No Public money for ballparks

[Cubs1945]

In the old days all ballparks were built with private money. Wrigley, Fenway, Comiskey, Ebbets, Crosley, Forbes, Polo Ground, Yankee Stadium, Tiger Stadium were all built and maintained by team owners. Owners didn't go broke either. The only public money I would support are taxpayer bonds that have to be payed back. Rich owners shouldn't steal from the public.

[compaq]

only Dodger Stadium was privately built between 1923-2000.

[compaq]

Since 2000. Teams are putting more of their money into stadiums. the Giants, Yankees, Mets, Twins, and Marlins have put some of their money. All the stadiums you mention were built before 1923. That was before the prices of stadium material skyrocketed. Besides why not have a city spend a little. It helps tourism, and creates jobs for the citizens.

[Brad Harris]

In the old days all ballparks were built with private money. Wrigley, Fenway, Comiskey, Ebbets, Crosley, Forbes, Polo Ground, Yankee Stadium, Tiger Stadium were all built and maintained by team owners. Owners didn't go broke either. The only public money I would support are taxpayer bonds that have to be payed back. Rich owners shouldn't steal from the public.

Maybe it's the baseball fan in me and maybe it's just because I'm sore of seeing so many other people receive public monies, but the municipal funding of ballparks really doesn't upset me all that much. Sure, of course the government has no business funding private enterprise, but that's never been an applied maxim in this country. My crappy attitude boils down to "where's our slice of the pie?"

Heck, from a strictly economic or legal standpoint, MLB shouldn't have its anti-trust exemption either, but I'm glad it does.

*shrug*

[zengator]

With the amazing amount of revenue MLB is generating, there is NO reason why they can't set up a stadium fund which every franchise can dip into to pay for at least a good percentage of a new facility every 20 or so. And if they don't want to build an entirely new place, they can use the funds for renovations.

Somebody, make it happen!

[Power Wally]

Stadium funding is socialism. Nothing but.

[zengator]

Stadium funding is socialism. Nothing but.

Mr. Selig, tear down this wall!


Or build your own damn stadiums. But definitely one of the two.

[PeteU]

I guess I'm just apathetic to claims that building ballparks with public money is somehow wrong. It's not that I don't like seeing that money go to schools and roads and stuff, but seeing that ballparks rarely come out of the general fund anyways, I don't think that such money is being realocated from those areas anyways.

The way I see it, there are very few structures in a city that the public gets to use and where the building has the potential to be a symbol of the city to the public. Airport terminals are one such type of building. Stadiums and sports arenas are another example. So if tax money goes to build a stadium that can forever be associated with that city, I really don't have much of a problem with it.

[Power Wally]

Baseball is a for-profit business that could get along fine without its snout in the government trough. In a perfect world.....

[Cubs1945]

The Tigers sold Tiger Stadium to the city. The city allowed it to fall apart. Same thing with Yankee Stadium. Look at the Vet in Philadelphia that place was allowed to fall apart and it was only 25 years old. Cities don't do much better than team owners.

[Sean O]

So if tax money goes to build a stadium that can forever be associated with that city, I really don't have much of a problem with it.

And, at the same time, the teams which are making millions of dollars in profits will give said money to the government. I'm all for civil projects, but there is no reason why governments should bear the burden when teams are making profits for private corporations.

[tugger]

Owners of old could better afford to build their own parks because, in pre-free-agent days, all players were basically indentured servants, tied to teams until they traded or released you.

[zengator]

I'm all for civil projects, but there is no reason why governments should bear the burden when teams are making profits for private corporations.

I agree with this. It should be a partnership between the franchise, the city, and MLB. If MLB would have kicked in a third of the price for the Rays' proposed waterfront stadium, for example, it would have probably gotten done.

There are a lot cheaper ways to build a "symbol" for a community, architectual or otherwise, especially in these days of budget shortfalls.

[PeteU]

I actually liked Maryland's approach to building Oriole Park and Ravens Stadium. It was built exclusively out of lottery funds. So the stadiums were publicly built, but no tax money was touched in doing so.

I'd love for the same thing to be the case in Florida, but because Florida is a sales tax only state, it's a lot more strapped for revenue than Maryland and the lottery money actually has to go to the schools because there isn't enough in the general fund to pay for education. Sad.

[Sean O]

I actually liked Maryland's approach to building Oriole Park and Ravens Stadium. It was built exclusively out of lottery funds. So the stadiums were publicly built, but no tax money was touched in doing so.

I'd love for the same thing to be the case in Florida, but because Florida is a sales tax only state, it's a lot more strapped for revenue than Maryland and the lottery money actually has to go to the schools because there isn't enough in the general fund to pay for education. Sad.

Then why not use the lottery funds for schools/firehouses/police etc? If there is a problem in that which is necessity, that should involve the extraordinary sources of income.

Public money should be given as either a loan to the teams (must pay back x million a year until it's paid off), or as a partnership. I am sick of corporate welfare.

[TJH1923]

MLB generated 6 BILLION in revenue from the 2007 season.

There is no reason why a team that wants a new stadium should not have to put up a large portion of the funding. I don't have a problem with bonds being sold to raise funding. Investors buy them and make money at maturity. The team uses the funding from the sale of the bonds for building the ballpark. The team pays that money over time to the local or state government to pay off those bonds. I don't have a problem with local and state governments adding infrastructure around the venue. A team generates a certain amount of revenue for the local and state governments and it is a reasonable investment for government to make.

MLB was successful for several years at getting publicly funded venues. That door has closed now. In the Yankees case they get to offset the luxury tax and invest it into their own franchise (stadium).

[PeteU]

Then why not use the lottery funds for schools/firehouses/police etc? If there is a problem in that which is necessity, that should involve the extraordinary sources of income.



Lottery money is voluntary and not being foist upon the people. So I have no problem with that money being earmarked for things such as ballparks that might not be a necessity.

Of course, in Maryland the infrastruture in schools and other services appears to be a lot better than it is in Florida, mainly because Maryland has a much better means of collecting revenue. I say this as the husband of a teacher in Florida's public schools.

I hate corporate welfare as well, but when the money goes to build something that has the potential to create a good amount of civic pride, I'm a lot more lienient in those regards. Public money going to build a ballpark is a far cry from public money going to build a strip mall or an upscale gated housing development.

[aqib]

There are tons of things being paid for with public money that shouldn't be. In Cleveland we paid for all of our stadiums with a cigarette tax, as a Cleveland patriot I am cool with that since I like having the sports teams here. I am not cool however with the same tax now being used to fund the arts. People rail against the funding of sports facilities because its millionaire athletes and billionaire owners but more people enjoy the presence of the sports teams than some of these other things.

[six4three]

Baseball is a for-profit business that could get along fine without its snout in the government trough. In a perfect world.....

In a perfect world other businesses wouldn't get handouts, either.

[six4three]

There are tons of things being paid for with public money that shouldn't be. In Cleveland we paid for all of our stadiums with a cigarette tax, as a Cleveland patriot I am cool with that since I like having the sports teams here. I am not cool however with the same tax now being used to fund the arts.

Why not? Because you personally don't go to the orchestra?

What about all those Cleveland patriots who go to the orchestra but don't go to football games?

[Sean O]

What about all those Cleveland patriots who go to the orchestra but don't go to football games?

They hate America.

Investing in the arts 1). increases the international profile of a city, 2). leads to increased property values for the adjacent area, 3). entices highly-trained people to move there from other places. Not to mention, it is crazy what you could do with a $600-700m that the average city invests into an ugly new HOK park.

[Captain Cold Nose]

In a perfect world other businesses wouldn't get handouts, either.

I'd hate to think of what the actual differences of one person's perfect world would be compared to the next person's version of a perfect world.

I have been to Browns and Indians games. I have been to the CSO, regarded as one of the best in the world. I have visited the various museums and festivals and what not Cleveland has to offer. There's room for everything as long as the wherewithal to enjoy it and the continual need to change and improve it is there. Things close down and die due to lack of overall support, etc that goes deeper than just admissions, etc.

[six4three]

I'd hate to think of what the actual differences of one person's perfect world would be compared to the next person's version of a perfect world.


In a perfect world, we'd all have our perfect worlds. :D

[aqib]

Why not? Because you personally don't go to the orchestra?

What about all those Cleveland patriots who go to the orchestra but don't go to football games?

Actually our Orchestra is consistently ranked as one of the best in the world, it funds itself. The arts issue I referred to was funding other stuff. Out here we fund EVERYTHING with a cigarette tax while simultaneously restricting smoking.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Actually our Orchestra is consistently ranked as one of the best in the world, it funds itself. The arts issue I referred to was funding other stuff. Out here we fund EVERYTHING with a cigarette tax while simultaneously restricting smoking.

NE Ohio art museums that spend years remodelling?

[six4three]

Actually our Orchestra is consistently ranked as one of the best in the world, it funds itself. The arts issue I referred to was funding other stuff. Out here we fund EVERYTHING with a cigarette tax while simultaneously restricting smoking.
I'm well aware of the outstanding Cleveland Orchestra, which is why I used them as an example.

Funds itself? No, it doesn't. It gets tax money to help fund its programs, same as just about every other arts organization. Just under a million dollars of public money, according to the most recent annual report on its website.

We can argue about the wisdom of cigarette taxes in general, but if sports teams are to be publicly funded then the Cleveland patriots who attend the arts but not sports should have their passions publicly funded as well.

[Bobby_Ayala]

Keep it th private sector. Amen Brother :thumbsup:

[spark240]

The way I see it, there are very few structures in a city that the public gets to use and where the building has the potential to be a symbol of the city to the public. Airport terminals are one such type of building. Stadiums and sports arenas are another example.

This is a sad commentary on architecture and town planning in America, that we have such a short and uninspiring list of grand public structures. (Airport terminals? They're not even really in the city.)

I'd like to see public funds appropriated for building great public parks and plazas, boardwalks and squares, libraries and museums, things which enhance the quality of life in the city but don't directly generate profits. Not to mention various forms of public transportation.

I'm in favor of cities working closely with teams and architects to get well-designed sports facilities built in central city locations (cities should have substantial influence over the exterior design, because of the huge effect on the surrounding streetscape). But aside from maybe some special dispensation for acquiring the land, there's really no need to turn over millions of dollars in public money for stadium construction.

[Bobby_Ayala]

Worked out well for the Giants':thumbsdown: home. Very well.