Stadium Subsidy Stupidity Hits New Record

[Muda69]

https://reason.com/2023/04/26/stadium-subsidy-stupidity-hits-new-record/

Quote

The Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County voted in the wee hours on Wednesday morning to spend $1.26 billion in taxpayer money on a new government-owned stadium. That figure not only puts locals on the hook for more than half of the stadium's estimated $2.1 billion cost, but it also sets a new record for the largest stadium subsidy in U.S. history.

Supporters of the new domed stadium say tourists will pay that money back, not locals. The Tennessean reports that Council Member Zulfat Suara "voted in favor because she prefers tourists to bear the tax burden of stadium construction and upkeep (through sales, ticket and hotel taxes) instead of Davidson County taxpayers." On top of a 1 percent hotel tax increase, sales taxes paid in and around the stadium (as well as ticket taxes and fees) will be used to repay $500 million in bonds from the state government and $760 million in bonds from Nashville's Sports Authority.

That logic sounds good until you consider fans of the NFL's Tennessee Titans presumably live in Tennessee, if not mostly in Nashville and Davidson County. The fees and taxes also drive up costs for business travelers and visitors who aren't attending stadium events. Meanwhile, several special events are exempt from the new 3-percent ticket fee: Country Music Association events, Academy of Country Music events, the Grammy Awards, and World Wrestling Entertainment events.

The problem with the new stadium, like the current Nissan Stadium, is not just who pays for it, but who owns it, and that's the The Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County. It's unclear if the Metropolitan Council ever considered getting out of the stadium business and simply asking the billionaire owner of the Titans to pay for the team's own upgrade. This is not an impossible task: SoFi Stadium outside Los Angeles is the most expensive stadium ever built and reportedly had no direct government subsidies. It's probably the finest stadium in the world and routinely hosts special events.

Supporters say that with Nashville on the hook for the upkeep of the current stadium, it's cheaper to start fresh instead of upgrading Nissan Stadium. But the government never really looked into how much an upgrade that fulfilled Nashville's obligations would cost, only relying on one estimate provided by the Tennessee Titans owner of how much it would cost to build her dream stadium.

It used to be that NFL team owners would threaten to move their teams and local governments would instead open their wallets for a shiny new stadium—now governments are tripping over themselves to give over $1 billion in subsidies to NFL owners who aren't even threatening to move.

Fans won't even get a bigger stadium: The new one will seat 60,000 people, which is about 9,000 seats fewer than the current stadium and will be the smallest capacity in the NFL. The city is building a smaller stadium rather than renovating one the state owes money on through 2029.

Nashville's $1.26 billion football stadium subsidy surpasses the $1 billion taxpayer subsidy for a new Buffalo Bills stadium approved last year. The stadium subsidy arms race never ends.

The taxpayers of Nashville just got fleeced.  Again.

 

[Bash Riprock]

On 4/27/2023 at 9:47 AM, Muda69 said:

https://reason.com/2023/04/26/stadium-subsidy-stupidity-hits-new-record/

The taxpayers of Nashville just got fleeced.  Again.

 

or....the voters of the city got exactly what they voted for.  If not, then they will vote out the people in political power....or leave the area if that issue is a big enough deal to them as voting citizens.  But I am sure they appreciate your concern.

[Muda69]

20 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

or....the voters of the city got exactly what they voted for.  If not, then they will vote out the people in political power....or leave the area if that issue is a big enough deal to them as voting citizens.  But I am sure they appreciate your concern.

Only the stupid voters of the city got what they voted for.  And that seems to still be the majority of voters.

 

[Bash Riprock]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:24 AM, Muda69 said:

Only the stupid voters of the city got what they voted for.  And that seems to still be the majority of voters.

 

Careful with labels..the group you are insulting may indeed label you as the same...perhaps with the term of "shortsighted" as well.....

Edited May 5, 2023 by Bash Riprock

[Muda69]

On 5/5/2023 at 1:29 PM, Bash Riprock said:

Careful with labels..the group you are insulting may indeed label you as the same...perhaps with the term of "shortsighted" as well.....

How is my viewpoint shortsighted, Bash?    Study after study has shown the complete money pit that publicly funded football stadiums have become, along with projected ancillary incomes that never materialized.  And still frankly stupid individuals continue to support throwing their money away when it should be the billionaire owner putting up their own financing for such a project.  What is shortsighted about that?

 

[Bash Riprock]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

How is my viewpoint shortsighted, Bash?    Study after study has shown the complete money pit that publicly funded football stadiums have become, along with projected ancillary incomes that never materialized.  And still frankly stupid individuals continue to support throwing their money away when it should be the billionaire owner putting up their own financing for such a project.  What is shortsighted about that?

 

While other studies do show a return on investment.  My point is that regardless which camp one lands in, just remember that when you are labeling a large group of people as stupid, those people may indeed be labeling you as the same.  It their home...not yours.

I don't know if the Titans need a new stadium or how the facility will be used to support the community outside of football.  All stadium investments are not the same.  But I do know this...I could care less how Nashville invests their money.  Those citizens have that responsibility.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Bash Riprock

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

While other studies do show a return on investment. 

Links. please.

 

[Bash Riprock]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Links. please.

 

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole with you.  Try your favorite search engine....they are out there if you really want to find them with an open mind.  But there are absolutely articles as to the pros and cons.  I do agree that its more difficult to show a benefit when replacing an existing facility (that still has life) vs. building a first time stadium for a city.

Bottom line, its the voting citizens of Nashville's business...not yours or mine.  Calling voters of another city "stupid" because they have an outlook different than yours is unfortunate to say the best.  They determine the "value" for them.  Stay home

[Gipper]

Maybe the home of the Music City Bowl needs a better stadium!

[Muda69]

18 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole with you.  Try your favorite search engine....they are out there if you really want to find them with an open mind.  But there are absolutely articles as to the pros and cons.  I do agree that its more difficult to show a benefit when replacing an existing facility (that still has life) vs. building a first time stadium for a city.

Bottom line, its the voting citizens of Nashville's business...not yours or mine.  Calling voters of another city "stupid" because they have an outlook different than yours is unfortunate to say the best.  They determine the "value" for them.  Stay home

I hate seeing taxpayers money wasted.  Pity that you don't.

BTW, here is a new stadium/arena boondoggle just announced here in Indiana:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2023/05/08/pacers-news-mad-ants-moving-from-fort-wayne-to-noblesville/70196524007/

Quote

Pacers Sports & Entertainment and the city of Noblesville announced Monday that the Fort Wayne Mad Ants, the Pacers' G-League affiliate, will move to Noblesville, which will build a 3,400 seat, 85,000-square-foot arena on the city's east side for the team.

The city hopes the arena will be built for the 2024-25 season, and the Pacers say the Mad Ants will play in Gainbridge Fieldhouse until construction is completed.

According to a press release, Noblesville is "working through due diligence steps with local partners and plan to build the arena at Finch Creek Park near the Mojo Up Sports Complex."

The franchise will maintain the Mad Ants name through the 2023-24 season, after which a new name will be chosen. The Mad Ants were named after the namesake of Fort Wayne, "Mad" Anthony Wayne, an American Revolutionary War general and U.S. Congressman.

...

According to the release, a 10-year partnership agreement between Noblesville and Pacers Sports & Entertainment will be presented Monday at the Noblesville Common Council meeting. The agreement includes a $5 million investment from PS&E, which will lead an effort to secure another $5 million in naming rights and signage over those 10 years. The city will invest $36.5 million in building the arena.

....

What the Indianapolis Star really means is that Noblesville taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $36.5 million.  For a minor league developmental team.  Crazy.

 

[gonzoron]

44 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I hate seeing taxpayers money wasted.  Pity that you don't.

BTW, here is a new stadium/arena boondoggle just announced here in Indiana:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2023/05/08/pacers-news-mad-ants-moving-from-fort-wayne-to-noblesville/70196524007/

....

What the Indianapolis Star really means is that Noblesville taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $36.5 million.  For a minor league developmental team.  Crazy.

 

You let this one slip by you?

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/fishers-indy-fuel-prepare-to-break-ground-on-new-arena-event-center/

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

You let this one slip by you?

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/fishers-indy-fuel-prepare-to-break-ground-on-new-arena-event-center/

Thanks.  Article doesn't state exactly how much the taxpayers in Fishers are on the hook for this boondoggle, so one can assume most if not all of the $550,000,000 stated in the beginning or the article. 

Robbery.

 

[Bash Riprock]

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

I hate seeing taxpayers money wasted.  Pity that you don't.

 

I think the fine people of Nashville will be just fine without my concern about a new stadium being built.  

[Muda69]

Taxpayers Will Pay at Least $600 Million for Tampa Bay's New Baseball Stadium

https://reason.com/2023/09/22/taxpayers-will-pay-at-least-600-million-for-tampa-bays-new-baseball-stadium/

Quote

Despite being one of the most dynamic and competitive major league teams for the past 15 years, one thing has quite literally hung over the Tampa Bay Rays: Tropicana Field, the team's ugly and often mostly empty ballpark.

But that shouldn't justify asking taxpayers to foot half the bill for a new home.

Yet it looks like that's what will happen, now that Rays' owner Stuart Sternberg and local government officials have announced an agreement for a new, $1.3 billion stadium where the Rays hope to begin playing by 2028. Though the financial details of the deal remain a bit thin for now, the Tampa Bay Times reports that taxpayers in the city of St. Petersburg and those in Pinellas County (which includes the city) will split the $600 million public contribution to the project.

As Field of Schemes blogger Neil deMause notes, there are still a ton of questions to be answered—including the possibilities of backdoor subsidies like property tax breaks—which won't be fully addressed until the fine print of the deal is made public.

For now, here's what we do know: Plans for the new ballpark call for a fixed dome roof—similar to the one the Rays currently play home games under, though likely without the pesky catwalks that can cause havoc for fielders. Instead of a retractable roof, the stadium will include openable walls and windows that "bring the outside in," the team says.

That's a prudent decision that likely keeps the overall cost of the project down. Still, this is an exorbitantly expensive price tag—one that is likely to increase as it moves along—for a stadium that will seat only about 30,000 people when finished, making it the smallest in Major League Baseball. Ballpark Digest, a blog focused on baseball stadiums, describes the proposal as looking "more like a large arena than a traditional ballpark."

That's perhaps an acknowledgment of the Rays' real problem, which isn't the lack of a shiny new ballpark but an indifferent fan base that's never really embraced the team, despite its remarkable run of low-budget success. The team consistently ranks at or near the bottom of the American League in attendance. Only three times since its inaugural season of 1999 have the Rays drawn an average of over 20,000 fans per game.

Will a new ballpark change that? The Rays shouldn't have to look far for the answer. Their cross-state rivals, the Miami Marlins, similarly struggled with awful attendance figures for most of their first two decades as a major league franchise—despite winning two World Series in that span. The team's owners blamed their ugly, football-first ballpark for the low figures and eventually got a brand-new, baseball-only stadium funded with over $500 million in public cash.

Nothing has changed. Miami drew an average of 27,000 fans in their first season at Marlins Park but has ranked dead last in the National League for attendance in every season since then.

 

In Tampa, one of the oft-repeated reasons for the Rays' attendance struggles has been the location of Tropicana Field. "Most knowledgeable Tampa Bay residents and baseball fans know Tropicana Field is too far from the population center and the gridlock too tangled for enough fans to see the Rays on a daily basis," Michael Lortz wrote for FanGraphs, a sports blog, in 2017.

The Rays' solution to this problem is a head-scratching one: The new stadium will be built directly adjacent to the team's current home field.

Sports economist Daniel R. Epstein suggests that the Rays' strategy will be to price out fans who want to sit in the cheap seats. "By decreasing the number of seats in the stadium and keeping the park in the same general location, the Rays aren't trying to sell more tickets than they currently do—so they'll make up the difference by increasing the price," he writes in Forbes. "Improving the fan experience in and around the ballpark sounds great—for those who can afford it—but if they aren't interested in packing more fans into the park, they'll surely pursue wealthier ones instead."

So the Rays will trade a difficult-to-access, domed stadium for another difficult-to-access, domed stadium. Taxpayers will be out $600 million (and maybe more), fans who still want to see the team play in person will face higher ticket prices, and the team's attendance woes are likely to continue.

Other than all that, it sounds like a great deal.

Another huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Taxpayers Will Pay at Least $600 Million for Tampa Bay's New Baseball Stadium

https://reason.com/2023/09/22/taxpayers-will-pay-at-least-600-million-for-tampa-bays-new-baseball-stadium/

Another huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

It’s about time. I saw a game in that place. It was so long ago that Alex Rodriguez hit the first home run confirmed by the use of replay. He hit one right down the line and it disappeared into the rafters. That place was a dump then.

[Muda69]

Wisconsin Politicians Want To Spend $550 Million on Ballpark Subsidies the Public Opposes 

https://reason.com/2023/10/16/wisconsin-politicians-want-to-spend-550-million-on-ballpark-subsidies-the-public-opposes/

Quote

Wisconsin voters might not agree on much—but a new poll finds that opposition to the use of public funds to upgrade the Milwaukee Brewers' 22-year-old ballpark cuts across ages, party lines, and more.

Only 29 percent of voters in the state favor the use of taxpayer subsidies for the stadium project, according to a survey conducted last week by Public Policy Polling (PPP). Opposition cuts across all political lines. Just 24 percent of self-identified Trump voters and 34 percent of self-identified Biden voters say they support the subsidies, while majorities of men, women, and all four age cohorts surveyed say they are opposed.

Despite the voters' feelings, Republican legislators are pushing ahead with plans to put taxpayers on the hook for more than $557 million in upgrades to American Family Field, where the Milwaukee Brewers have played since 2001. According to the Associated Press, the Wisconsin General Assembly is expected to vote on the proposal Tuesday.

American Family Field, formerly known as Miller Park, cost about $400 million to build. The public contributed nearly three-quarters of the construction cost via a new 0.1 percent sales tax in Milwaukee and several other countries surrounding the city.

State Rep. Rob Brooks (R–Saukville), who described himself in an interview last week as a "fiscal conservative," is leading the push for the new ballpark subsidy bill. "If you talk to any advertising agency, I don't know how you can have a better bang for your buck than whenever the Milwaukee Brewers appear on TV or on ESPN," Brooks told Wisconsin public radio station WTMJ.

Maybe Brooks should try talking to some economists instead. There are piles of evidence that public funding for sports stadiums does not generate economic growth or benefit the public in any way. The beneficiaries are always the private owners of the teams themselves, who would have to shell out for the construction costs of stadiums if there weren't an ample supply of local and state politicians tripping over themselves to spend other people's money on these things.

In Milwaukee, that means the beneficiary of Brooks' stadium upgrade plan is Brewers' owner Mark Attanasio, who recently bought a sizable stake in Norwich City, an English soccer team.

Most voters seem to agree that Attanasio isn't in need of a government hand-out. When asked in the PPP survey, 77 percent of voters say they believe Attanasio is "in a better position to pay for stadium improvements," while just 8 percent say taxpayers are better able to shoulder the cost. When asked how the state ought to spend $550 million, 70 percent of voters in the survey say the money should be spent on "other government priorities such as public safety, healthcare, and roads" while just 16 percent say the funding should pay for a baseball stadium.

"It is rare to find a proposed policy so disliked by voters of both parties," said Dan Adams, director of Milwaukee Works, Inc., a nonprofit that opposes the stadium subsidies and funded the PPP survey.

If Brooks and other state lawmakers don't pay attention to polls like this now, they might find themselves on the wrong side of polls that matter more, Adams said, pointing to the fact that voters in both parties said they would be less likely to support politicians who vote for the stadium subsidies. "This issue imperils incumbent politicians from both parties," Adams said in a statement to Reason. "The Brewers' bailout plan creates a ready-made primary issue for both Republicans and Democrats."

Crony capitalism at it's finest.  Probably lots of kickbacks going on in the Wisconsin statehouse.

 

[Muda69]

'A billionaire's toy': He says Lucas Oil roof cost $100M. Colts say it wasn't Irsay's idea: https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2024/09/03/lucas-oil-roof-cost-100-million-politician-says-not-jim-irsay-idea-colts-say/74805831007/

Quote

 It's hard for Rick McKinney to believe it's been 20 years. Twenty years since he was a Hamilton County council member being asked to vote for a food and beverage tax that would help pay for a new stadium for the Indianapolis Colts, complete with a shiny new retractable roof.

With 86.5% of Lucas Oil Stadium's $720 million cost being footed by taxpayer dollars, that retractable roof, in McKinney's opinion, was over the top. It would rarely be used with Indiana weather, he argued, at least not to be worth the $100 million he says the roof added to the final price tag.

McKinney told Gov. Mitch Daniels and Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson and fellow Hamilton County council members and anyone who would listen.

But when it was all said and done, McKinney's lone nay vote in the 6-1 final tally in Hamilton County didn't matter. The 1% tax would be enacted, the stadium would be built, along with an expanded Indiana Convention Center, and for the foreseeable future the taxpayers of Indiana would be paying off stadium debt, minus the $100 million the Colts chipped in.

 

McKinney isn't one to say, "I told you so," but when the Lucas Oil roof was unable to be opened last month because of a technical glitch reported by IndyStar and he saw the number of times that roof had been open for play — 38 of the Colts' 130 regular season games or 29.2% — and the continued lack of reporting on the cost the retractable roof added to the stadium that opened in 2008, he couldn't help himself. He emailed IndyStar.

"The additional cost was close to $100 million. … I objected at the time because I thought it would rarely be open, which has been true," McKinney wrote. "But it was a new toy, and other cities were getting them, like Phoenix and Houston."

When reached via phone, IndyStar asked McKinney to confirm the $100 million figure. "A minimum, a minimum, at least $100 million," he said.

Neither the Colts nor the city have revealed the cost of the retractable roof. The team's chief operating officer, Pete Ward, told IndyStar in 2015 that the team was never given a “line item” on how much the roof added to the price of the stadium. In 2013, the St. Paul Pioneer-Press reported the cost of a retractable roof for a stadium in Minneapolis would be $25 million to $40 million more than for a dome.

"We did not get to pick and choose options, but I know I asked, and I know people talked about it and it was just they shrugged their shoulders, you know? No big deal. 'It's just $100 million,'" said McKinney, who served on the Hamilton County Council for 24 years, ending his term in December 2020. "We were simply asked to pay the bill. We weren't given a choice ... and certainly (they) didn't give us any design input.

"It's just, again, I hate to say, you know, a billionaire's toy. But to give the owner (Jim) Irsay, one guy, the thumbs up, thumbs down, I thought it was just ridiculous."

Colts weigh in

To be clear, says the Colts' Steve Campbell, the retractable roof was not Irsay's idea. Campbell knows that firsthand. While he is now the team's vice president of communications and external affairs, in 2004, Campbell was Mayor Peterson's director of communications and in 2005 became a deputy mayor.

The city was doing everything it could to keep the Colts in town — the team's lease was expiring in 2005 — and the 20-year-old Hoosier Dome wasn't going to cut it, or at least city leaders didn't think so.

"Remember where we were in 2004. We had a team whose lease was coming up, we had a building that was aging, and you know a lot of people don't think of it as being old, but it was already one of the older stadiums in the NFL," Campbell said. "And you just had a changing landscape in Indianapolis and across the country."

The Hoosier Dome opened in 1984 when the Baltimore Colts moved to Indy. It was an $80 million domed stadium, a modest venue even for the time. By 2004, it was virtually outdated compared to other NFL arenas.

"When we brought the (stadium) proposal to the Colts (in 2004), we were trying to accommodate the Colts and the Final Fours and Super Bowls and the conventions and things like that," Campbell said, "but we wanted to put our best foot forward to make sure that our stadium was cutting edge and among the best in the country, if not the world."

Putting their best foot forward meant cutting-edge technology, including a retractable roof that could transform the enclosed stadium to an outdoor venue which, through the years, has been voted the best NFL stadium on multiple occasions by various outlets.

"The technology was important to us because we knew that when our stadium came online that in the next five to 10 to 15 years there would be another handful of stadiums that came online and so it was in our best interest to put forth the most technologically advanced stadium that was available," Campbell said, "because we knew that the next stadium that came out would have something that we didn't have."

The new football stadium, which would open in 2008, was to be paid for by a food and beverage tax of 1% enacted by each county individually. Collectively, half would go to pay the stadium bonds, and half each county would keep for its discretionary use. Additionally, each municipality within each county could enact their own separate 1% food and beverage tax and keep all the proceeds.

An annual cap was instituted, based on the state’s fiscal year, of $5 million in tax revenue from all the surrounding counties that is contributed to the stadium debt. Once that annual threshold is reached, each county gets to keep 100% of the tax revenue for the remainder of that fiscal year.

Who decides if the roof is opened or closed?

Before each game day, usually the day before but sometimes the day of, Irsay makes the final decision on whether to open the roof, usually with input from Ward, general manager Chris Ballard and coach Shane Steichen.

The only thing that is discussed, Ward told IndyStar in 2015, is the weather. How the roof being opened or closed will affect game play does not affect their decision, he said.

The Colts' use of the open roof closely parallels the opening rates of the NFL’s other four retractable roofs. Those stadiums are home to the Dallas Cowboys, Houston Texans, Arizona Cardinals and Atlanta Falcons.

At one point early on in the design of Lucas Oil, the Colts discussed the possibility of an open-air stadium, since weather and the elements have played such a prominent role in the NFL throughout history, Ward said in 2015.

“But an open air wouldn’t have worked for conventions, Final Fours ... so, the retractable roof was a compromise of sorts, the best of both worlds," he said. “As far as Colts games go, we consider it an amenity for our fans and part of a special game-day experience. When someone outside of Indy talks to me about our stadium, the retractable roof is generally one of the first things mentioned.”

Campbell said he believes the stadium and the roof have done exactly what was intended by city leaders in 2004. After all, Lucas Oil was home to a Super Bowl in 2012, an entire NCAA March Madness tournament held in a bubble during the COVID-19 pandemic and will welcome Taylor Swift to Indy in November.

"I think the stadium's paid those dividends," Campbell said, "and then some."

 

If Mr. Irsay is the final decision on whether or not to open the roof on a $700,000,000 public boondoggle,  then it is a Billionaire's Toy.

 

[PHJIrish]

On 9/25/2023 at 5:48 PM, Bobref said:

It’s about time. I saw a game in that place. It was so long ago that Alex Rodriguez hit the first home run confirmed by the use of replay. He hit one right down the line and it disappeared into the rafters. That place was a dump then.

I actually saw a NHL game in that stadium.  Flyers vs. Lightning in 1993.  Flyers won in OT, BTW.