You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #99: Is this the argument that the pro-stadium lobby is using? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Minnesota Donate to DU
Spike from MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Is this the argument that the pro-stadium lobby is using?
No. They are pushing the (non-existent) economic benefits. The public should be informed of the economic realities and allowed to decide through a referendum.

If cities subsidize commercial sports in the quest for an improved image or to enhance the quality of life for its citizens, then taxpayers should be allowed to decide the stadium subsidy issue on these bases. Using economics as a justification for the subsidy is a political expedient, perhaps necessity, but it is inconsistent with the statistical evidence (1996, p. 37).

Once again, money spent on libraries, parks, etc. is a part of the normal function of government and that money isn't going to line some billionaire's pocket. Are ethanol or biodiesel producers billionaires? Please provide me with a link as all I found was that that in 2001, MN had 14 farmer-owned cooperatives. Also, please note that funding ethanol and biodiesel is an appropriate role of the government as it deals with energy and the environment. The same can't be said for professional sports facilities.

Stadiums CAN be built solely with private money and it IS feasible to so do.

A study by researchers at the University of Dayton concludes that large public subsidies for the construction of major league baseball stadiums are unnecessary.

Economics professors Marc Poitras and Larry Hadley examined the 13 stadiums built between 1989 and 2001 and concluded teams would probably recover all or nearly all the cost of construction if the ballparks were built with private money instead of taxpayer money.

"The bottom line is that these new stadiums generate sufficient revenue to pay for themselves," Hadley said Wednesday. "If the stadium pays for itself internally, that should be sufficient motivation for the owners to build it."

Second, critics of private financing say that there is no way a team who has to pay for its own stadium can compete against teams who benefit from publicly-subsidized stadiums. In a sense, this is not the taxpayers' problem. Professional baseball economics are unfair now, with teams in large media markets or with generous state and local governments providing an edge over teams in smaller markets (such as the Twins). It is up to Major League Baseball to continue to pursue reforms such as revenue sharing to provide a more level playing field.

If the private investors want to increase their profits and/or recoup their investment more quickly, they can always tack on user fees. Then maybe they could get an idea of just how much these "intangibiles" are worth to the die-hard fans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Minnesota Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC