Pro sports is more important than education, right?

[OmahaBlueDog]

Last night, I posted this poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5318594

Imagine how timely I felt when I saw this story:

<<The buzz in the Florida Marlins’ clubhouse Tuesday was about opening day in 2012.

That’s when the team’s new ballpark with a retractable roof is scheduled to open following approval of the project Monday night by the Miami-Dade County Commission.

“I’m so happy for the Marlins,” All-Star shortstop Hanley Ramirez said. “They’ve been after it for a long time, and finally they got it. The ballpark will bring a lot of fans, and that’s what we need.”

Ramirez is the only Florida player under contract through 2012. Teammates hope the new ballpark will prompt management to offer more multiyear deals.>>

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=ArR18ojA9jjx4wGgt_c8LBX.gYl4?slug=ap-marlinsballpark&prov=ap&type=lgns


The story rang a bell, though. I had remembered seeing something else about Miami Dade County....

<<Miami-Dade Schools Chief Alberto Carvalho on Wednesday unveiled a plan to save the district $56 million -- and balance the budget -- before the fiscal year ends in June.

The proposal, discussed at a meeting with The Miami Herald's editorial board, includes $21 million in cuts to nonschool spending and $8 million in cuts to schools.>>

http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/888657.html


So, without creating a new poll (you are welcome to respond to the one I posted yesterday), I throw this question out to you: is watching baseball in an air conditioned, rain free environment more important than the education of children to the economic future of Miami Dade County???

[mitchum]

1. It certainly is in the United States of Yahoos

[NYC_SKP]

2. Simple. I don't ask taxpayers to build me stripclubs. They shouldn't ask me...

to fund their stupid ass sports arenas.

(actually, I've never been to a strip club but my point remains valid)

[NaturalHigh]

30. You have a way with words.

:fistbump:

[RollWithIt]

3. To be fair, the new stadium will generate revenue that currently does not exist...

And that revenue will go towards education, roads, etc. If they don't build a stadium, the Marlins move away, which means they make zero revenue in the future. In fact, what money they were already making will be lost. As a South Floridian, I'd be the first to say that the Marlins can't be allowed to move because of the economic loss to the community. Plus the stadium won't just be used for baseball.

[OmahaBlueDog]

5. If it were a moneymaking proposition, private ownership would have built it

...and it still begs the question ... how can you justify a stadium in Dade when their schools are crumbling.

They sold Broward the "it'll generate revenue and have multiple uses" line on the Bank Atlantic Center --- one of three Arenas built in 20 years in South Florida.

[alarimer]

9. That is not true anywhere.

Publicly financed stadiums are a drain on resources much more often. If they made so much money, how come their private owners don't pay for them themselves? These sweetheart deals do not benefit the public in any way. The teams simply blackmail the cities into paying for them by threatening to leave if they do not get their way.

[Lars39]

4. Stadium Scams:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/07/opinion/main3243367.shtml

[drmeow]

7. Thanks for the link

From the article:

"Of course, if you're a huge sports fan - as I am - you might calculate the metrics differently. "There's this enormous benefit out there that doesn't get measured," Coates told me. "If you say, 'There is an enormous amount of happiness brought to the community by this facility,'" well, "there's no dollar value attributed to that." Though it can't be quantified, an intangible feeling of satisfaction is perhaps the primary public benefit that stadiums offer."

And if you are not a sports fan you get screwed six ways to Sunday.

[Rage for Order]

10. It's the same with museums though

Taxpayers foot part of the bill for museums of art, history, aviation, etc. If you're not a fan of Monet, dinosaur bones, or Egyptian pharaohs you get screwed six ways to Sunday. There's nothing in a museum that can't be viewed online or on television, and the same can be said of sports.

[OmahaBlueDog]

11. I've got a few bones to pick with that

First, many museums (not the Smithsonian, obviously) are philanthropically endowed not for profits. They are not 100% taxpayer financed, and they charge admission.

Second, most museums operate at least 6 days per week, year round. Most sports arenas cost far more to build and operate at a small fraction of capacity.

Third, some museums, such as the Smithsonian, are free for all, and most museums that are not 100% taxpayer financed have free days, or admission that is well within the means of the vast majority of families. There are no free days for Marlins games.

[drmeow]

12. Who makes the money

from museums? Is there a National Museum League? Who gets the entrance fees?

When taxpayers foot the bill for museums, I don't think there is an individual private owner who profits.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. The city profits.

People come from all around to watch major league sports teams. I imagine that other events will be held in the stadium, which means that people will be coming for those events as well. The city benefits from the national exposure of a professional sports team, something that is a rare and valuable commodity. All those tourists that visit help local businesses through direct spending, and the entire city and its residents through the taxes on their purchases.

There's a reason why cities keep paying for these stadiums, and why if they don't, there are many other cities lining up to steal the team and pay for a stadium instead. Whether people want to admit it or not, there are many positives to having a major league sports team.

[drmeow]

21. The article I took my quote from

pointed out that the cities DO NOT profit from building big stadiums.

[W_HAMILTON]

23. Most of the people that say that are drawing incorrect assumptions.

They say that the city residents will spend their money on other sources of entertainment, which may be true, FOR A CITY'S RESIDENTS. It is not necessarily true for tourists that visit the city and spend money, which is probably the main source of financial benefit from having a professional sports team. A local museum is not going to put your city on the map. Neither is an arts center, or a small waterpark or theme park.

Who would know where Green Bay is if not for the Packers? For a more local reference, Charlotte, NC, was constantly confused with all the other C-name cities in the area (Columbia, Charleston, Charlottesville, etc) until they were awarded an NBA franchise, which help put that city on the national stage. The success of their NBA team paved the way for their NFL team, and now those two sports teams (and their arena/stadium) represent two of the top reasons tourists visit the city.

All it takes is common sense to realize that cities DO benefit from stadiums that house professional sports teams. How much would a national marketing campaign cost for your city? How much would you otherwise have to spend to draw in as many tourists? People assume there is no benefit from having a professional sports team, and that is completely wrong. There is a reason why so many cities are lining up for the chance to lure teams to their cities, and it isn't because they want to waste money. It's because of the tangible benefits that a team brings to the city, that pays itself back many times over the course of the franchise.

I wrote a message regarding the situation in Charlotte (that I know more clearly), and later today I may dig it up for you to use it as evidence for this. I believe I came to the conclusion that the millions that the city of Charlotte paid for the new basketball arena would be recouped in less than a decade, JUST BY EVENTS HELD IN THE ARENA (that would not have been there if not for the new arena).

That is why cities build these stadiums/arenas. The long-run payoff if much greater than the initial outlay to build them.

[drmeow]

28. Sorry, not buying it

"Just ask Jerry Bell, president of Twins Sports Incorporated, and thus a fervent promoter of the new Twins stadium. Bell admitted in a 2005 interview with the Star Tribune that, "at some global level," economists are "obviously correct" that publicly subsidized stadiums generally do not produce public financial benefits."

[W_HAMILTON]

32. Then how do you reconcile this?

I tried to find that post I was talking about, but can't (looks like the message board cuts off posts after a certain time).

But tell me this:

In Charlotte, a new arena was built. In agreeing to do so, they were granted with another NBA expansion team fter their previous one relocated due to not being able to secure a new arena deal. Do you not think that anyone would visit a city to watch a professional sports team? Even if you don't think much of the team in Charlotte, people from surrounding areas would go watch games against Kobe, or LeBron, etc. But let's take this out of the picture.

The CIAA tournament is a college basketball tournament. You may not have heard much about it, but it is one of the largest NCAA basketball tournaments, generating greater economic benefits than all but a very small handful of other tournaments (the ACC tournament is one that comes to mind). It had been in Raleigh for several years. It had no intention of switching cities.

In 2006, when Charlotte completed its new arena, the CIAA tournament switched there. It would have NOT switched if not for the new arena. Again: if the new arena had not been built in Charlotte, the CIAA would still be in Raleigh. That is a direct economic impact that you can trace to the building of a new arena.

Now to the numbers:

CIAA Tournament Economic Impact By Year:

2006: 15 million
2007: 28 million
2008: 31 million
2009: ~30 million (exact figure hasn't been calculated yet)

In 2008, due to the immense success of the tournament in Charlotte, it renewed an agreement with the city to continue its tournament there for the next several years.

2010: 26 million (estimated by averaging the economic impact of previous years)
2011: 26 million (estimated by averaging the economic impact of previous years)

All together, in just six years, this one event would have accounted for ~156 million, well over half of the cost to build the new arena.

THIS IS JUST ONE EVENT, for barely half a decade. An event that WOULD NOT have been in Charlotte if not for the new arena.

In the light of this, how can you dispute the fact that, yes, these publicly-built arenas CAN and DO benefit the cities that build them?

These are the facts. You can look them up for yourself.

There is a reason why cities line up to build these new arenas/stadiums to lure professional sports teams away. They do benefit the city. Period.

[drmeow]

33. 15 nationally regarded economists

who do NOT have a vested interest (Stanford and Smith college faculty among others) in convincing a city and its taxpayer to subsidize a stadium published a scholarly book on this. Here is an article about it:

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx

Show my a referenced article by a research economist who does not have a vested interest that supports your numbers on average (one success in one city isn't enough) and I'll start to buy your numbers.

In the meantime I'll be glad that Glendale tax payers got screwed for the new Cardinal's stadium, not Tempe (we lost the Fiesta bowl but gained the Insight bowl and kept the New Years Eve party).

[ddeclue]

20. Sports is a for profit business...we don't subsidize ciniplexes (except here in Orlando apparently)

and both Orlando AND Fort Lauderdale already had perfectly acceptable places to play basketball (Orlando) and baseball (Ft. Lauderdael) - the buildings were structurally sound, had MORE seats than fans, and the air conditioning, lighting, plumbing and concessions all worked.

This is about ginormous billionaire egos throwing temper tantrums and extorting hundreds of millions of dollars of welfare from the taxpayer.

Personally if the Marlins or the Magic want to leave town, I'll be happy to give them all a ride to the airport and tell them to jump up my a** and NO they can't have our tax dollars when our school system is $240 M in the hole this year and the state is many billions in the hole. No way - not gonna happen.

Doug D.

[ColbertWatcher]

It's the same crap Dumbass pulled with the Rangers and the Nationals. n/t

[tularetom]

6. That'll last about five years until some other city offers the Marlins a better deal

and by 2032 the shiny new stadium will be on the news as somebody blows it up real good. While the sucker taxpayers are still paying off the bonds that were sold to build it.

[AndrewP]

8. I think we should fold all schools and build champion basketball teams instead

:popcorn:



Of course I don't think that, but sometimes speaking about this issue with people I get that impression from them.

[flvegan]

13. What a bullshit OP.

Broadbrushing an entire county and the budget scoped over four years and basing the fault/comparison on an article that references a change to schools in 3 months. Garbage.

Yeah, I agree with the sentiment, but make it a rational one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. In a country where the jocks are more valued than the nerds

well there is your answer

And until that changes, education will continue to sink... as well as the country

Oh and the construction jobs... easy have them build schools not baseball parks

[ddeclue]

15. You are sooo screwn....

I used to live down there and now I live in Orlando - we got screwn in 2007 when the Magic shoved a new arena down our throats (tied to two other useless venues projects) to the tune of $2 BILLION counting interest and we warned them about the economy tanking but nobody listened to the peons they did it anyways - now we are suffering huge budget short falls both at the state and local gov't levels - Orange County Public Schools is now facing a $240 MILLION dollar shortfall, the County and Orlando are all facing shortfalls and the house of cards is failing - the only thing proceeding is Rich DeVos' new "magicdome" while buses are being cut and teachers are being fired.

:(

[W_HAMILTON]

16. I don't know which funds are being used in particular in this case...

...but in the building of many stadiums, it is funds from hospitality taxes that are used to build them. These funds are to be EXPRESSLY USED to promote tourism-related activities. The reasoning? Hospitality taxes are usually generated by tourists, and tourists don't visit your town to admire the intelligence of your kids -- they visit to have fun, either at a sporting game, or an amusement park, or a museum, etc.

If the majority of the funds were used from non-tourism related taxes, I can understand why you'd be upset. But if it's like the majority of stadiums, most of the funds that are being used are taken from hospitality taxes, which CANNOT be used for things like schools, or roads, etc.

I would imagine this is one reason why the team is changing its name to the Miami Marlins, because it specifically promotes the city, rather than just the state. Usually it's the city that provides the funds to build these stadiums, which means the city wants to benefit directly, i.e. by having its name attached to the team rather than the state.

[rufus dog]

19. Until they change the name to the Florida Marlins of Miami!

Anaheim ponied up for millions in stadium improvements, one player lives in the town, the majority of visiting teams stay at a hotel outside the city limits and only one player lives in Anaheim, and within five years Anaheim is out of the team name.

[OmahaBlueDog]

22. OK, let's look at your points

<<t is funds from hospitality taxes that are used to build them. These funds are to be EXPRESSLY USED to promote tourism-related activities.>>

If the hospitality taxes were being used to make improvements to MIA, or to port-of-Miami, I'd say OK. If a fund from hospitality taxes was being used to pay for out of state advertising, again, I'd say that this is good use of funds. Heck - if the funds were to be used to build or improve softball or soccer fields to attract multi-state travel team tournaments, I'd say great.

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a 37,000 seat, retractible dome stadium. The Marlins are kicking in $155 Million, the City is kicking in with $10 M, and $347 Million is to Miami Dade. This is not a tourist attraction. People will not be coming to Miami in droves to see the Marlins play. Heck - there are serious questions about whether many people from Broward will want to drive down to the old Orange Bowl site to see the Marlins.

At a capacity of 37,000, you can't use it to host a bowl game. Omaha retained the College World Series - and that would have conflicted with MLB anyway. I suppose there's the World Baseball Classic, if it lasts. It's smallish for the Final FOur, but they might be able to snag that one year. Maybe Cricket (no - I'm not joking - that could do well in Miami). Long story short -- I don't see much other use for the facility. Fewer groups do outdoor concerts, and they'd have to compete with two indoor arenas, and Seminole Hard Rock.

<<The reasoning? Hospitality taxes are usually generated by tourists, and tourists don't visit your town to admire the intelligence of your kids -- they visit to have fun, either at a sporting game, or an amusement park, or a museum, etc.>>

Hmmm, that's an interesting sentiment, given that those schools are the ones training the would-be hotel and restaurant managers and owners, the people who manage the rental car fleets, the crews that service the planes, etc. They may not come to admire the intelligence of the kids, but they benefit from it when they show up.

<<But if it's like the majority of stadiums, most of the funds that are being used are taken from hospitality taxes, which CANNOT be used for things like schools, or roads, etc.>>

I never understood that sentiment. You'll soak a tourist to build a sports arena, but you won't soak them to pay for the roads and schools that make life in the tourist mecca possible.


<<I would imagine this is one reason why the team is changing its name to the Miami Marlins, because it specifically promotes the city, rather than just the state.>>

You're mostly right. Miami-Dade wants the prestige of having a team they can call their own. That's not unreasonable to request as a return on their investment. When Wayne Huizinga (sp?) bought the expansion franchise, he wanted "Florida" partly because he was first in the state, and partly because he wanted the ability to move the team to the Suncoast Dome if things went badly in Miami.

edit: I have no idea why it's in italics

edit: another reason this whole thing ticks me off is that Dade in particular has been so wasteful in this area. In 2008, they imploded the Miami Arena -- it was only 20 years old, and was only really useful for 16 of those 20 years because the Heat demanded a newer, bigger, arena. Meanwhile, the Panthers Hockey team went to play in Broward in yet another arena built there.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. Everyone is an expert.

It's a wonder that these teams have even one person in attendance, given some of the excuses that I have heard over the years (and some of the ones you mimicked in your post). Believe it or not, yes, people will visit the city to watch the team. I don't personally care for baseball, and I don't know how well the Marlins are doing now, but I believe they had quite a bit of success a few years ago. Didn't they win the World Series? What else is going to bring that sort of recognition to the area? And that's not even counting the fact that, yes, people will visit the city for events in the stadium.

As for you wanting to divert tourist taxes to fund your schools, no, it doesn't work that way. And it makes perfect sense not to. If you spend tourism taxes on your city's personal benefit, tourism would suffer because there were no improvements in tourisms to keep the tourists visiting! They would go to the other cities that are using their tax money to spend on different attractions to draw them back. And then you are left with no tourists to fill up the coffers of the hospitality tax, and if you couldn't pay for things like schools and roads before, you won't be able to now, either.

Roads and schools are YOUR responsibility as a taxpayer. Tourists help contribute to these as well, through other taxes not counting the hospitality taxes (sales taxes for example). But it is not the responsibility of tourists to fund your city. That is YOUR job. As I said, rarely do tourists visit a city to admire its roads or schools.

You want tourists to keep coming back, and you ensure that by using the funds generated by tourism taxes to fund further tourism-related ventures. For many cities, they would love to build a stadium that houses a major league sports team because they realize the added benefits from having the team. As I said in another post, I know more about the arena situation in Charlotte, but the millions paid by the city will be recouped in less than a decade simply by the added revenue being generated SIMPLY FROM EVENTS HELD IN THE ARENA THAT WOULD NOT BE THERE OTHERWISE (ie, the NBA, the CIAA tournament, etc).

[OmahaBlueDog]

25. You're right, everyone is an expert

<<As for you wanting to divert tourist taxes to fund your schools, no, it doesn't work that way. And it makes perfect sense not to. If you spend tourism taxes on your city's personal benefit, tourism would suffer because there were no improvements in tourisms to keep the tourists visiting! They would go to the other cities that are using their tax money to spend on different attractions to draw them back. And then you are left with no tourists to fill up the coffers of the hospitality tax, and if you couldn't pay for things like schools and roads before, you won't be able to now, either.

Roads and schools are YOUR responsibility as a taxpayer. Tourists help contribute to these as well, through other taxes not counting the hospitality taxes (sales taxes for example). But it is not the responsibility of tourists to fund your city. That is YOUR job. As I said, rarely do tourists visit a city to admire its roads or schools.>>

It makes no sense not to. If the tourists benefit from the core services, they should pay for them. Nobody asks taxpayers to build casinos in Las Vegas. Nobody asks taxpayers to build Orlando's theme parks. But taxpayers certainly do have to build the infrastructure to support these ventures, hire the police and fire departments to keep these ventures safe, and educate those who will operate and manage these ventures. Certainly, the residents bear the brunt of the responsibility, but tourist destinations have every right to use those funds for basic services.

<<You want tourists to keep coming back, and you ensure that by using the funds generated by tourism taxes to fund further tourism-related ventures. For many cities, they would love to build a stadium that houses a major league sports team because they realize the added benefits from having the team. As I said in another post, I know more about the arena situation in Charlotte, but the millions paid by the city will be recouped in less than a decade simply by the added revenue being generated SIMPLY FROM EVENTS HELD IN THE ARENA THAT WOULD NOT BE THERE OTHERWISE (ie, the NBA, the CIAA tournament, etc).>>

THAT'S A LOVELY THEORY. TELL ME, WHAT EVENTS DO YOU PROPOSE WOULD BE HELD HERE? They already have an NBA arena. They already have two areanas (American Airline and Bank Atlantic) competing for concert events along with Seminole Hard Rock Casino. At under 40,000, it's not of a size generally being chosen to host the Final 4, and too large to hold an NCAA regional (the American Airlines Arena was a site for that this year).

IF ONE COULD GET 10 YEAR RECOUPMENT, WHY AREN'T PRIVATE FUNDS BEING USED? It's not an unreasonable return on investment. The Dolphins built their own stadium. So did the Washington Redskins.

<<What else is going to bring that sort of recognition to the area? >>

You're seriously asking this about Miami?

<<Believe it or not, yes, people will visit the city to watch the team.>>

In Charlotte, one would attract out of state tourists. You are closer to many other states than Miami. Miami would attract other tourists from within Florida. Initially, they'll fill this stadium on shear novelty value. That effect has lasted 2-3 seasons in other markets. Then, it will depend on economics and the product on the field. In the case of the Marlins, that's been a feast-or-famine proposition.

[W_HAMILTON]

31. Response

You would benefit more from those types of projects than a tourist would. That is why YOU, as a resident, should pay for them. Again, if the tourists stop visiting your city because their is nothing there that interests them (not even the roads!), they won't be using the roads. I don't have a problem with cities using hospitality taxes to pay for tourism-related events, because if they didn't, that just means that YOUR taxes would go to pay for them; and if you are upset now, I can imagine you'd REALLY be upset then. Taxes generated through tourism are used to further tourism-related projects, whereas taxes generated through residents (and even some taxes paid by tourists) are used to benefit the city directly. That actually seems pretty fair to me.

As for this individual project, as I said before, I am not as familiar with the situation -- I am more familiar with the situation in Charlotte, where people have brought up the same things that you have said, and fact is they just aren't true.

As for why private funds aren't being used, it's because cities are willing to use their public funds to finance them. You know how our society is. If you can get something for free, do it. And that's why these team owners let the cities foot the bill on these projects.

The value isn't so much in the stadium itself, or the event held there (taken by itself) -- the value is in the money that people (primarily tourists) spend in the city when they attend events. Private enterprise can't really benefit from that, but the city can (through taxes).

[leftofthedial]

17. W-A-Y!!

[LeftinOH]

26. The shelf-life of stadiums seems to keep getting shorter; schedule the demolition for about 2019-

and lets see the blueprints for the one that will replace the one that hasn't been built yet. :crazy:

[Renew Deal]

27. Only a Brewers fan would find education more important than baseball.

:evilgrin:

[Supersedeas]

29. Stadiums vs. School houses / Luxuary Boxes vs. Desks and Books