Comments on: Fix the Tax Code Friday: Should Everyday Really be Sunday?

By: Steve S

Steve S — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:45:55 +0000

I couldn’t care less about baseball, football, or any other xxxball. But, the point is that society benefits from sports, theater and the arts. The support of which is incumbent on the community because the community benefits as a whole and the costs of which are greater than any one person or corporation are willing risk. Furthermore, most of these stadiums are used for more than one venue and they should be. To have them used for only one venue is a tremendous waste of natural and community resources. Thus, yes, communities should support the building of stadiums, theatres and parks because they elevate humanity. Steven Stauch

By: Perry

Perry — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:18:25 +0000

As much money as there is in sports, why should tax dollars have to subsidize the salaries of overpaid athletes? Cut the salaries and build stadiums! Fans are willing to spend money to support them. Of course, we have the greedy owners.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:05:20 +0000

[] Who should pay to fund sports stadiums?

The franchise owners

[] Should taxpayers shoulder the burden since stadiums ostensibly bring revenue and glory to the City? (I note that in Philly, we’re still waiting on the glory)

Has any city actually gained anything from funding a sports arena? It’s not like wooing a manufacturing company like Samsung or Motorola, where you actually get a lot of local jobs, unless, like someone said, you have a slew of unemployed hotdog vendors and concession stand cashiers on the dole. On the other hand, I WAS happy when the RR Express minor league team came to the area, because I like baseball. But I still don’t think I should’ve had to fund it. I like Dunkin Donuts, too, but so far I haven’t convinced the city council to fund me to open up a franchise here in Austin.

[] Or should the team players and owners bear the cost of expansion and improvements?

I don’t know about making the team players bear the brunt, they’re not the business owners. The superstars get paid crazy piles of money only because the owners make even crazier piles of money by having them play for their team. The franchise owners should definitely foot the bill. I in general get pissed off at eating the tax bill for corporations.

[] Or should season ticket holders and visitors to the stadium pay via a surtax?

As far as I’m concerned, the owners can charge whatever they want for tickets, to support a new stadium, if their customers, aka “fans” are willing to pay. But I don’t like the idea of it being tacked on to the ticket price as a “tax”, that the city then uses to build the stadium, because who pays for inevitable cost overruns? I’m assuming that’d be the the rest of us. The owners need to be responsible for building their own buildings, end of story.

By: Kelvin Kao

Kelvin Kao — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:35:57 +0000

On a smaller scale, similar stuff also causes controversies in universities. Should the school increase fees to fund the atheletics programs? Should they charge the students more just so that they can have money to renovate the stadiums? Of course, it’s not as extreme because usually the students can still use the facilities when the school teams aren’t using them, but at the same time, this makes people less inclined for paying more for a new stadium when it’s used by a professional team.

I think it’s city-dependent as well. I live in the Los Angeles area. If someone said let’s pay for a new stadium for Angels, Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Sparks, etc., I would say no. But in some cities, it might be just what they need to boost local economy. But if it was L.A., I would say no. (By the way, I am an Angels, Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers fan, but don’t care as much about the other teams mentioned.)

For the people not familiar with sports: Angeles and Dodgers are baseball teams. Lakers, Clippers, and Sparks are baseketball teams. Kings is the hockey team. And for some reason L.A. doesn’t have a football team.)

By: zoomer d boomer

zoomer d boomer — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:08:31 +0000

I live in Dallas, where we just built a new basketball/hockey arena for the local franchise. part of the deal was that the team owners would develop the area around the arena (shops-hotels-apartments, the usual stuff) and that the new arena would have first dibs on any entertainment that came to town needing a venue. Well, the team owners had to be “reminded” of their promise to develop, and now the “old” arena (the twenty year bonds financing it were not even paid off when they built the new one) is about to be razed because it no longer pays for itself . It’s still a perfectly good, attractive building! Our tax money straight down the crapper! And then Jerry Jones played two of the metroplex cities against each other to get a new stadium for the Dallas (more appropriately Arlington) Cowboys. The owners are acting as if we the fans/taxpayers are their personal cow to be milked whenever and however they like. I would unequivocally state that taxpayer financed stadiums are not worth it unless there is a revenue sharing arrangement to pay back the taxpayer. If we are going to subsidize a business, I would bet a lot of money there are a lot of places where we could get a better return on our investment.

By: Maddy

Maddy — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:50:31 +0000

The metrodome was (until this year) also used by the Minnesota Gophers -

Dolphin Stadium hosts NFL, MLB, 2 NCAA teams and the Orange Bowl

It does seem inequitable when the state and local community end up funding the majority of a stadium project – and then get very little in return -

By: zoomer d boomer

zoomer d boomer — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:44:49 +0000

correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t an economist studied this and concluded that the hot dog sales and parking lot attendant jobs created by these stadiums aren’t a real good return on the millions (now billions?) of public money invested? How about we loan the money to the owners? if they win a championship then maybe we forgive a payment or two, if they are in the cellar, we charge a penalty fee? Even better, how about the public becomes part owner of the franchise!

By: Oxnate

Oxnate — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:57:34 +0000

The Metrodome (where the Vikings currently play) sucks. It wasn’t designed FOR any sport so it sucks equally at supporting all sports. But it’s no more than the Vikings deserve for playing so god-awful.

The reason we Minnesotans aren’t happy about lining the pockets of Ziggy Wilf is that the Vikings haven’t earned the new stadium. If they were a winning team, maybe we wouldn’t mind footing the bill.

To answer your questions:

Who should pay to fund sports stadiums? – The owners of the team.

Should taxpayers shoulder the burden since stadiums ostensibly bring revenue and glory to the City? (I note that in Philly, we’re still waiting on the glory) – No.

Or should the team players and owners bear the cost of expansion and improvements? Owners.

Or should season ticket holders and visitors to the stadium pay via a surtax? No, but it’s going to happen anyway.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:54:18 +0000

See, why didn’t I just ask the baseball guy to begin with?
But now you’re on the hook, Mark. Do you think taxpayers should pay for stadiums? Since you’re NJ, that leads to some interesting questions – I assume that you go to Eagles games (PA) but the teams that have stadiums in NJ are technically both NY teams. Does NJ fund those teams? Do you know?

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:48:48 +0000

Miami’s stadium is shared, not Atlanta’s. Of course, the Giants and Jets also share their stadium, with each other.