Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers?

[Daddy 801]

If it's worth it, sure. People can decide for themselves.

If it was paid for those who wanted it they wouldn't need taxes. So those people who want it can pay for it. But that's not how taxes work. It forced people who don't want to pay for it to pay for it.

[RussellandFlow]

No, and there should be a Federal Law to outlaw it. I hope more cities call these owners bluff when they try and threaten them into giving them a new shiny stadium or they will leave for another city. There are not many places left for teams to threaten to move to (NFL: Maybe Toronto or London, NBA: Vegas, maybe Louisville or St Louis, MLB: Charlotte, Montreal).

*I did not include Seattle as I believe the only way the NBA returns is if there is a privately funded arena which would probably be for both the NBA and NHL.

[Daddy 801]

Typically yes since these decisions are typically made by ELECTED officials.

You get the government you deserve.

That's like saying a woman deserves to get raped for wearing revealing clothes. Really bad argument. No one deserves to be treated like crap. Just sometimes people believe in silly arguments like public goods, social contracts, etc, and then they use force through to get what they want.

[Daddy 801]

We're treading kind of politically here, but there are two answers for me. The over-arching question is should anything be subsidized by tax payers? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the stadium question. No, people shouldn't be forced to pay for anything through force. It's ridiculous that people who don't even follow sports have to pay for other people's hobbies and a billionaire's ambition. This applies to any and every tax out there. But, yes, our current system is set up to where if the majority of people want to impose a tax on everyone to fund something in particular, then that's just the system operating the way it always does. I don't see why a stadium is any different.

This isn't the main question for me, not even particularly relevant to my mind. I think every city should have libraries, tech access, and park systems, regardless of whether or not every single individual likes reading, computers, or playing sports. Those things are public goods and, while they happen to cost money to build and maintain and staff, they're owned and run by the city as a whole, and they're used/enjoyed and funded by the city's residents. They wouldn't really exist if the city didn't provide them, or they'd at least be far more restrictive places with limited access. (I think it's super naive (if philosophically interesting) to think that libertarian aliternatives would basically replace those systems and be just as good for an overall city).

If you think a city should have a particular service then you can voluntarily pay. If you don't want a service then you shouldn't have to pay for it. It's called pro choice. People are all about it until economics gets involved. I for one would volunteer to have a stadium in my city. But I think it's highly immoral to have other people pay for it if they think basketball sucks.


The idea those things and services wouldn't exist if government didn't control them is patently false. It's naive to think a government runs things more efficiently. There is nothing the government runs efficiently. Privatization yields better results. It's been proven time and time again. Would you want the government to make your cars, phones, computers, etc? Obviously not. Hell, they don't even build the things we give them credit for. They just pay a private company to do it and it just costs tax payers more because we have to pay bloated elected officials salaries.

[dc]

No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app

.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.

Yep. Seattle put their foot down. Grew some balls. Took a moral stand on behalf of the country. Drew the line in the sand. No more taxpayer money for billionaires' play toys! We're fed up with it!

So then they lost their team, and they've been trying to get one back ever since.

[Boneman2]

Lucas Oil Stadium generates funds outside of roughly 10 NFL games per year, plus it doesn't hurt to host a Superbowl and knock it out of the park. Indy is lucky to have the Big 10 football championships annually and the final 4 every fourth year not to mention concerts, motocross, stupid monster trucks, comic con, black expo, state championships etc.. etc.. The Fieldhouse is utilized similarly.

Indiana generates revenue with its stadiums and the citizens don't seem to mind. This is not a federal issue.

[dautjazz]

Yes, if the voters vote for it. Absolutely. Why not?

Because I live in Miami and I dont care about the Heat, Dolphins, Marlins, Panthers, or Miami's upcoming MLS team, so why should I and others in the state of Florida pay taxes for these, while the owners laugh all the way to the bank while making tens and hundreds of millions off these teams?

The taxpayers voted for it. Too bad you don't agree with it. The majority did. Blame your fellow citizens.

Um ok? So I should just agree because there are enough idiots who are willing to vote for a stadium because they love a team and scared of them moving to another town stupid enough to vote yes for paying for a stadium?

[Papi_swav]

No it sucks, I don't understand why these billionaire owners can't pay for it, they already have all the money that use regular working people don't ... Greed

[Hobo4President]

Pay billionaires to fund private investements to make themselves more billions. No. That's ridiculous.

[pipfan]

If they are funded by the public, teams should have to pay a fair rent-just like a concert would pay to come to an arena

[whatisacenter]

turned in my season tickets this year.

[Frank Dux]

Typically yes since these decisions are typically made by ELECTED officials.

You get the government you deserve.

I don't like this way of thinking. The baby boomers continue to dominate our elections no matter who I vote for. I didn't vote for Trump but the world tells me he's the president I deserve.

[Patches Perry]

We're treading kind of politically here, but there are two answers for me. The over-arching question is should anything be subsidized by tax payers? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the stadium question. No, people shouldn't be forced to pay for anything through force. It's ridiculous that people who don't even follow sports have to pay for other people's hobbies and a billionaire's ambition. This applies to any and every tax out there. But, yes, our current system is set up to where if the majority of people want to impose a tax on everyone to fund something in particular, then that's just the system operating the way it always does. I don't see why a stadium is any different.

This isn't the main question for me, not even particularly relevant to my mind. I think every city should have libraries, tech access, and park systems, regardless of whether or not every single individual likes reading, computers, or playing sports. Those things are public goods and, while they happen to cost money to build and maintain and staff, they're owned and run by the city as a whole, and they're used/enjoyed and funded by the city's residents. They wouldn't really exist if the city didn't provide them, or they'd at least be far more restrictive places with limited access. (I think it's super naive (if philosophically interesting) to think that libertarian aliternatives would basically replace those systems and be just as good for an overall city).

On the other hand, while a team may be good for the city's culture and add to overall quality of life, paying for their stadium means paying to one particular person who owns the team. It would be one thing if pro teams were just inherent money losers that needed public funds to sustain themselves--but teams are extremely valuable commodities and folks are lining up to pay crazy prices for any team that goes up for sale. Just doesn't make sense for a city to give away its limited and valuable resources to pay more money to someone that's already extremely satisfied with what they have (and if they aren't, someone else would be happy to take it over for them).

I guess for me, there is no moral difference between "public goods" produced by taxes paid to the state and goods produced by taxes paid to a private party. But that's not really the biggest issue. Since this is phrased as a moral question (keyword in the title: should), I think it's necessary to answer the question from a moral standpoint and not a pragmatic one. I won't get into whether the private sector can handle everything that the state currently does, because that's a matter of pragmatism. The question is whether it ought to be that way, and whether the end justifies the means. Why is it okay for me to be taxed for a (public) library that I won't use? So 51% of people are happy? I'm not some super dogmatic libertarian, but we do need to be very careful when we start putting the good of the collective over the good of the individual, because I don't think the end always justifies the means. I'm honestly not sure it ever does.

To the stadium question - no it's not right to force everybody to pay for something that not everybody will use. But my original point was that the legal question of whether the collective gets to decide for the individual is already settled (ironically, by the collective). They do. So the justification for forcing tax payers to pay for a stadium is the same as it is for building a library. I don't see much difference morally.

[PizzaSteve]

No, but if a positive ROI deal can be structured without gifting public assets, land value or tax concessions to owners, i am not entirely opposed to Public-Private Partnerships. Perhaps owners should have to pay license fees for use of city name like Los Angeles?

[Cactus Jack]

No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app

.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.

Yep. Seattle put their foot down. Grew some balls. Took a moral stand on behalf of the country. Drew the line in the sand. No more taxpayer money for billionaires' play toys! We're fed up with it!

So then they lost their team, and they've been trying to get one back ever since.

Sadly, yes.

[Cactus Jack]

No, and there should be a Federal Law to outlaw it. I hope more cities call these owners bluff when they try and threaten them into giving them a new shiny stadium or they will leave for another city. There are not many places left for teams to threaten to move to (NFL: Maybe Toronto or London, NBA: Vegas, maybe Louisville or St Louis, MLB: Charlotte, Montreal).

*I did not include Seattle as I believe the only way the NBA returns is if there is a privately funded arena which would probably be for both the NBA and NHL.

Yeah, the city wouldn't except anything but private funding. That goes for most cities on the West coast.

[Cactus Jack]

turned in my season tickets this year.

Love the avatar, bro!

[SCHeat]

Yes, if the voters vote for it. Absolutely. Why not?

I agree.

I don't agree with the way the question was worded. Should they? No. But they should be able to if they want and if taxpayers pay for it then that's their choice.

[AingesBurner]

Yes but only a percentage and only as a loan that the stadium will pay back over 30 years with interest. These stadiums not only bring revenue for businesses near them but sales and payroll tax revenue, case in point Salt Lake City, the only reason the Gateway mall is still operating is because of the arena. Everyone benefits from these arenas.

[Rubio9Guy]

I think maybe a very small percentage since there is a small benefit (financial and/or quality of life) to having a sports team. But owners should fund 90-98% of the project.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using RealGM mobile app