5 replies to this topic

[Coldneck]

The article linked below is one of the best articles I've read about sports welfare. Take a look if its something that interests you. Fair warning, it might make you angry since all of us are helping to pay for sports subsidies benefitting billionaires. It is true that tax dollars, both yours and mine, are funding a Syracuse sports Hall of Fame, NASCAR, the NFL, NHL, and many other sport related "non-profit" organizations. I call bullshit.

http://www.sportsone...ticle/40595178/

The Cubs aren't mentioned in the article, but are the recipients of these handouts for the new spring training site in Mesa. The Cubs are also politicking for similar handouts to renovate Wrigley Field. I'm definitely for renovating Wrigley, but feel that burden should be on the business owner, not the tax paying public - many of whom could care less about baseball. I know the Cubs situation is complicated and the amusement tax may be exorbitant. If that's the case, lobby to lower that tax and fund the stadium renovations with private funding. Many people compare the Cubs situation with US Cellular Field. It's true the White Sox have a stadium built with taxpayer dollars. It was a terrible deal then and a terrible deal now for Illinois and Chicago taxpayers. But why should the same mistake be made again?

[rok]

I disagree. The Sox deal was bad because they have never pulled their weight in this town, so giving them a shiny new stadium without setting aside the tax revenue to pay for it was idiotic, and we can thank Sox fans like Daley and Jim Thompson for ramming it down our throats. The Cubs, on the other hand, pay more taxes than any other sports entity in the state, and possibly even the country. They are simply trying to get their tax burden down to a manageable level by deferring some of the costs of the renovation via the hospitality tax system. They are fully capable of paying it back and then some. Most of the other sports teams getting free stuff are charity cases like the Marlins. These deals are not all comparable.

[BT]

You can't make blanket comparisons. The Arizona one also is a bad example. The tax payers of Arizona are the ones being asked to foot the bill, and virtually any economist will tell you that the Cubs playing in Mesa will make them that investment back in spades in a matter of a few years. One impact study says they bring in as much as 138 million dollars a year. It might be BS, but certainly they drive the economy of Mesa to some extent.

Put another way, Ricketts is not even close to the only person making money off of Wrigley Field, so the idea that he is the only one responsible for its upkeep is absurd. There is an entire Chicago neighborhood whose entire economy is based on the field being where it is, and the Cubs playing where they do. And if you can somehow guarantee me that the money being taken in by people in Wrigleyville isn't being spent anywhere else in Illinois, you'd have a better chance of convincing me that the taxpayers of Chicago/Illinois have no responsibility for making sure the engine that drives Wrigleyville doesn't fall into disrepair. It shouldn't be a free ride for the Cub's owners, but to pretend they exist on some island isn't fair either.

[Coldneck]

You can't make blanket comparisons. The Arizona one also is a bad example. The tax payers of Arizona are the ones being asked to foot the bill, and virtually any economist will tell you that the Cubs playing in Mesa will make them that investment back in spades in a matter of a few years. One impact study says they bring in as much as 138 million dollars a year. It might be BS, but certainly they drive the economy of Mesa to some extent.

Put another way, Ricketts is not even close to the only person making money off of Wrigley Field, so the idea that he is the only one responsible for its upkeep is absurd. There is an entire Chicago neighborhood whose entire economy is based on the field being where it is, and the Cubs playing where they do. And if you can somehow guarantee me that the money being taken in by people in Wrigleyville isn't being spent anywhere else in Illinois, you'd have a better chance of convincing me that the taxpayers of Chicago/Illinois have no responsibility for making sure the engine that drives Wrigleyville doesn't fall into disrepair. It shouldn't be a free ride for the Cub's owners, but to pretend they exist on some island isn't fair either.

I'm not sure where you're coming from BT. I acknowledged that the Cubs situation is different with the amusement tax issue. In general, I take the stance that public money for sports stadiums/leagues is a bad idea. There have been too many examples of this across the country to turn a blind eye. Of course there are a few exceptions, but largely these subsidies don't end up with a positive ROI. Will the Cubs deal in Mesa be good for the city? Possibly. Mesa is a residential area with few nice hotels. The subsidies won't benefit tourists if they end up staying and dining in Scottsdale. I do know that it's suppose to include an entertainment area to try to keep the dollars in Mesa. The only problem is that the Cubs only attract visors to Mesa for 6 or 7 weeks and those businesses will have to figure out a way to stay profitable the rest of the year. Its possible that Mesa foots the bill while surrounding areas reap the benefits.

I agree that the amusement tax is awfully high for Wrigley Field. I think the Cubs should try to have that lowered. I don't believe taxpayers should be the ones footing the bill for renovations. I see the high taxes and renovations as two separate issues.

And those studies you've cited are pretty common. Many of them end up being too optimistic with local governments covering the shortfalls and paying bonds for years on something with a negative ROI. I can think of many public services that a large investment would provide a larger benefit to the public than building or renovating a stadium.

[BT]

My point is that while there are many teams which don't bring anything back to the cities that invest in them, it's not true for all of them. The White Sox are one of the bad ones. They are not bringing anyone from outside of Chicago into the city to come spend money here. The Marlins are probably going to lose money for Miami. However the Cubs bring people into Chicago, and into Mesa. Even if those impact studies are off by a factor of 7, and the Cubs are "only" bringing in 20 million a year instead of 140 to Mesa, Mesa will make its investment back in a little over 4 years.

As far as the taxpayers paying for Wrigley, again, Wrigley brings in out of state money, lots of it, and the state benefits both from the direct infusion of cash, and the taxes on those purchases. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask taxpayers to help out.

[jstraw]

My point is that while there are many teams which don't bring anything back to the cities that invest in them, it's not true for all of them. The White Sox are one of the bad ones. They are not bringing anyone from outside of Chicago into the city to come spend money here. The Marlins are probably going to lose money for Miami. However the Cubs bring people into Chicago, and into Mesa. Even if those impact studies are off by a factor of 7, and the Cubs are "only" bringing in 20 million a year instead of 140 to Mesa, Mesa will make its investment back in a little over 4 years.

As far as the taxpayers paying for Wrigley, again, Wrigley brings in out of state money, lots of it, and the state benefits both from the direct infusion of cash, and the taxes on those purchases. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask taxpayers to help out.

The problem is that there's no risk involved in telling Ricketts to pound sand.