Good luck somehow communicating the point that the extra money for infrastructure investment (and again, making the point that it wouldnt have happened without the extra money), caused all of those changes. Good luck actually trying to convince Joe Average that those improvements were worth losing a team he's supported since he was in Kindergarden.
This is a fair point, because typically the majority of voters do not care to understand all the economic issues in play when making decisions.
So I've tried to get people to look at this beyond just the numbers aspect, but apparently people are absolutely determined to keep arguing the net point that a sports stadium is not worth the cost when that money could be spent on X Y and Z things of higher priority. Let me extend your logic to a more base point - should states, communities, or people as a whole spend money period on professional sports teams?
Just my opinion, but I dont think states and communities should provide any funding for profitable private enterprises unless there is going to be a net positive economic value to the community as a whole. For example, when RhodeIsland was willing to give 38Studios a huge loan I did not have a problem with Mass not providing a similar package because the net economic benefit would not be a positive for MA or RI, it seemed like a waste of money. If people individually decide to support teams with their disposable income, I think thats perfectly fine, and its because all the 4 major sports in this market make money with just individuals providing them their revenue I dont feel the state should provide them any assistance.
Professional sports teams make a lot of money. But regardless of whether or not the State makes profit or not, all of the money that goes into pro sports teams comes from the people themselves (and by-products of the people, ie: advertising revenue). Should we just make a collective decision as a society, and decide to ban all professional sports because they're a waste of money that fuels something that at its heart only provides entertainment value? Is it proper that people spend so much money watching doing things like watching Tom Brady play, when instead they could be donating out of their hearts so that kids have better teachers?
To bring this example a little further, I really like a local sub shop and a lot of folks in town like it as well, it seems to me to be a net benefit to the town. But if the sub shop was no longer making money, I wouldnt support an increase in my real estate taxes to subsidize the sub shop to keep them in business. I am not suggesting that we do anything to restrict how people use their disposable income, but I do think its a little much, considering there is no economical value created by funding stadiums, for governments to help fund new stadiums for franchises that are already profitable.
Obviously, the preceding paragraphs are certifiably insane, and very few people would agree to things of such an extent. But it's also the exact logic that's being used in this thread in regards to why the public should never fund a stadium, even realizing the fact that you'll lose your team and in many cases something that a huge amount of people enjoy. Society is not so black and white as to say that high priority items must drown out everything that's a lesser priority. Even in hard economic times, there's still enough room to provide for a collective luxury that everyone can enjoy (despite arguments to the contrary).
Sorry, I dont understand this analogy. I think the economic logic as for why a state should never provide funding for a stadium is because the net actual economic value for those paying for the project as a whole is not positive for such projects. Furthermore, the business owners requesting the funding are indeed making money and thus providing them funding is essentially having the general taxpaying public provide subsidies for people who are already very rich and who own very profitable businesses.
For example, look at the Celtics. They dont own the stadium, dont get any revenue for the advertising in the stadium and also dont get any revenue for concessions. But, they have been in the top 5 spenders in terms of salaries in the Big3 era. Even if everyone in the state really enjoyed having the Celtics play here, and I absolutely love the Celtics, I would have some ethical/government efficiency problems if the state were to provide funding so Wyc could build a new stadium for the Celtics because clearly without any subsidy assistance they found it to be economical beneficial to run their private company with a very high payroll.
Edited by wutang112878, 23 April 2012 - 11:58 AM.