Public Funding of stadiums

[wilt the stilt]

The biggest waste ever. States and municipalities should not be in the business of providing stadiums for private ownership ever.

How come I never hear republicans complaining about that.

[JonLP24]

1. Cubs on the ballot in my city

Still undecided actually. If they wanted to stay at HoHokam Park and just asked for renovations I would be all for it for admittedly selfish reasons. I have a friend that lives across the street and he makes a killing on parking during Spring Training seasons. Instead they are planning on building a new site and calling it "Wrigleyville West". I'm thinking about it is because they are our identity. The signs read, "Welcome to Mesa, Arizona. The Winter Home of the Chicago Cubs". That changes if it fails because I believe they've had a site lined up in Florida for quite sometime. They already have a ballpark plan ready to build if the Cubs decide to go there. I understand they bring tourism revenue to the city. Like I said, still undecided.

[caraher]

2. That's easy...

"How come I never hear republicans complaining about that."

Because they're hypocrites.

Or more cynically... they're in favor of redistribution of wealth into the hands of the wealthy, whether or not they admit it - even to themselves.

Next question?

[HuckleB]

3. Exactly.

It's a ludicrous expense for taxpayers.

[TZ]

4. Not always

They create JOBS and sometimes they actually do really really help rehabilitate parts of cities that are struggling (are they the best jobs..no but I will never say job creation is a bad thing). If you think stadiums don't actually help cities you need to look at what Nationals Park has done for what was a horrible part of DC on the SW water front. AND its pretty obvious that the revitalization of downtown Cleveland was helped mightily by the new sports stadiums there. Thats only two examples off the top of my head. Plus DC's Chinatown was revitalized by the building of the Verizon center (though that was built entirely with Abe Pollin's money, no public funds)
Are they wastes of money? Possibly-- but to deny that these stadiums don't have some significant benefits to the public is completely ignorant.

[HuckleB]

5. I've yet to see a study that shows that the amount of money spent...

...to create the jobs that are created makes a lick of sense. On the other hand, I've seen more than a few that show negative impact, no impact or very little impact for the money spent, in terms of benefit to the local economy. In fact, I've yet to see a study that shows much in the way of actual job growth. Further, most studies I've seen indicate that the jobs created are lost elsewhere, as entertainment dollars are moved. If you think that those cities couldn't have revitalized their downtowns for less money without those stadiums, that's your choice. It's been done in Portland, Oregon, for example, where a once ignored downtown is far livelier than Cleveland's, stadium or not. In the end, restaurants and businesses in other parts of town get hurt, because they're not subsidized, while the already wealthy make even more.

I think you are overstating the supposed benefits by a great deal. The cost does not match the benefit, if there is a true benefit.

Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost?
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx

PRO SPORTS STADIUMS DON'T BOLSTER LOCAL ECONOMIES, SCHOLARS SAY
http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events?
http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/CoatesHumphreys_LitReview.pdf