They should just make it a votable thing, the majority vote to approve the stadium and bonds.

(03-31-2015 11:39 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  They should just make it a votable thing, the majority vote to approve the stadium and bonds.

The AZ Cardinals stadium was majority funded via a sales tax that was approved by the voters of Maricopa County.

I think two different issues are mixing in.

One is government backed private financing
The other is direct government financing.

The president's proposal would apply when a locality borrows money to build a facility and pays the loan back with interest and that interest is tax free. But it also applies to a situation where a locality makes its full faith and credit available. The private developer rather than going to a bank to borrow $100 million goes to the city, county, or state and gets an agreement that they will borrow $100 million using tax free bonds and the developer (hopefully) repays the loan taking advantage of the discounted interest rate.

What it does not apply to is if the city, county, or state choose to turn over $100 million in tax revenue in order to finance the facility or they adopt a special tax or when a locality adopts tax increment financing (any increase in the property tax within the prescribed area is captured and used to pay for the improvement).

The arena in Little Rock, Arkansas (actually in North Little Rock) was paid for mostly by a two year county sales tax and opened its doors debt free. The still newish minor league baseball park down the street was paid for with a two year city sales tax. Neither involved debt and would not have been impacted. Of course in both cases the tax was imposed by a vote in the effected jurisdiction so a lot of the distaste goes away when there is a vote.

(03-31-2015 09:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 03:45 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Why do this? California has successfully thwarted taxpayer funded facilities for over 20 years. Citizens should elect better representatives if they object to this or recall the ones in office if they subvert the will of the people.

California has markets so lucrative that private financing works. Look at Staples Center. 123 of 365 possible dates taken up by the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings. Plus however many games the WNBA team plays at home. Plus the Grammy awards and a look at their website they have 14 events between now and April 15.

Most markets elimination of public financing would make it harder for them to attract and keep teams.

Now I have no problem with that as long as everyone is playing by the same set of rules and we understand that NYC, LA, Chicago, and maybe Philadelphia will be the only markets where totally private venues are easily viable.

But this actually isn't elimination of public financing, its just elimination of offering tax-free interest to those willing to lend money.

If that were the case then the Chargers would have a stadium in San Diego at this point. Most franchises at this point are located within the top 30-50 metro areas in the nation. While some could move and find better deals in San Antonio or Las Vegas, the reality is that these owners have very little leverage in most cases. What the owners are able to do is influence the Chamber of Commerce to lean on the politicians.

I think the situation with Atlanta is fascinating with two teams getting brand new stadiums when their old digs were only 25 years old. With the Falcons, I don't think there was ever a threat of moving to LA. There are move UGA fans in Atlanta than Falcon's fans. But Arthur Blank was threatening to move the team to the suburbs. Now I didn't view that as much of a threat since under that plan all Blank would have been able to build is an open air stadium.

That might have landed in a Super Bowl and World Cup consideration, but Final Fours, Peach Bowls and CFP, SEC Championships and other events would have still been held at the Georgia Dome. And ultimately, securing the right to those events was ultimately why he decided to work with the city in building a new facility. The only really issue with the Ga. Dome was that the concourses were too narrow. The feasibility studies showed that fixing that issue along with additional more suites and a fan experience areas would have been an $800 million dollar renovation. Which is how a new stadium was sold.

The Braves situation differed in that Turner Field was essentially gifted to the city. But the Braves are owned by Liberty Media and have a $100 million spending limit per season. The team wanted to generate additional funds by creating an entertainment district around the stadium. As such, the team wanted the city to use eminent domain to secure the parking and vacants lots in the vicinity, to turn over control of the stadium to the team and wanted the city to contribute about 50% of an estimated $192 million dollar renovation.

As both of these deals were going on at the same time, the mayor correctly guess he would only be able to do one. Why he chose the Falcons I do not know. But as soon as that happened the Braves started looking for suburban sites and Cobb County, which fancies itself as Atlanta's Orange County decided to be the teams huckleberry.

one of the few times I will ever agree with him.

I'm sorry I've not read this thread to keep up with the opinions of others on here, so if I'm covering some recovered ground then my apologies. My personal opinion on this however, is that this is why I'm a fan of local option sales taxes. If the community WANTS to help fund a new stadium or arena, and certainly there can be benefits to the community from having them, then they should have the option to do so and to vote to do so. What I DON'T like however, is when the local community is indifferent but gets stuck with the bill anyhow.

I think all tax free bonds should go away, and all income should be treated as earned income.

(03-31-2015 03:39 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 03:45 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Why do this? California has successfully thwarted taxpayer funded facilities for over 20 years. Citizens should elect better representatives if they object to this or recall the ones in office if they subvert the will of the people.

California has markets so lucrative that private financing works. Look at Staples Center. 123 of 365 possible dates taken up by the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings. Plus however many games the WNBA team plays at home. Plus the Grammy awards and a look at their website they have 14 events between now and April 15.

Most markets elimination of public financing would make it harder for them to attract and keep teams.

Now I have no problem with that as long as everyone is playing by the same set of rules and we understand that NYC, LA, Chicago, and maybe Philadelphia will be the only markets where totally private venues are easily viable.

But this actually isn't elimination of public financing, its just elimination of offering tax-free interest to those willing to lend money.

If that were the case then the Chargers would have a stadium in San Diego at this point. Most franchises at this point are located within the top 30-50 metro areas in the nation. While some could move and find better deals in San Antonio or Las Vegas, the reality is that these owners have very little leverage in most cases. What the owners are able to do is influence the Chamber of Commerce to lean on the politicians.

I think the situation with Atlanta is fascinating with two teams getting brand new stadiums when their old digs were only 25 years old. With the Falcons, I don't think there was ever a threat of moving to LA. There are move UGA fans in Atlanta than Falcon's fans. But Arthur Blank was threatening to move the team to the suburbs. Now I didn't view that as much of a threat since under that plan all Blank would have been able to build is an open air stadium.

That might have landed in a Super Bowl and World Cup consideration, but Final Fours, Peach Bowls and CFP, SEC Championships and other events would have still been held at the Georgia Dome. And ultimately, securing the right to those events was ultimately why he decided to work with the city in building a new facility. The only really issue with the Ga. Dome was that the concourses were too narrow. The feasibility studies showed that fixing that issue along with additional more suites and a fan experience areas would have been an $800 million dollar renovation. Which is how a new stadium was sold.

The Braves situation differed in that Turner Field was essentially gifted to the city. But the Braves are owned by Liberty Media and have a $100 million spending limit per season. The team wanted to generate additional funds by creating an entertainment district around the stadium. As such, the team wanted the city to use eminent domain to secure the parking and vacants lots in the vicinity, to turn over control of the stadium to the team and wanted the city to contribute about 50% of an estimated $192 million dollar renovation.

As both of these deals were going on at the same time, the mayor correctly guess he would only be able to do one. Why he chose the Falcons I do not know. But as soon as that happened the Braves started looking for suburban sites and Cobb County, which fancies itself as Atlanta's Orange County decided to be the teams huckleberry.

San Diego isn't one of those markets. They aren't going to get two teams to make a privately financed stadium work like LA.

Why is it the federal governments place to tell local and state governments what they can do with their money? It's not like DC knows how to keep a budget anyway and these funds are spent locally. I'm not saying they should or should not be funded by taxpayers, but that should be left up to the local government/citizens. It's a local issue, not a federal one.

(04-01-2015 01:25 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Why is it the federal governments place to tell local and state governments what they can do with their money? It's not like DC knows how to keep a budget anyway and these funds are spent locally. I'm not saying they should or should not be funded by taxpayers, but that should be left up to the local government/citizens. It's a local issue, not a federal one.

The federal government certainly has the right to collect taxes. And it does.

(04-01-2015 01:25 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Why is it the federal governments place to tell local and state governments what they can do with their money? It's not like DC knows how to keep a budget anyway and these funds are spent locally. I'm not saying they should or should not be funded by taxpayers, but that should be left up to the local government/citizens. It's a local issue, not a federal one.

Not looking to tell cities, counties and states they can't spend their money on stadiums and arenas, just telling them they can't use tax free bonds to pay for them.