Sports infrastructures and public funding?

[viper37]

A new report came today in the papers.  A baseball team would be viable in Montreal if a new stadium is funded with 2/3 public funds.

Quebec city new arena is 90% publically financed.

F1 racing is almost 100% financed by Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa, a small part comes from a special tax on hotels, IIRC.

Apparently, Montreal business community is in favour of this plan.

Imho, if it's financed by public funding, businesses should put their money where their mouth is.  Agree to a special property tax on all greater Montreal businesses, enough to finance the costs of the new stadium.  They want it, they pay it.

No way I'm paying (again) for Montreal.  We are already funding all their silly art projetcs.

Besides, baseball is about the worst of the major sports franchise out there.  Wages are totally out of control, teams keep shuffling to where public funds are, and thanks to Jeffrey Loria, baseball popularity sank to a new low in the last years of the Expos.  I seriously doubt it can be revived enough to fill a 60 000 places stadium.

[crazy canuck]

Public funding of professional sports facilities doesnt make sense.  Public funding of public sports facilities makes a lot of sense.

[viper37]

Public funding of professional sports facilities doesnt make sense.  Public funding of public sports facilities makes a lot of sense.

I agree.  I think it's great to have soccer fields and small arenas for kids to play hockey.  I also might be encline to agree that a basketball court has its use in some places.

But the issue is about professional sports, wich requires its own facilities.

[derspiess]

I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

[Grey Fox]

I am totally against it, especially to attract new franchises.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I support it as long as the public funding body or bodies retain ownership interest in the facility.

[viper37]

I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

what you mean is that your Republican principles will go away to fund something you happen to like?

[viper37]

I am totally against it, especially to attract new franchises.

Me too.  Except for the Nordiques. 
(nah, not even then, I think the Colisée deal is a bad deal for Quebec city).

[Admiral Yi]

Professional sports franchises are a finite good.  If a sufficient majority of the community sees value in having one in their city, then paying for a facility is often the price you have to pay.

[The Brain]

I don't really have an opinion. When companies plan to establish operation somewhere they are sometimes in a position to negotiate some kind of special deal with the city ("An IKEA in Smallville? Yes please!") and I don't think it's a problem that companies can shop around for the best deal. Now cities tend to make piss-poor decisions in those cases when it's about stuff like pride or "putting the city on the map" (which is often the case with arenas and sports), but that's what cities do and people are free to elect different leaders (which they don't).

[viper37]

Professional sports franchises are a finite good.  If a sufficient majority of the community sees value in having one in their city, then paying for a facility is often the price you have to pay.

Are there really referendum on wether or not it should be done?  I mean, before the fact?  It seems to me it's usually a done deal, than a group of citizens tries to oppose the project and force a referendum on the subject.

[garbon]

Professional sports franchises are a finite good.  If a sufficient majority of the community sees value in having one in their city, then paying for a facility is often the price you have to pay.

Are there really referendum on wether or not it should be done?  I mean, before the fact?  It seems to me it's usually a done deal, than a group of citizens tries to oppose the project and force a referendum on the subject.

I believe they do so in California. I know it was the case for 49ers to move to Santa Clara.  On the flip side though I believe eminent domain was key element for Barclay's Center in Brooklyn with most residents against it. My details on that are fuzzy though and filtered through a family member who lost their apartment that they had planned to retire in.

[The Minsky Moment]

Besides, baseball is about the worst of the major sports franchise out there.  Wages are totally out of control, teams keep shuffling to where public funds are, and thanks to Jeffrey Loria, baseball popularity sank to a new low in the last years of the Expos.  I seriously doubt it can be revived enough to fill a 60 000 places stadium.

The economics of baseball are actually pretty good.  TV contracts are quite lucrative because there is a lot of inventory to sell and a nice demographics to target.  Franchise values are on par with the NFL.  The problem is that compared to NFL the weaker franchises are less economically viable because there is less profit sharing.  But well run smaller market franchises can and do thrive.  The real question is not whether the franchise can be made viable - with proper marketing and support and a committed local ownership group it can - but whether the susidies are really the best use of public money.

My 2c MLB really owes it to Montreal to give the city a second chance based on the disgraceful way they dealt with the Expos situation, and it would be nice to see big-time pro baseball back in the town where Jackie robinson made his integrated debut.  But totally understandable if the city decides it has other priorities with the $$

[The Minsky Moment]

Professional sports franchises are a finite good. 

They are a finite good in part because of exemptions from antitrust/competition rules that might otherwise apply.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think for multi-use civic arenas, that the local government retains ownership interest in then there is no problem with public financing. If anything it's a sign of a successful city when you start building civic arenas, but it has to make sense with your financial situation. A city can definitely make money off of the ownership and operation of a big venue that attracts concerts and various other attractions as well as special sporting events (bowl games, NCAA basketball tournament rounds, Super Bowls etc.)

But paying for a facility that will primarily only be available to one team, and where that team also gets to probably have a lot of office and etc space, solely as a means of enticing that team to move to your town/not leave your town, I'm less receptive to that. I can approve of that if the long term lease on the facility is such that the city makes money on the deal, and is just eating all the upfront costs of building and financing it with bonds or whatever, or if there are ancillary developments in the surrounding neighborhood that create sufficient tax base improvements to make the deal a net positive.

From what I've seen the norm is that many of these arrangements where it is all tied up with one team as an enticement, the local government gets hosed. I liked that the Steinbrenners self-funded construction of the new Yankees stadium, that's really the appropriate way to do that sort of thing. Plus it means extra revenue for them as full owners of the facility (Pinstripe Bowl!)