So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[tonyb]

The same can be said for almost any spending of public monies, from transportation to public schools. Not everyone who pays taxes will utilize every service funded by them. I know a lot of childless who complain to no end about having to pay school taxes. Personally, I recognize its good for the public at large, at least in theory, for lots of reasons and don't mind paying for something I'll never use. I think pro sports teams bring more to local communities than people will often admit.

On a side note, we make visitors fund our stadiums through taxes on hotels and rental cars. I thought most did the same, but perhaps not.

Public schools and professional sports teams are an apples and oranges comparison if ever there was one.

As I noted earlier, I have little doubt that pro sports would soldier on without a nickel in public subsidy. Perhaps not every team in every locale would remain viable, but the sports would still capture enough eyes and ears to make lots of money.

I wouldn't find the public funding of sports facilities quite so objectionable if it hadn't gotten to the point it has, with teams abandoning cities that built them new facilities not so long ago, leaving those cities with money-losing facilities. Or the demolition of stadiums not yet paid for to make way for new ones, for which the public will be on the hook.

And yes, many (most?) locales tax hotels and rental cars and such as a piece of the funding of the sports facilities. It makes such financing more palatable to the locals. But it's just a piece, and a relatively small one in most cases, although it doesn't seem so small when one looks at his itemized receipt at the counter.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There was a buyout clause in the lease -- they paid the city $100,000 and said "seeya." Whoever negotiated the lease was certainly an idiot -- but they had good faith reason to believe the team was going to stay for the long-term in the wake of the renovations of the building, which were done to the team's specifications and cost the taxpayers $34 million. The team assured them that the clause was just a formality and would never be used and that they loved Portland with all their hearts and souls and would play there forever -- a move right out of the Charles Oscar Finley amorality playbook.

 

[Fading Fast]

There was a buyout clause in the lease -- they paid the city $100,000 and said "seeya." Whoever negotiated the lease was certainly an idiot -- but they had good faith reason to believe the team was going to stay for the long-term in the wake of the renovations of the building, which were done to the team's specifications and cost the taxpayers $34 million. The team assured them that the clause was just a formality and would never be used and that they loved Portland with all their hearts and souls and would play there forever -- a move right out of the Charles Oscar Finley amorality playbook.

Got it. And, yes, whoever allowed that clause to be put in is an idiot. What every reasonably seasoned adult has learned is that the legal language is what ultimately matters. All the nice words said in advance mean nothing - it's all what's down in the contract.

To be sure, if two people, who've known each other for years, are negotiating, then yes, their words might matter and they might want to honor them, but years out, are they still in control, do they have to answer to someone who says, "but we have the contractual right," etc? That's why, even with well-intended and trustworthy people, the contract is all that really matters.

I understand and agree with your disgust at the breach of faith by the team, but the real stupid move, as you said, was by the Portland lawyer / official who let that clause go in.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Public schools and professional sports teams are an apples and oranges comparison if ever there was one.

Why? The argument against is the same. "Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't believe in, don't care about, is of no value, and will never use?"

 

[HudsonHawk]

How does this happen in a democracy and on a local issue where an angry electorate should be able to punish the politicians at the next election? Or was the decision buried deep enough down in the bureaucracy and away from an elected official that tying it to one is hard?

I think the issue is "how local is local?" There appear to be a lot of NIMBYs coupled with a pretty large geographic "local" area.

 

[tonyb]

Why? The argument against is the same. "Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't believe in, don't care about, is of no value, and will never use?"

Are you honestly suggesting that subsidizing professional sports teams is of an equal public good as educating children?

A far closer comparison would be avid moviegoers lobbying for the public funding of luxury movie houses. Far closer.

 

[Stearmen]

Taking five hours to travel a mere 150 miles, because of all the idiots getting into accidents on a Friday afternoon!

 

[HudsonHawk]

Are you honestly suggesting that subsidizing professional sports teams is of an equal public good as educating children?

*I'm* not. I said so several posts ago. I'm saying those who oppose one or the other use the same argument. If you think every one agrees that public schools are adequately educating children and are money well spent, you're either out of touch or hopelessly naive.

 

[HudsonHawk]

A far closer comparison would be avid moviegoers lobbying for the public funding of luxury movie houses. Far closer.

If luxury movie houses contributed anywhere near what sports teams do to the local economy, you might be right.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If luxury movie houses contributed anywhere near what sports teams do to the local economy, you might be right.

Wait, we could getting subsidies? I want a raise.

It's hard to quantify the economic impact of a ballclub on the community, but there have been efforts. After the 1957 season, the City of Milwaukee commissioned a study that determined that the Braves brought approximately $8 million in business to the city that season, on an attendance of 2.2 million -- which was pretty good money for the time -- and approximately $34 million over the five seasons since they'd moved from Boston.

Those figures did, however, show a disturbing trend that nobody wanted to talk about -- the revenues, year by year, were gradually decreasing. They'd continue to decrease into the early sixties as attendance fell off, leading many to suggest that the high revenues of the mid-fifties were related to the novelty of having a new team and a new stadium and not necessarily something that could be depended upon long term.

The pattern of teams that stayed in place in the same old park for a long time was different -- the history of the Athletics and Phillies at Shibe Park over sixty-one years, as documented by Bruce Kucklick bears this out. The stadium served as a feeder for many small mom-and-pop businesses in the surrounding neighborhood over the decades, mostly bars, cafes, and parking lots, and when it closed, these businesses all died.

The postwar built-in-a-parking-lot generation of stadiums had much less of a neighborhood impact, because there weren't really any neighborhoods for them to support -- and many of the newest "mall-parks" contain all those sorts of businesses inside their walls, operated by the teams, thus taking business away from those sorts of neighborhood operators.

 

[Fading Fast]

If luxury movie houses contributed anywhere near what sports teams do to the local economy, you might be right.

It seems like each side in the argument always a study that "proves" its point. The "for spending on stadiums" side will pull out a study that "shows" how a $1 in sports arena subsidy increases the area's economic activity by $1.25 while those opposed will produce a study showing that it only adds 79 cents.

I wish all the towns, cities and states would all agree to no subsidies - stadiums would still get built, but the owners and fans that want them would more directly foot the bill.

Heck, Lizzie's insanely smart and could produce (except she has way too much integrity) a study that shows her movie theater contributes $x to the local economy in jobs, additional spending, cultural enrichment, etc. and, therefor, if the town or state would subsidize her theater, for every $1 in subsidy, they'd get $1.5 in additional economic activity.

I'm not saying it's not true, it's just so squishy (and there is a lot of double counting) that it is all reversed engineered to support whatever argument you want it to support. Some communities have thrived after a sports team left and others have withered, but how do you hold everything constant to truly assess?

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are a lot of intangibles involved. When the Dodgers left Brooklyn, the impact couldn't be measured solely on an economic basis -- much of the borough's very identity was tied up in the team, and it's impossible to put a price tag on an impact that was largely psychological.

(As you can see, even the time-traveling Eleventh Doctor was a Dodger fan. Unfortunately Owen dropping the third strike to Henrich in Game Four turned out to be a fixed point in time...)

The Giants left New York at the same time the Dodgers did, and while there are fans to this day who have never forgiven Horace Stoneham, the loss wasn't the same, because Manhattan wasn't as psychogically invested in the team as Brooklyn was in its team.

When the Athletics left Kansas City in 1967, the reaction was similarly focused less on money than on psychology -- the A's had never made much money in KC, and Charlie Finley's antics tended to drive fans away rather than promote a sense of loyalty and investment in the team's relationship with the city. But the *idea of having a major league team* was very important to Kansas City -- because it proved that the city itself was "major league." It was to satisfy that psychological reason, and not for financial reasons, that the city demanded -- and got -- an expansion club to replace the Athletics.

Washington, on the other hand, really didn't care when the second iteration of the Senators left. There were politicians who were annoyed because they'd have to drive to Baltimore to see a game, and hardcore fans were hurt. But the city itself, as an entity, didn't care because it didn't have its identity tied up in the team. Washington is the capital of the "free world," and it didn't need a lousy baseball team to give it an identity as "big league." When they got the Nationals in 2005 it was nice, but I don't think there'd be a ferocious outpouring of grief if they moved back to Montreal some day.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's true you can find any number of studies on economic impact and long term trends, etc etc. but there are raw numbers that cannot be ignored. Houston is hosting the Super Bowl this coming February, and there is no disputing it will bring hundreds of thousands to town, all spending thousands of dollars to do so. It's estimated that an additional $600MM will be spent locally specifically due to that event. And this is the second one for a stadium that cost $380MM to build. No doubt that does not represent $1.2B in "profit", but you cannot ignore the numbers either. That doesn't count the day to day employment and economic impacts of the local team.

Then, as Lizzie points out, there is the psychological aspect to go along with the intangibles and ancillary economic benefit of being a "major league" city.

 

[Fading Fast]

It's true you can find any number of studies on economic impact and long term trends, etc etc. but there are raw numbers that cannot be ignored. Houston is hosting the Super Bowl this coming February, and there is no disputing it will bring hundreds of thousands to town, all spending thousands of dollars to do so. It's estimated that an additional $600MM will be spent locally specifically due to that event. And this is the second one for a stadium that cost $380MM to build. No doubt that does not represent $1.2B in "profit", but you cannot ignore the numbers either. That doesn't count the day to day employment and economic impacts of the local team.

Then, as Lizzie points out, there is the psychological aspect to go along with the intangibles and ancillary economic benefit of being a "major league" city.

I wrote this long response and then deleted it because when I reread it I basically said two things

1) I bet some stadiums are economically advantageous to their communities and some aren't - yes, $600 million in revenue (not profit) is impressive against $380 million in cost, and maybe this is an example of a great city investment - but from opportunity cost, to comparing dollar costs to "gross revenues" and even "intangible" community benefit - one can make the numbers do almost anything.

2)As a guy who wants the government to do less, but do those things really well (and to raise taxes if necessary to pay to do these core things well) - education, a strong social net for the needy, police, etc. - sports stadiums shouldn't be on the list because the gov't has enough to do already and there is plenty of private money to pay for stadiums. The rub is that if "your" community takes that approach but "mine" doesn't, then the outcome will not make people happy. That's why I said I wish (it ain't gonna happen) all the communities would agree to say no more spending on sports stadiums.

 

[BobHufford]

Unfortunately Owen dropping the third strike to Henrich in Game Four turned out to be a fixed point in time...

Mickey was the local sheriff all through my youth.

 

[tonyb]

*I'm* not. I said so several posts ago. I'm saying those who oppose one or the other use the same argument. If you think every one agrees that public schools are adequately educating children and are money well spent, you're either out of touch or hopelessly naive.

You are putting words in my mouth. I just pointed out how absurd that argument becomes when it gets stretched to point you take it.

Oh, by the way, on this matter I am neither "out of touch" nor "hopelessly naive." Indeed, I am quite to the contrary. But then, you remain anonymous here, which leaves you less susceptible to the consequences of your insulting statements.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Mickey was the local sheriff all through my youth.

An excellent ballplayer with guts, who is rather unfairly remembered for that one error in 1941. That's something that ticks me off -- reducing a player's career to one shattering moment of failure. The immortality of a goat, whether it's Fred Merkle, Mickey Owen, Ralph Branca, or Bill Buckner, is seldom deserved.

 

[tonyb]

If luxury movie houses contributed anywhere near what sports teams do to the local economy, you might be right.

https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/207443

https://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~afenn/web/SPORTSECON05/EconImpact/EC390/newspaper_articles.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll

^^^^^
There are many, many others, by the way, prepared by academics with no dog in the fight. Indeed, it would seem likelier that the movie theaters have a greater positive economic benefit to their local communities.

 

[Fading Fast]

An excellent ballplayer with guts, who is rather unfairly remembered for that one error in 1941. That's something that ticks me off -- reducing a player's career to one shattering moment of failure. The immortality of a goat, whether it's Fred Merkle, Mickey Owen, Ralph Branca, or Bill Buckner, is seldom deserved.

That is the unfair thing about pro sports, but it does cut both ways.

Bill Buckner will always be remembered for his error despite it not singularly "costing the Sox the series." Buster Douglas will always be known for knocking down Mike Tyson and Odell Beckham Jr. could never play another game of football in his life and he will be remember 50 years from now for his one insanely athletic catch (Dwight Clark is also, basically, defined by what is known as "the Catch").

The only thing you can say is it goes with the territory of being a pro athlete and adds to the pressure and possibilities. You are right - cosmically it is very unfair, but it is a known-unknown in advance, so fair in the sense that pro-athletes know it is a risk.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And poor Al Smith, whose NY Times obituary, despite a fine playing career, headlined only one indelible moment.