TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The Rams are leaving St. Louis…with a huge stadium bill for taxpayers


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
The Rams are leaving St. Louis…with a huge stadium bill for taxpayers
Permalink  
 


Here’s a question: Should taxpayers pay to build new Walmart locations? Should tax dollars fund a new Wells Fargo office? Should city governments pony up whenever a mega-church wants a new facility or an orchestra requests a new concert hall?

If not, why should taxpayers foot the bill for NFL stadiums, dropping hundreds of millions to subsidize the building projects of a privately owned (and extremely profitable) industry?

 

Now, I confess, I don’t watch football, so maybe it’s easier for me to view stadium subsidies with a cynical eye. Yet I’m betting even football fans will share my cynicism when they read what’s happening to the taxpayers of St. Louis, Missouri, which recently lost the Rams to Los Angeles:

At the beginning of 2015, city and state taxpayers still owed more than $100 million in debt on the bonds used to finance the Edward Jones Dome, the stadium St. Louis put $280 million in public funds behind in 1995.

It isn’t scheduled to pay off that debt until at least 2021, and that could be more difficult without the Rams and the $500,000 rent payment the team made each year. The city itself owes $5 million per year over that period, and the loss of the Rams could increase costs in the short-term.

Ouch.

Taxpayers in Seattle possibly have it worse. They’re still paying off millions for a stadium that’s no longer occupied because it was demolished 15 years ago. This corporate welfare scheme happens with other sports (like baseball), too.

And even if you believe there’s a case to be made for forcing taxpayers to subsidize a playground of millionaires, the math isn’t on your side. Jim Geraghty argues this point at National Review:

If you’re looking to revitalize a local economy, an NFL stadium is just about the worst possible choice. A team will play only eight regular-season home games, two preseason games, and if they’re really lucky, one or two playoff games. At least a major-league baseball stadium hosts 81 games, and a basketball/hockey arena will be used by the home team for 41 games. Yes, stadiums can host concerts and other events. But they rarely hold enough to create a sustained economic impact in the surrounding community.

So when the NFL comes sniffing around for subsidies, mayors and governors would do well to follow the example of former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, who refused to hand over tax dollars to fund a new Vikings stadium back in 1999. (That new stadium is under construction now, and with Ventura out of office, Minnesota taxpayers like yours truly are on the hook for half a billion dollars.)

But when Ventura was here, the NFL had no such luck. Then-owner of the Vikings Red McCombs came to see Ventura about the proposal, Ventura recalls, “And I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to have fun with this.’ So I looked at Red and said, ‘Well, Red, what do you need to see me for? I’m sure there’s a landowner out there. You can buy some land and build a stadium. Go ahead. You don’t need my approval.’”

Reflecting on the encounter later, Ventura said, “The real pressure comes from yourself, because it’s your legacy. And any governor or high-ranking elected official — if a team does leave, well, that’ll be your legacy.”

He added, “The only good thing for Jesse Ventura was I didn’t give a damn. Because I’m not a career politician. I went there to serve and do the best job I could do for the people who elected me. And the NFL didn’t elect me.”

If only St. Louis’ elected leaders had said the same.
 
 
http://rare.us/story/the-rams-are-leaving-st-louis-with-a-huge-stadium-bill-for-taxpayers/


__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think St.Louis is ready for the rams to leave.

__________________


Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

It's up the the voters in the state to agree to pay for the stadiums. If the lawmakers make no contractual provisions for the tenure of the team to stay in the area, that is one them.

__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

No, I don't think taxpayers should pay for stadiums. Unless they are going to let people in for free - which ain't gonna happen.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
Permalink  
 

damn, Saint Louis is losing ANOTHER football team? i wonder if the baseball team is so strong there that all other sports suffer. the hubs is originally from St. Louis. i'll have to ask him.

here in the Metro DC area, we have all four sports, which are widely supported.

as to the stadium question, i am torn. it's one thing to have taxpayers help pay for a stadium if the team owners sign some kind of agreement about staying in that city. the area around Nat's Park has definitely been building up and improving, which generates more tax revenue for D.C., and more jobs in the District.  but having the taxpayers build a stadium and then the team leaves? not good. "build it and they will come" only works in the movies.



-- Edited by just hanging around on Friday 15th of January 2016 11:06:17 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3029
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think taxpayers should only be responsible for an interest free loan to build the stadiums, unless locals are allowed in at some ridiculously discounted price ($5 per seat, maybe?), and the difference is calculated for all ticket sales whereby the differences pay off the loan.

Team owners should be required to stay in the area until the stadium is paid for. Then, if they want to leave, they are allowed to (and they forfeit all rights to the stadium, that's why it should be an interest free loan. The city gets the stadium to use as it sees fit - another team maybe).


I know, I know - only in a perfect world.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Cities get themselves into this mess.

They promise "stuff" to get a team--but don't demand loyalty from said team.

I think the Ram's lease was for 20 years, and it's up. Why not demand a FIFTY year lease, or have a buy-out? Because then, likely, the Rams would not have come in the first place.

Until taxpayers start disciplining themselves, the NFL and other sports leagues are going to carry on business as usual.

However, roll out a bond issue in almost any major city in order to finance stadium construction--and it invariably passes. Even in the few cases it does not, the NFL (and other sports leagues) hold all the trump cards because another city probably WILL pass such a bond.

We can talk about the "greedy" owners of sports franchises all we want to--and I won't really argue that point--but this is much more about the "greedy" mayors and city councils, the major construction companies that grease the wheels, and, at the end of the day, the taxpayers, themselves, who can't seem to keep themselves from voting for such absurd deals.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

just hanging around wrote:

damn, Saint Louis is losing ANOTHER football team? i wonder if the baseball team is so strong there that all other sports suffer. the hubs is originally from St. Louis. i'll have to ask him.

here in the Metro DC area, we have all four sports, which are widely supported.

as to the stadium question, i am torn. it's one thing to have taxpayers help pay for a stadium if the team owners sign some kind of agreement about staying in that city. the area around Nat's Park has definitely been building up and improving, which generates more tax revenue for D.C., and more jobs in the District.  but having the taxpayers build a stadium and then the team leaves? not good. "build it and they will come" only works in the movies.



-- Edited by just hanging around on Friday 15th of January 2016 11:06:17 PM


 But you didn't have baseball for decades, and the Nationals no doubt got a sweet deal to come there. 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

m.youtube.com/watch


It's John Oliver's take on stadiums and the mayors that promise them. They actually don't pay off in the long run.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard