONG list of city/county owned and managed stadia and arenas predating the Astrodome that were built with public money, a small sampling of XX century examples of which include LA Memorial Coliseum (1923); Municipal Grant Park (later renamed Soldier Field, 1924); Cleveland Municipal Stadium (funded by a voter-approved special tax levy, 1929); Buffalo Memorial Auditorium (1940), Baltimore Memorial Stadium (1950), Allen County War Memorial Coliseum (1952), J.S. Dorton Arena (1952), Milwaukee County Stadium (built specifically with the hope of attracting a Major League Baseball team, 1953), War Memorial Coliseum (renamed Greensboro Coliseum, 1959), etc., etc., etc. (And, of course, the stadia of Classical Antiquity, e.g., Colosseum, Stadium of Domitian, Olympia, Plovdiv Roman Stadium, Panathinaiko (Kallimarmaron), the Hippodrome at Ephesus, etc., were funded with public money. )

[/Pedantry alert]

Rick Denney wrote:I have to agree. When I first drove into Ballmer, I smelled the air and said, "This is a town where they make things."

Spot on. Baltimore is (though arguably not as much as it was) one of the largest and most important seaports on the east coast (in part because it is easy to load the goods onto major national rail lines).

Few visitors realize that the Inner Harbor used to be full of warehouses, docks, and heavy industry until the mid 70's. And before it was transformed into a tourist area, the harbor almost became covered by highway overpasses and bridges.

DC ain't all just monuments, military, politicians, and hipsters, but I can't think of one heavy industry that operates from there.