DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Bristol cost $600k in 1960. That translates to roughly $4.6M in 2012 dollars.
http://thesportseconomist.com/2010/07/11/cowboys-stadium-financing/
$1.2B AT&T Stadium (formerly Cowboys Stadium; aka Jerry's World)
$325M funding from City of Arlington
increases in sales tax (½%), hotel-motel tax (2%) and car rental taxes (5%) were added to pay for this funding.
In 2010 (date of the article), the City of Arlington was on the hook for $20.7M, but tax revenues from those tax increases were close to $27M, a net increase in tax revenues of $6.3M. Where would that $6.3M have come from if not for the tax increases to pay for the stadium? Likely, those tax increases wouldn't have been put in place because there would have been no reason to put them in place.
Let's forget 1960 because things were a lot different then.
MetLife Stadium was built entirely with private money. I think their net seats was +15,000.
The average cost for a PSL was $15,000.
There are very few seats available that don't cost the fan to buy a license and then, buy a ticket for each game.
Even more troubling, though, is you seem to be in favor of raising taxes for "everyone" (Sales tax, hotels, and car rentals). Let's look at the other side:
Why should someone who couldn't possibly care less about the Dallas Cryboys have to have their cost of living increased because of a stadium that won't impact them, at all (other than raise their costs)?
The typical cost increase for most locals would be the ½% sales tax increase. Most locals won't be renting a car or spending the night in a hotel (note I did say most, acknowledging that some will).
A locality that is growing or that has a lot of action in the economy is going to fetch higher real estate values, too.
quote:
You said: "Likely, those tax increases wouldn't have been put in place because there would have been no reason to put them in place." My thought is: "And? Those new taxes are a good thing?"
What you seem to be advocating is a situation where the team's owner(s) get richer, the politicians/government gets richer (and likely exerts some control over [what's supposed to be] a private business), and the fan gets utterly screwed by the team and the government. I'm at a loss.
Like I said above, the locals aren't going to get hit with this as much as others. And, the increase in revenues over and above the increase in costs is doing something for the locals. Increased real estate values is one thing, and so are stable tax rates. Higher revenue flow also means that there is a greater opportunity for repayment of debt, which can also lead to a more desirable for people and businesses to be.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
80k seating means a whole bunch of people coming into Arlington from places other than Arlington. Ya think any of those people spend money in Arlington that wouldn't be spending it in Arlington without the Stadium being there?
In places where stadiums already exist, this argument is not quite true.
The New Yankee Stadium and Shitty (Pardon me, I'm a METS fan) Citi Field hold less seats than the previous facilities. The only increase there was to the teams (PSLs and ticket prices). Tax revenue is increased based upon ticket prices going up and the added sales of PSLs. The team makes another small mint and once, again, the fan gets screwed.
Now, in a place where there's no facility, I would look at things on a case-by-case basis but, I'll say it, again; it would take some pretty solid evidence to convince me that people, paying for a stadium, is a win-win for anyone but teams and politicians/government.
When replacing a stadium (and I don't understand replacing a stadium with a smaller one, unless the old one wasn't being filled; doubt that includes the Stankees, though), the age of the facility and the costs involved with rehabilitating it and/or maintaining it have to play into that. Cleveland's former stadium (that Modell left), Municipal Stadium, was old. The mechanicals were deteriorating. The facility was declining and needed to be replaced. You can't necessarily continue to use the same stadium forever. Updating a facility simply by rebuilding when the old one could have continued to provide everything, after a being renovated, seems a better policy, but that's a case-by-case determination.
Why did Cleveland gripe when the Browns left? Why did Baltimore do the same when the Colts left? Why has LA/Oakland kept trying to get a team back?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread