04/18/24
December 25, 2009
Stadium Boom Deepens Municipal Woes : Years after a wave of construction brought publicly financed stadiums costing billions of dollars to cities across the country, taxpayers are once again being asked to reach into their pockets. From New Jersey to Ohio to Arizona, the stadiums were sold as key to redevelopment and as the only way to retain sports franchises. But the deals that were used to persuade taxpayers to finance their construction have in many cases backfired, the result of overly optimistic revenue assumptions and the recession. Sales tax receipts have fallen so fast in the last year that the county is now scrambling to bridge a $14 million deficit in its sales tax fund. The public schools, which deferred taking their share for years, want their money. The teams have not volunteered to rewrite their leases. In the coming weeks, the county plans to cut basic services, lower its legal bills and drain a bond reserve fund with no plan for paying it back. Mark Rosentraub, the author of the book “Major League Losers,” said that many of the stadium deals included “revenue bombs,” with financial traps like balloon payments on debt in later years and sweeteners like the Hamilton County property tax rebate to win public support.
posted by tommytrump to culture at 09:32 AM - 5 comments
A little of column A, and a little of column B. I'd have liked to see a conference of mayors or governors band together to not be used against each other, or even Congress have passed legislation removing any and all anti-trust protection for the professional sports leagues. If MLB, with something like $8B in revenue every year, simply bought one new $400M stadium every year, each team would get a fully privately funded new stadium every 30 years- and lord knows the teams would spend the money wisely when it was there dough.
But somehow, as is often the case with corrupt public-private bullshit deals, elected officials are always swayed by the (I believe mistaken) notion that the citizens would revolt if their beloved sports teams are not pampered with sweetheart tax deals. And in the end, the risk is always socialized, but the reward is always privatized. We're told that the teams are special, that sports is special, that it is in the best interests of the city or state to put some money in the pot- or the team "can't stay competitive" and even threatens to leave. We're told that somehow having the team is a net benefit to the local economy, and not a net drain- when study after study has shown that a city effectively pays for the privilege to have a pro sports team.
The owners certainly forced these things to come to bear: I recall unhappily how in the same few-year span, the Mariners got a last-minute stadium deal shoved down our throats thanks to their "miracle" 1995 season, and the Seahawks used the threat of Ken Behring stealing the team, and then new owner Paul Allen's deep, deep Microsoft pockets, to force the narrowest of victories in a privately funded "special election" to get their own stadium. And just a couple of years ago, greedy with the thought of getting some of that public dough, that evil little troll David Stern worked with Clay Bennett and others to try to bluff Seattle into massively renovating Key Arena which was maybe 15 years old at that point because it wasn't "competitive" with luxury boxes and seats. When their bluff was called, they then moved the team as threatened, to the teeming metropolis of... Oklahoma City.
But it's ultimately the taxpayers, and the officials they choose to elect, that make these things happen. Every time, the lie is told that stadiums bring in revenue, that cities need these teams- but it's our collective fault that we're dumb enough to believe it! I hear tale that Seattle's Key Arena is making more money for the city without the Sonics than they did with, in large part because after they city is done ponying up the lion's share of funding for the stadiums, somehow the teams also get sweetheart deals to get the lion's share of parking/related revenues.
posted by hincandenza at 05:31 PM on December 25, 2009
While i can't speak for every venue, I do know that the promised growth of restaurants/bars/hotels/etc. has not materialized in Dallas.
The Ballpark in Arlington is surrounded with empty space (well, Jerry's new building takes up some space), and Victory Park by the American Airline Center is bleeding cash with more empty spaces than occupied ones.
posted by dviking at 11:47 PM on December 25, 2009
Socialism, American style: soak ordinary folks for the benefit of a cartel of plutocrats.
posted by rodgerd at 12:58 AM on December 26, 2009
Thanks for the interesting read, TT. It's funny that Cincinnati is at the center of that article, and makes me kind of sad that I get back there once a year to enjoy the great new stadiums.
It makes me wonder if those who approved the deal had lived there very long. The author characterizes the situation as an exodus of money to the suburbs, but as long as I have known that city (moved there in '77, left in '94) it has been suburban. The city itself is now the third or even fourth largest in Ohio, with something like 300,000 people. The metropolitan area, which includes Northern Kentucky, is more than 1.5 million. Did they think that building the stadiums downtown would bring all of those people to live on the riverfront? And that if they did, the infrastructure could handle it? I call bullshit on those who brokered the deal, but also bullshit on the voters who thought it would deliver the expected results.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:28 PM on December 26, 2009
Far too many of these deals out there.
Where does it all end?
Never ending escalation of players' salaries, and ticket prices...coupled with seemingly endless stream of owners holding cities hostage for even bigger, and more costly stadiums. It has to end somewhere.
Is the average citizen in Cincinnati better off without the stadium?
Seems to me that if basic services are being cut back due to the stadium that they had their priorities mixed up. Or, wealthy owners, and suspect politicians, took advange of the situation.