Should public funding for pro sports stadiums be banned?

[Berkut]

Berkut thinks business transactions are blackmail? OK. Is his rage at 11 yet?

These are not business transactions though. That is the point.


You can't demand that we honor the free market when we aren't talking about a free market to begin with - there is no "free market" that involves the state subsidizing business relocation.


If you were truly all about the "free market" you would absolutely oppose to state involving itself by bribing businesses to move to their locations. Using government money to circumvent the market is not a "free market".

[Eddie Teach]

Far short of 11 I'd say.

I think that would make the forum explode.

[grumbler]

Does the fact that they are cartels make it worse than, say, offering a manufacturing company a tax break to set up shop locally because the community needs jobs?

Sure it does.  The city cannot take bids from competing NFL teams to see which is willing to relocate to Miami for the least amount of investment/tax breaks, and thus play teams off against one another.  The city can certainly offer the same repossessed factory to Ford and Volkswagen.

[garbon]

Why?  The county wanted the stadium to be an attractive venue that would bring the Super Bowl, World Cup and Olympic soccer, and more college bowl games to Miami.  All things that have nothing to do with the Dolphins.  In fact, were it only about the Dolphins this renovation would probably not be happening.  Ultimately, Ross and the county cut a deal that I think is actually equitable: he pays for the entire renovation, the county pays him a flat fee every time they bring a marquee event to the stadium for the next five years.

Aren't financial gains from the Olympics or World Cup generally rare for a municipality, murky at best?

[grumbler]

Berkut thinks business transactions are blackmail? OK. Is his rage at 11 yet?

These are not business transactions though. That is the point.


You can't demand that we honor the free market when we aren't talking about a free market to begin with - there is no "free market" that involves the state subsidizing business relocation.


If you were truly all about the "free market" you would absolutely oppose to state involving itself by bribing businesses to move to their locations. Using government money to circumvent the market is not a "free market".

Indeed. The city government official that signs the contract isn't a consumer, he is a government official.  He cares little or nothing about the price the concessions exact from the city, except in terms of how it looks politically.  There is no market, buyer, or seller here.  If the deal starts to look bad for Miami, the city manager is off to work for Houston before anyone even knows.

[The Brain]

Berkut thinks business transactions are blackmail? OK. Is his rage at 11 yet?

These are not business transactions though. That is the point.


You can't demand that we honor the free market when we aren't talking about a free market to begin with - there is no "free market" that involves the state subsidizing business relocation.


If you were truly all about the "free market" you would absolutely oppose to state involving itself by bribing businesses to move to their locations. Using government money to circumvent the market is not a "free market".

The business has something the state/similar wants. The state pays money to the business to get it. Sounds like a business deal to me. I don't see the problem.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Aren't financial gains from the Olympics or World Cup generally rare for a municipality, murky at best?

Indeed they are.  Doesn't stop cities from wanting these events, though, if only to increase the size of their civic penis.

[garbon]

Aren't financial gains from the Olympics or World Cup generally rare for a municipality, murky at best?

Indeed they are.  Doesn't stop cities from wanting these events, though, if only to increase the size of their civic penis.

Well then those don't really belong to argument that municipalities tend to gain from these deals.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Well then those don't really belong to argument that municipalities tend to gain from these deals.

The benefits are murky and impossible to quantify, but they are still there.  This is especially true if you can get a pro team as the maintainer and primary tenant of the facility.  The cities that get screwed over are the ones who build this infrastructure just for the event.  In fact, re-reading your original comment I would say that financial gains from these events when new infrastructure is not needed to host them is common, not rare.

[dps]

Berkut thinks business transactions are blackmail? OK. Is his rage at 11 yet?

These are not business transactions though. That is the point.

If you want to argue that it's not a business transaction, that undercuts the argument that the federal government can regulate it under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

You can't demand that we honor the free market when we aren't talking about a free market to begin with - there is no "free market" that involves the state subsidizing business relocation.


If you were truly all about the "free market" you would absolutely oppose to state involving itself by bribing businesses to move to their locations. Using government money to circumvent the market is not a "free market".

I agree.  My argument against the feds banning the practice is about the limits of federal power over the states, not the free market. 

Indeed. The city government official that signs the contract isn't a consumer, he is a government official.  He cares little or nothing about the price the concessions exact from the city, except in terms of how it looks politically.  There is no market, buyer, or seller here.  If the deal starts to look bad for Miami, the city manager is off to work for Houston before anyone even knows.

I don't think the city manager has the power to issue tax-free municipal bonds on his own initiative. 

Does the fact that they are cartels make it worse than, say, offering a manufacturing company a tax break to set up shop locally because the community needs jobs?

Probably so, for the reasons others have pointed out, at least in principle.

In practice, I'm not so sure.  For example, when Walmart first came to Charleston, WV about 25 years ago, they were apparently given about $20 million in tax credits to put a store there.  I don't think any other chain could have gotten a deal anywhere near that good. I worked for another discount department store chain at the time, and we certainly couldn't have gotten a deal like that--we would have been lucky to get $2 thousand in tax breaks.  And at the time, that $20 million in lost revenue for West Virginia was probably a bigger chunk of the state's budget than $4 billion is for the feds now.