Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Except studies show new stadiums don't reinvigorate downtowns, because, as John Oliver said on his show this week, no one says, "Hey, let's go hang out in the area around the stadium." They do at Wrigley Field and you can at Petco Park. Also AT+T Park in San Francisco. Coors Field, Denver comes to mind. Chase Field in Phoenix.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Well a study did show that the total cost per year for the per taxpayer will be 1.28. Also it's not just the arena that's being built. There are going to be several restaurants, a hotel, potential condos. Look this city is on it's way to becoming another Detroit. Something has to be done.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I can also assure you that Oliver has never been to Lambeau Field, because people do hang out there, year round.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Back in the old days when the Twins built Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington MN a HUGE amount of development occurred along the "494 Strip". It was viewed as the premier place for lodging, eating and drinking. Less development has occurred around the Twins downtown Minneapolis locations because they are already fully developed. But eating and drinking venues nearby have still benefited enormously. John Oliver doesn't know jack.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^Maybe try watching the segment, y'all. I know we love sports in this country and they're the Greatest Good that we all have to worship, but spending this kind of money on stadiums is insane.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I agree with Oliver. America's intense, uncritical devotion to sports trumps common sense. These owners are selling propaganda that anyone could see through if not under the influence of fanaticism. But like Rome, we must keep the masses entertained.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I watched the segment. And I like John and often agree with him on many things. This case he's wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sometimes (and only sometimes), depending on where a stadium is built, the immediate area can benefit. But that's typically at the expense of bars, restaurants, etc. in other areas (i.e. closer to the game-goers' homes) that would have gotten the business instead. People typically have a finite amount they can spend on such things in a given month, and arguably, having already shelled out for sports tickets, they have less for that than they would have otherwise. So sometimes you have businesses that benefit from proximity to a stadium, but the city as a whole is no better off. That's why claims that "we should spend all this taxpayer money on a new tricked out stadium because it will 'generate' all this additional business" are usually false. Proximate businesses may benefit, and team owners or local pols who want the new stadium will cite all the "new business," but won't offset it with business lost elsewhere. More objective clear-eyed studies do so and show that the economic benefit is almost never what the boosters claim.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<But that's typically at the expense of bars>> We're Wisconsin, if there's a bar, we'll occupy it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>John Oliver doesn't know jack.<< Except he does and in the segment he showcases it pretty well. Let's not get away from the essential point here. This isn't "all sports stadiums are bad" vs. "hey, sports stadiums are ok." I'm all for sports stadiums and even for *some* tax breaks and incentives. The broader issue is building new stadiums at a huge cost to taxpayers when existing stadiums are less than 20 years old. And that the revenue that's generated directly from taxpayers is not returned to the taxpayers except (possibly) in the form of a "reinvigorated downtown," whatever that means. SPP mentioned Wrigley Field. Wrigley was built 100 years ago! Now that's what I call using a stadium to its fullest. It's difficult not to conclude that most people are a-ok with new stadiums at taxpayer expense because they like sports. Which is fine, I like sports too. But it's more than a bit maddening that many of the same people who defend charging taxpayers to build a new stadium freak out if taxes go up to build a museum, then we get a lecture about statism and government overreach.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<But that's typically at the expense of bars>> <We're Wisconsin, if there's a bar, we'll occupy it.> Not even a Wisconsinite can occupy more than one at at time.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Of course you can make those types of arguments about anything. Disneyland doesn't really generate extra spending, they just take money that otherwise would be spent at Knott's or Six Flags.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Disneyland doesnt ask taxpayers to pay for its upgrades." This begs a question- when does a person stop being a taxpayer and turns into a consumer? Because one could argue that while Disney doesn't go to the government asking for money, they do skip the middleman and charge admission, all the while raising prices on a gradual, consistent pace. The money eventually all comes from the same place- the person's pocket.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, but only the people who actually go, as opposed to everyone in the taxpayer base.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, but in the end it is the will of the people that is being done. Why do legislatures pass bills providing tax funding of stadiums and why do governors sign them? Because they know that in the end more voters would be pissed about losing the team than voters who would be pissed about the tax.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sometimes. We all follow our own cities more closely than others, I'm sure. And I know most people in NY were rolling their eyes when the Yankees got huge concessions from mega-fan Guiliani; there was no way they were moving to Jersey, and everyone knew it. The threatened it anyway and Rudy rolled over.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well I was thinking specifically of the Minnesota Vikings. And when the second largest city in the nation is determined to get a football team for a new stadium they are constructing you have to take the threat seriously. Since the owner of the Vikings is from New Jersey, I doubt he had any particular loyalty to Minneapolis.
