| Just Because Most Oppose Viking Stadium Funding Doesn't Mean It Isn't Going To Happen |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Drew Emmer |
| Monday, 12 January 2009 07:51 |
|
No offense to the Vikings. But they are the next in line for a politician granted handout of taxpayer money. We're talking about our money. As much as I would love to see a beautiful stadium magically appear there's no way I would even consider any government giveaways. Heartland Institute profiles the issue masterfully: "Taxpayer Funding Of A New Vikings Stadium Lacks Economic Sense Americans love their sports ... so much so that local and state governments are getting away with taking hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers in order to subsidize wealthy team owners’ quests for state-of-the-art stadiums. Nearly all economists agree these investments yield little if any significant economic growth. “Publicly funded stadiums are, at best, an inefficient investment of taxpayer dollars for the meager benefits produced and, at worst, massive payments to rich team owners and players at the expense of ordinary taxpayers,” noted the National Taxpayers Union. Research shows the more heavily subsidized a stadium is by taxpayers, the more expensive it is likely to be. Each year larger, fancier, and more expensive stadiums are being built, and taxpayers are shouldering an increasing share of the financing burden. The documents cited below give further information on the economic impact publicly funded stadiums have on the economy and taxpayers. No Stadium Boondoggle http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/30/no-stadium-boondoggle/ This editorial explains how reckless with taxpayer dollars D.C. has become. First, it gave $611 million in taxpayer subsidies to fund the Washington Nationals stadium and its wealthy owners. Now, District officials want to give $150 million more to subsidize a major league soccer stadium ... all while the city ignores important services and infrastructure needs. Sports Stadium Madness: Why It Started, How to Stop It http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9474 The trend toward using taxpayers’ money for sports stadiums started to take off in the 1990s. It continues today, with more than $500 million per year going to subsidize stadiums. This Heartland Policy Study, written Heartland President Joseph Bast, outlines how we have gotten to this point and what we can do to stop this spending waste. Green Bay on the Potomac: Why D.C. Should Own the Nationals http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57857-2005Jan7.html Rather than subsidize sports stadiums and wealthy team owners, Ralph Nader argues, why not follow the lead of the Green Bay Packers and have the city or its citizens take ownership of the team? National Expert Doubts Claimed Benefits of Subsidies http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20933 Budget & Tax News interviews Professor Allen Sanderson of the University of Chicago, who has extensively studied sports facility subsidies. Sanderson denounces the notion that sports arenas stimulate economic growth or generate new public revenues. Stadiums and Subsidies: Home Run for Wealthy Team Owners, Strike-out for Taxpayers http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=969&org_name=NTUF Teams worth only a few millions dollars are getting taxpayer-funded stadiums worth twice as much as the team’s value. This paper analyzes the rising cost of stadium construction and shows the relationship between taxpayer subsidies and a stadium’s final cost. If You Build It, They Will Leave http://www.reason.com/news/show/28992.html Matt Welch describes how publicly funded stadiums make it easier for teams to move, as team owners become facility renters rather than facility owners. Because the team owner has to invest little in the stadium itself, the team is less “tied down” to a city. Renters move more often than owners. DC’s Stadium Financing Proposal Would Cost the City $900,000 for Every Job Filled by a DC Resident http://dcfpi.org/?p=83 When Major League Baseball was considering relocating the Montreal Expos franchise to Washington, DC, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute analyzed how much each job the proposed stadium was said to create would cost taxpayers. The analysis concluded there would be little if any positive economic impact for DC as a result of the proposed $339 million in taxpayers’ money. Testimony Regarding Taxpayer Subsidies of Sports Facilities http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071010171736.pdf Harvard University professor Judith Grant Long, an expert on sports, convention, and tourist facilities, testified before the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee in October 2007. She focused on how much is being spent on sports facilities, how much is using tax-exempt financing, and how much money such subsidies divert from public infrastructure. Should Cities Pay for Sports Facilities http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2001/b/pages/lead-article.html Adam Zaretsky, an economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve, concludes that the urge to fund stadiums with taxpayer money is emotionally rather than economically driven. He shows that most of the big money created by a team and its stadium goes to the owners, not to the local economy. Is There an Economic Rationale For Subsidizing Sports Stadiums? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17280 Lake Forest College economist Robert Baade, one of the country’s leading experts on sport stadium finance, suggests that subsidized stadiums merely realign economic development, rather than growing a local economy. This is an expansive study done to determine if subsidizing stadiums makes sense for municipalities. Cross-posted and comments welcome at Wright County Republican. |
