in other good news, 3 cities reject funding new stadiums

[dead0man]

Reason

Denver's proposed new stadium was one of three similar projects to get a resounding thumbs-down from the public during this week's elections. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a proposal that would have spent $50 million in public money on a $70 million stadium for the city's minor league soccer team was rejected by 65 percent of voters. That happened despite Mayor Tim Keller—a vocal proponent of the project—winning reelection and despite voters approving all the other bond measures on the ballot, Field of Schemes blogger Neil deMause notes.

"The people of Albuquerque also made it clear they want public resources used on other community and social priorities," Stop the Stadium, a group that led opposition to the Albuquerque project, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, 65 percent of voters in Augusta, Georgia, rejected a similar bond issue that would have seen the city take on debt to fund the construction of a $235 million stadium for a yet-to-be-determined future occupant (possibly a minor league hockey team). The cost of the new stadium was projected to add about $100 to the average property tax bill in the city—all to create "a handful of new permanent jobs," according to The Augusta Chronicle. Who wouldn't vote for that?

the article goes on to mention that the vote in Augusta doesn't matter, they're paying for it anyway.

[MillennialModerate]

Not always good news.

I get the rich should pay for there own venues but sometimes it doesn’t make any financial sense to do and these stadiums often bring in major amounts of money. They revitalize entire areas of a city.

Look at Coors Field… that totally changed a whole neighborhood in Denver.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank goodness. Stadiums are basically free money handed out to corporations with no tangible benefits to the city's residents.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Thank goodness. Stadiums are basically free money handed out to corporations with no tangible benefits to the city's residents.

[DaleCooper]

Not always good news.

I get the rich should pay for there own venues but sometimes it doesn’t make any financial sense to do and these stadiums often bring in major amounts of money. They revitalize entire areas of a city.

Look at Coors Field… that totally changed a whole neighborhood in Denver.

They also bring in drunks and deranged fans.

[PSOL]

PSL and other community groups were instrumental in the “no” vote. Glad it failed.

[Santander]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

[Santander]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Public housing is just going to create a no-go zone that will drain public resources. You want to create neighborhoods that people want to go to and put tax dollars into the city coffers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Cities (or when not them directly, other local or state governments - or even the federal government now, with this new BIF monstrosity) somehow always find money for bullsh*t megaprojects that involve building fancy new stadiums, or malls, or enlarging the 12-lane highway into a 16-lane highway, but never for amenities that would actually help regular people.

[GregTheGreat657]

Billionaires should fund their own sports teams, rather than get the gov't to force the average citizen along with gov't lenders to subsidize it

[Santander]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Cities (or when not them directly, other local or state governments - or even the federal government now, with this new BIF monstrosity) somehow always find money for bullsh*t megaprojects that involve building fancy new stadiums, or malls, or enlarging the 12-lane highway into a 16-lane highway, but never for amenities that would actually help regular people.

You won't see me defending taxpayer funding of stupid projects. But when you need to redevelop entire neighborhoods, you need private sector partners who are able to generate economic activity and attract people to the neighborhood. Maybe as part of the redevelopment, you could build some low-rent housing in the new neighborhood, but building large amounts of public housing in the same place is about the worst thing you could do. The buildings will fall into disrepair, there will be crime all over the place, and the parks will be filled with drug addicts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Cities (or when not them directly, other local or state governments - or even the federal government now, with this new BIF monstrosity) somehow always find money for bullsh*t megaprojects that involve building fancy new stadiums, or malls, or enlarging the 12-lane highway into a 16-lane highway, but never for amenities that would actually help regular people.

You won't see me defending taxpayer funding of stupid projects. But when you need to redevelop entire neighborhoods, you need private sector partners who are able to generate economic activity and attract people to the neighborhood. Maybe as part of the redevelopment, you could build some low-rent housing in the new neighborhood, but building large amounts of public housing in the same place is about the worst thing you could do. The buildings will fall into disrepair, there will be crime all over the place, and the parks will be filled with drug addicts.

Of course they shouldn't be all in the same place - spreading them out in different parts of the city is clearly the right thing to do even if a few posh NIBYs will protest. And I'm not saying there's no role for the private sector, but the point is building things the city actually needs, as opposed to glitzy attractions that present a nice façade for the city but invariably end up as useless money sinks.

[LabourJersey]

Not always good news.

I get the rich should pay for there own venues but sometimes it doesn’t make any financial sense to do and these stadiums often bring in major amounts of money. They revitalize entire areas of a city.

Look at Coors Field… that totally changed a whole neighborhood in Denver.

Revitalization is a good thing, but the costs of funding stadiums is way too high of a price for cities to pay when the owners of the sports teams can afford to build them themselves.

[pbrower2a]

Having a beautiful ballpark in which to play major-league sports instead of shoring up education, public health, or the abatement of environmental damage is poor compensation. If there is to be public funding of sports stadiums, then let it be through regional bonds that get paid through admissions costs and built-in profits from concessions. The poor people who end up paying the taxes to suburban fans who buy the tickets don't get to watch many games.

Sports entertainment is not a necessity for a good life as is quality education.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Cities (or when not them directly, other local or state governments - or even the federal government now, with this new BIF monstrosity) somehow always find money for bullsh*t megaprojects that involve building fancy new stadiums, or malls, or enlarging the 12-lane highway into a 16-lane highway, but never for amenities that would actually help regular people.

Larry Hogan has entered the chat

[GP270watch]

 The economic case studies I've seen has mostly shown that stadium construction and hosting olympics events has very dubious economic benefits in most cases.