Stadiums or Schools: An Analysis of Public Expenditures
Dan here…I don’t usually pass along a study that has a company attached to the article itself, but thought this one might be of interest for readers.
On government handouts sports, stadiums or schools is the political side of the issue.
Stadiums or Schools: An Analysis of Public Expenditures
What we found is that ten states have allocated public funds to fund new professional sports stadiums since 2008. This does not include state expenditures on collegiate or high-school sports facilities. Meanwhile, those part of the public who want to develop their golf swings, can avail equipment like that diy golf simulator enclosure.
While there are certainly debates we should have over, for example, how much a state spends on high school instruction versus a high school football stadium, because school (i.e. college and high-school) sports facilities are technically part of a school and have some (the size of which is, of course, debatable) educational benefit, we left them out. We therefore focused on public revenue used to finance professional sports stadiums for privately owned teams like the ones that can be bet on 카지노 커뮤니티.
The ten states have allocated nearly six billion dollars for these facilities since 2008. What’s troubling is that six of those states–Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New York, Texas and Wisconsin–have, over the same period, cut their education budgets. Those six states have allocated over $4 billion to help finance privately owned sports stadiums while at the same time cutting their state education budgets. Most alarming, three of those states–Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin–rank in the top 12 among states that have cut education budgets since 2008.
…
Ultimately, the issue of using taxpayer dollars to fund privately owned sports stadiums raises larger ethical questions about public expenditures. These questions become particularly important when situated within the recent history of cuts to education budgets and rising college tuition costs in most states. Moreover, in an era of incessant government austerity, shouldn’t we be putting specific fiscal constraints on the lease agreements between professional sports teams and state governments? This seems especially prudent given the fact that virtually every analysis of the long term economic effects of stadiums find no evidence that cities receive anywhere near an attractive return on their investment. Cities, in fact, lose money on these investments. Most recently, a study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that “86 percent of economists agreed that ‘local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.'”
Considering the antitrust exemption enjoyed by sports teams and the often billionaire net worths of their owners, maybe it is time to consider laws that require owners commit a sizeable majority percentage of funding for stadiums in their lease agreements before the public has to commit any funds, or prohibits state support altogether. Moreover, if we are going to continue to divert public monies to sports stadiums, maybe it is time for sports teams to commit more real economic development to their local communities. For instance,
It’s mostly a matter of political leverage. Teams threaten to (and actually do) relocate if they don’t get subsidies from their localities. Cities and states don’t have to go along but they do.
This is a spurious argument.
1. Sports stadiums are not a plus economically for communities. They are a drain.
2. Sports teams aren’t a plus either. They don’t generate meaningful income and they require extra resources (roads, sometimes policiing). They are a matter of civic ego. The only exception might be the Green Bay Packers, because Green Bay is a small town and people could arguably come into shop while also seeing a game. But that actually does not apply because the Packers are “owned” by members of the community who get seats and reselling the tickets is prohibited (you’ll have your membership liquidated and people in the community are vigilant about monitoring for cheaters). Who gets the Packers membership is a big issue in divorces.
So this is about the big dogs in town wanting a place to entertain customers and other people whose favor they want to curry. And the stadiums are a boondoggle for the local construction industry.
In lots of cases the bonds involved are put to a referendum and pass. (Such as Houston). It appears that the voters like the idea of keeping the teams. Note that typically the funding comes from local areas not statewide for stadiums, whereas the cuts to schools come at the state level. Sometimes the stadiums are paid for by Hotel and Rental Car taxes not property taxes on homes and businesses. (I.E. let the out of towners pay for the stadiums)