OT: Publicly Funded Sports Stadiums

[nfreeman]

There are exceptions to every rule, I imagine.

 

$68M seems pretty manageable. I reckon that'd be a little shy of ~$100M in today's dollars.

 

As it happens, I think $100M is also around what it would cost to build another St. Louis Arch in today's economy. (I used an online inflation calculator for some rough math.)

 

But these NFL robber barons, man -- they're playing a whole different sort of game.

 

Yes -- these smaller arenas (including Hamilton -- IIRC, it would need to undergo a substantial expansion to be NHL-ready) are entirely different animals than an NHL/NBA arena, which start at $300MM or an NFL stadium, which start at $600MM.

 

 

Come on man, he's only #380 per Forbes.  :doh:

Seriously though I am OK with funding for ancillary public services like roads, utilities, maybe some parking that can be used for other events, etc. to support a large private investment in the community.  Maybe even part of the stadium if it were somehow truly multi-use and could be utilized say 40-50% of the days of the year by various organizations or functions. But for a true NFL palace that gets used maybe 5% of the year, no, the NFL and the owner can pay for that. 

I saw Paul Simon there in 2008. Nice arena. I like this example but it's not the same thing as an NFL stadium (and I don't think you are saying it is).

 

And if they aren't interested in doing so, and your team is ready to move to another city that will build them a stadium -- are you OK with that?

[Drunkard]

Yes -- these smaller arenas (including Hamilton -- IIRC, it would need to undergo a substantial expansion to be NHL-ready) are entirely different animals than an NHL/NBA arena, which start at $300MM or an NFL stadium, which start at $600MM.

 

 

 

And if they aren't interested in doing so, and your team is ready to move to another city that will build them a stadium -- are you OK with that?

 

That's the rub. It's easy to say the taxpayer shouldn't be funding these big stadiums when the NFL makes money hand over fist the way it does but as long as there are cities that don't have teams who are willing to dangle that carrot of a free or nearly free stadium the NFL will always have the leverage of relocation. It would take every state, county, and city that's big enough to support a team to all stand up in solidarity. I don't see that happening.

[Sabel79]

That's the rub. It's easy to say the taxpayer shouldn't be funding these big stadiums when the NFL makes money hand over fist the way it does but as long as there are cities that don't have teams who are willing to dangle that carrot of a free or nearly free stadium the NFL will always have the leverage of relocation. It would take every state, county, and city that's big enough to support a team to all stand up in solidarity. I don't see that happening.

Unfortunately, no.  It's a race to the absolute bottom. 

[Eleven]

Thank you for realizing that was satire, Liger.  I was in mid-reply.

[LGR4GM]

Thank you for realizing that was satire, Liger.  I was in mid-reply.

It's been a long day.

 

I think that the satire is partially right though. The NFL doesn't cater or care about me the fan who spends 1,000k a year (I don't spend that much but I am thinking season ticket holders). The NFL really cares about the corporate sponsors and the tv deals and the swankiness of their stadiums and brand.  

[TheAud]

Yes -- these smaller arenas (including Hamilton -- IIRC, it would need to undergo a substantial expansion to be NHL-ready) are entirely different animals than an NHL/NBA arena, which start at $300MM or an NFL stadium, which start at $600MM.

 

 

 

And if they aren't interested in doing so, and your team is ready to move to another city that will build them a stadium -- are you OK with that?

For me personally...I'd be very sad but ultimately OK with it. Believe me, I was ecstatic when Pegula bought the Bills and provided a path to keeping them in town for the foreseeable future. But there is life outside pro football.

Not to say there isn't a sliding scale of some sort...i.e. a huge private investment may warrant some tax payer contribution or tax breaks explicitly directed to the stadium. It does provide some jobs and 'quality of life' benefits (although I find it hard to argue that the Bills or even Sabres have really improved my quality of life the past 5 years! But I digress)...I am just not in support of tax payers funding say $400M or more for a stadium that largely sits vacant.  

[PASabreFan]

This debate has understandably settled on the Bills. First of all, didn't Terry/Russ say the stadium question would be punted well down the road. Second, when the time comes, does anyone believe Terry is going to move the Bills over money? I'm as skeptical as anyone about the Peg, but even I wouldn't say that. Now, if Terry's gone by then, I'd say all bets are off.

[Neo]

To the question of "should": I'd vote: "Yes, if the payers of the tax want to, and no, if the payers of the tax do not (where the taxpayers have representation)." In other words, there is no "should" I can find that applies in any two situations. I also don't see any common "it depends" other than "it depends on how each group of taxpayers makes decisions". An analysis Baltimore taxpayers accept may be one rejected by Fresno taxpayers.

 

I don't get outraged when communities build palaces for wealthy leagues and team owners. I don't because, well, those communities choose to build palaces. I don't get outraged when wealthy leagues and team owners ask communities to build palaces. They own a scarce product that's highly desired. We can always choose not to buy. Lastly, I don't get outraged when taxpayers and communities say no to the funding.

 

My advice to communities would often be to pass, especially if they asked me about return on investment. My advice notwithstanding, they frequently choose to tax and build.

 

So, I'm left with: Depending on who you are, you should decide what you want to do, and then do it.

 

PS - economic impact studies are an "industry". Consultants get hired, politicians get re-elected, developers get contracts ... "because our studies show to taxpayers that their investment ...". Read with a skeptical eye.

 

My favorite sports / public-policy construct. "They own a thing that we're willing pay dearly for". There are no heroes and no villains.

[LGR4GM]

My problem with your line of thinking Neo, well problem is the wrong word how about couterpoint, is that it assumes the voters have the full information when they vote. In the Cobb County article property taxes were claimed not to be going up which was a lie. 

[mjd1001]

I'm against it.  I mean, I hate the fact that the current stadium is in Orchard park and not in the city...I'd almost say lets build a new one so we can get it downtown.....but I won't go that far.

 

As long as the current stadium is not falling apart and as long as the fans fill it (for the most part), there is no need for a new Stadium.  And when there does come time for a new stadium, I don't want any public money going toward it.  Now if they want to attach a convention center to the stadium...AND we can accurately seperate the cost of the stadium from the CC, then public money can go to that part of it..but beyond that...no.

[Neo]

My problem with your line of thinking Neo, well problem is the wrong word how about couterpoint, is that it assumes the voters have the full information when they vote. In the Cobb County article property taxes were claimed not to be going up which was a lie.

 

In that case, there is a villain. I alluded to the possibility ("beware economic impact reports and those with vested interests in them"). You didn't allude, but instead offered a specific example. You can use "problem"! I was vague and will add some "shoulds": Representatives should be honest, voters should inform themselves, and voters should hold representatives accountable. Skepticism!

 

Sidebar without data - I feel Pegula is about as - profit oriented / community oriented / put his own money in play oriented - as they come. He's no charity, but I was overwhelmed by how his vision and investment has changed the downtown I once knew. I think there'll be a new football stadium, and I believe he'll participate alongside the public sector to an extent many other owners wouldn't.

 

I'm not as close to this activity as I was in an earlier life.

[Alaska Darin]

Back in the late 90's the mayor of Manchester NH wanted to build a 10K arena. Despite the usual opposition it was built at a cost of $68MM, paid for mostly through bonds and hotel taxes. It's home to the former AHL, now ECHL Manchester Monarchs, as well as numerous other sports, concerts and events. It's become a centerpiece of the city, influencing the decision to build a baseball stadium in 2005 that attracted AA Eastern League ball. In fact it's been so successful it's managed to pay off most of the bonds on time, though the last few years attendance for hockey has fallen off. This is one instance where an arena project proved to be mostly a good thing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Wireless_Arena

$68 million wouldn't get you a NFL stadium parking lot.   The difference with small indoor arenas is they are so multipurpose and don't cost a ton of money just to open up.  Imagine the electrical budget for an indoor NFL stadium to turn the lights on to have an RV or sportsman show versus a 10-20k arena to do the same thing. 

 

NFL stadiums just aren't good for anything realistic because they cost so flipping much to operate.  Sure you can have the occasional rock concert or bowl game in addition but what about the other 350 days a year where taxpayers are just throwing precious dollars into an endless black hole?   Our societal priorities are just whacked the eff out.

NFL stadiums start at $600MM.

There's no way you're getting an NFL stadium for even close to that amount now.  Lucas Oil is 8 years old and cost over $700MM.  I'd venture to guess the cheapest is going to be right at a Billion Dollars.

[That Aud Smell]

Thank you for realizing that was satire, Liger. I was in mid-reply.

I need help sometimes. Throw a brother an emoji. They're free.

[nfreeman]

To the question of "should": I'd vote: "Yes, if the payers of the tax want to, and no, if the payers of the tax do not (where the taxpayers have representation)." In other words, there is no "should" I can find that applies in any two situations. I also don't see any common "it depends" other than "it depends on how each group of taxpayers makes decisions". An analysis Baltimore taxpayers accept may be one rejected by Fresno taxpayers.

 

I don't get outraged when communities build palaces for wealthy leagues and team owners. I don't because, well, those communities choose to build palaces. I don't get outraged when wealthy leagues and team owners ask communities to build palaces. They own a scarce product that's highly desired. We can always choose not to buy. Lastly, I don't get outraged when taxpayers and communities say no to the funding.

 

My advice to communities would often be to pass, especially if they asked me about return on investment. My advice notwithstanding, they frequently choose to tax and build.

 

So, I'm left with: Depending on who you are, you should decide what you want to do, and then do it.

 

PS - economic impact studies are an "industry". Consultants get hired, politicians get re-elected, developers get contracts ... "because our studies show to taxpayers that their investment ...". Read with a skeptical eye.

 

My favorite sports / public-policy construct. "They own a thing that we're willing pay dearly for". There are no heroes and no villains.

 

Good post.  It really does come down to whether a city is willing to pay what it costs to keep a team in town. 

 

In that case, there is a villain. I alluded to the possibility ("beware economic impact reports and those with vested interests in them"). You didn't allude, but instead offered a specific example. You can use "problem"! I was vague and will add some "shoulds": Representatives should be honest, voters should inform themselves, and voters should hold representatives accountable. Skepticism!

 

Sidebar without data - I feel Pegula is about as - profit oriented / community oriented / put his own money in play oriented - as they come. He's no charity, but I was overwhelmed by how his vision and investment has changed the downtown I once knew. I think there'll be a new football stadium, and I believe he'll participate alongside the public sector to an extent many other owners wouldn't.

 

I'm not as close to this activity as I was in an earlier life.

 

I agree with the bolded, although I hope it takes a long GD time to get there.

 

I'm against it.  I mean, I hate the fact that the current stadium is in Orchard park and not in the city...I'd almost say lets build a new one so we can get it downtown.....but I won't go that far.

 

As long as the current stadium is not falling apart and as long as the fans fill it (for the most part), there is no need for a new Stadium.  And when there does come time for a new stadium, I don't want any public money going toward it.  Now if they want to attach a convention center to the stadium...AND we can accurately seperate the cost of the stadium from the CC, then public money can go to that part of it..but beyond that...no.

 

OK.  If the result is that the team leaves for greener pastures, are you OK with that?

 

$68 million wouldn't get you a NFL stadium parking lot.   The difference with small indoor arenas is they are so multipurpose and don't cost a ton of money just to open up.  Imagine the electrical budget for an indoor NFL stadium to turn the lights on to have an RV or sportsman show versus a 10-20k arena to do the same thing. 

 

NFL stadiums just aren't good for anything realistic because they cost so flipping much to operate.  Sure you can have the occasional rock concert or bowl game in addition but what about the other 350 days a year where taxpayers are just throwing precious dollars into an endless black hole?   Our societal priorities are just whacked the eff out.

There's no way you're getting an NFL stadium for even close to that amount now.  Lucas Oil is 8 years old and cost over $700MM.  I'd venture to guess the cheapest is going to be right at a Billion Dollars.

 

I think you're right, especially in corrupt, union-run NYS.  But there's someone on this board who thinks you can get one for $200MM and a "pretty please."

[TrueBlueGED]

I think you're right, especially in corrupt, union-run NYS. But there's someone on this board who thinks you can get one for $200MM and a "pretty please."

What can I say? Yet another broken campaign promise by President Romney. That's what "clearly best pollster because it's showing me the result I want to happen" Rasmussen told me, anyway.

[nfreeman]

What can I say? Yet another broken campaign promise by President Romney. That's what "clearly best pollster because it's showing me the result I want to happen" Rasmussen told me, anyway.

 

Leaving aside your questionable, and frequent, reliance on a 4-year old series of my posts as a rejoinder to a much more recent series of your posts regarding stadium costs -- just for the record, is it your position that polls of likely voters are NOT more reliable than polls of registered voters?  As I posted multiple times, that was the reason for my preference for Rasmussen -- and by November 2012, most of the polls had shifted to likely voters, and none of them had Romney winning (and the country has reaped the "fruits" of that decision, but that's another conversation).

[TrueBlueGED]

Leaving aside your questionable, and frequent, reliance on a 4-year old series of my posts as a rejoinder to a much more recent series of your posts regarding stadium costs -- just for the record, is it your position that polls of likely voters are NOT more reliable than polls of registered voters?  As I posted multiple times, that was the reason for my preference for Rasmussen -- and by November 2012, most of the polls had shifted to likely voters, and none of them had Romney winning (and the country has reaped the "fruits" of that decision, but that's another conversation).

 

As long as you keep misrepresenting my "it can be significantly more affordable than the recent Dallas and NY stadiums, particularly by keeping it open-air" as "it will cost $200M" then yes, I will continue to rely on your hilariously incorrect statements on Rasmussen polling, which  just so happened to be showing a result you preferred. I was off on the exact dollars, but the core argument I presented is perfectly valid.

 

Anyway, likely voter polls are more accurate on average than registered voter polls...assuming the likely voter model employed is good, which Rasmussen's was (and is) not. Hell, Gallup got out of the presidential horse race polling business completely in large part due to their inability to put together a quality LV model. Furthermore, the RV -> LV swap happened in mid-August, so using date of swap as justification for relying on Rasmussen is bunk. Lastly, there is zero, and I mean zero, reason to ever look at a single poll as superior when there are easily-accessible...unless you're cherry-picking what you want to see. We know that some poll is going to be more accurate than the average, but I would argue it's impossible to consistently identify which poll will be more accurate before we have the actual results.

[Neo]

What can I say? Yet another broken campaign promise by President Romney. That's what "clearly best pollster because it's showing me the result I want to happen" Rasmussen told me, anyway.

I don't include pollsters in my vested interest crowd. I'm thinking pollsters show the public result of the vested interest presentation. Make sense? Not sure you were "talking to me", or not.

Edited June 8, 2016 by N'eo

[SwampD]

Good post.  It really does come down to whether a city is willing to pay what it costs to keep a team in town. 

 

 

I agree with the bolded, although I hope it takes a long GD time to get there.

 

 

OK.  If the result is that the team leaves for greener pastures, are you OK with that?

 

 

I think you're right, especially in corrupt, union-run NYS.  But there's someone on this board who thinks you can get one for $200MM and a "pretty please."

Well, the city of Arlington only spent $325MM of their own money, and that stadium is a behemoth. A new stadium in Buffalo wouldn't be anywhere near as huge as that. $200MM and a pretty please probably isn't that far off.

 

Get rid of RT5, put it on the waterfront where parts of it can be used year round, throw up some wind turbines so it can give back some of those power usages the rest of the year and you have something that might work (or at least work a little better).

[LGR4GM]

How about this, the public funds half the stadium and is entitled to half of the profits the bills make until the stadium is paid for plus 10 years. There, public money compromise. 

[nfreeman]

As long as you keep misrepresenting my "it can be significantly more affordable than the recent Dallas and NY stadiums, particularly by keeping it open-air" as "it will cost $200M" then yes, I will continue to rely on your hilariously incorrect statements on Rasmussen polling, which  just so happened to be showing a result you preferred. I was off on the exact dollars, but the core argument I presented is perfectly valid.

 

Anyway, likely voter polls are more accurate on average than registered voter polls...assuming the likely voter model employed is good, which Rasmussen's was (and is) not. Hell, Gallup got out of the presidential horse race polling business completely in large part due to their inability to put together a quality LV model. Furthermore, the RV -> LV swap happened in mid-August, so using date of swap as justification for relying on Rasmussen is bunk. Lastly, there is zero, and I mean zero, reason to ever look at a single poll as superior when there are easily-accessible...unless you're cherry-picking what you want to see. We know that some poll is going to be more accurate than the average, but I would argue it's impossible to consistently identify which poll will be more accurate before we have the actual results.

 

Well, there's a lot of room below $1.6B.  For example, $1B is 37.5% below $1.6B (which is what the new Giants stadium, which is open-air, cost), but is still a huge freaking number.

 

As for the poll reliability question:  if Rasmussen was the only poll using likely voters before the mid-August swap, then doesn't that mean that it was superior to the other polls? 

How about this, the public funds half the stadium and is entitled to half of the profits the bills make until the stadium is paid for plus 10 years. There, public money compromise. 

 

It's a fine idea in the abstract, but it still requires an owner to accept a less attractive economic proposal than he would get elsewhere, and is thus an unlikely scenario.

[LGR4GM]

Well, there's a lot of room below $1.6B.  For example, $1B is 37.5% below $1.6B (which is what the new Giants stadium, which is open-air, cost), but is still a huge freaking number.

 

As for the poll reliability question:  if Rasmussen was the only poll using likely voters before the mid-August swap, then doesn't that mean that it was superior to the other polls? 

 

It's a fine idea in the abstract, but it still requires an owner to accept a less attractive economic proposal than he would get elsewhere, and is thus an unlikely scenario.

Then the owner can leave, buh bye. 

[TrueBlueGED]

As for the poll reliability question: if Rasmussen was the only poll using likely voters before the mid-August swap, then doesn't that mean that it was superior to the other polls?

No, it doesn't. First, it wasn't the only LV poll--it's just that RV were more common than LV until the run up to Labor Day. Secondly, the key words here are "on average" which naturally means there are bad LV polls which are less accurate than good RV polls. Third, I think it's important to emphasize, it's nearly impossible to know in advance where the accuracy of an individual poll falls relative to the average. Lastly, we're not talking in a vacuum here: Rasmussen has a less than sterling track record. It nailed a recent election (I think 2008, but not positive on that) when many other polls were wrong, or at least slow to pick up the trend. But its track record other than that is no clearly better (and arguably worse) than the rest of the pack. You either ignored this, didn't know it, fell prey to recency bias, or rationalized the superiority of a poll that was showing you what you wanted to see.

 

So I'll say it again: there is no legitimate justification for emphasizing the importance of any single poll above the average of polls. Doing so points to bias, or at least a lack of appreciation for the variability and uncertainty involved in both polling as an enterprise and election forecasting more generally.

 

Oh, and public funding for stadiums sucks, though I recognize its necessity. If (when) we have to pony up a few hundred million for the cause, I hope the public portion is for infrastructure and maybe a convention center; in other words, I find it less unsavory if the money is being used for aspects of the project which are used more than 10 times per year. There, now I'm not off topic anymore :p

[Eleven]

My problem with your line of thinking Neo, well problem is the wrong word how about couterpoint, is that it assumes the voters have the full information when they vote. In the Cobb County article property taxes were claimed not to be going up which was a lie. 

 

We never have the full information when we vote on anything else, either.

 

I need help sometimes. Throw a brother an emoji. They're free.

 

Would you believe that I never have used an emoji on this board?

[That Aud Smell]

Would you believe that I never have used an emoji on this board?

 

:o