Three biggest disgraces of the pathetic Bud Selig administration

[geschinger]

Bud has done a lot of bad things, some good. But I think from the perspective of an American citizen the worst thing he's done is locked in the idea that it's the responsibility of every taxpayer to donate their own dollars to subsidize $half-billion to $billion stadiums for billionaire owners and their millionaire employees. Literally millions of people who'll never set foot in a MLB stadium helped pay for those stadiums, and Bud led the charge for nearly free ballfields for every MLB team.

I love OPACY, but not necessarily that the Maryland government, more-or-less, drummed up half a billion dollars to give to the Angelos family.

Some would argue that it goes a long way towards revitalizing run down areas. But I agree, probably not the best of deals in the long run for the citizen.

I can't really argue against the point when what annoys me is the forced subsidization of organizations through RSNs. I don't like making it the responsibility of every cable/sat subscriber to indirectly help pay for Yankee, Red Sox, Orioles, etc... payrolls whether or not they have any interest in baseball. At least with stadiums there is some benefit for those who might not be interested in the product.

[Mad Mark]

I love OPACY, but not necessarily that the Maryland government, more-or-less, drummed up half a billion dollars to give to the Angelos family.

To be fair, the Maryland government "drummed up half a billion dollars" to give to Edward Benett Williams. Peter Angelos got the stadium (along with the team) because he was the last guy standing at Eli Jacobs' bankrputcy proceedings.

But I do get your point.

[DrungoHazewood]

Some would argue that it goes a long way towards revitalizing run down areas. But I agree, probably not the best of deals in the long run for the citizen.

I can't really argue against the point when what annoys me is the forced subsidization of organizations through RSNs. I don't like making it the responsibility of every cable/sat subscriber to indirectly help pay for Yankee, Red Sox, Orioles, etc... payrolls whether or not they have any interest in baseball. At least with stadiums there is some benefit for those who might not be interested in the product.

There's almost no objective evidence that ballparks generate any positive economic activity of their own. They mainly just shuffle around money that was already going to be spent.

Any argument for revitalization would have to say that it's a good thing to shift money from Towson and Columbia and 33rd street to downtown Baltimore, and from Farifax and Manassas to SE DC. Not that OPACY and Nat's Stadium are creating new wealth and value.

To be fair, the Maryland government "drummed up half a billion dollars" to give to Edward Benett Williams. Peter Angelos got the stadium (along with the team) because he was the last guy standing at Eli Jacobs' bankrputcy proceedings.

But I do get your point.

That is true. I should have said "to Oriole ownership."

[geschinger]

There's almost no objective evidence that ballparks generate any positive economic activity of their own. They mainly just shuffle around money that was already going to be spent.

Any argument for revitalization would have to say that it's a good thing to shift money from Towson and Columbia and 33rd street to downtown Baltimore, and from Farifax and Manassas to SE DC. Not that OPACY and Nat's Stadium are creating new wealth and value.

Well isn't that a benefit unto itself? With the politicians focusing on the suburbs at the expense of cities getting monies to be invested in areas that might otherwise be left to rot is proabably a net positive. Certainly more bang for the buck than the forced subsidization RSNs receive from subscribers.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well isn't that a benefit unto itself? With the politicians focusing on the suburbs at the expense of cities getting monies to be invested in areas that might otherwise be left to rot is proabably a net positive. Certainly more bang for the buck than the forced subsidization RSNs receive from subscribers.

Depends on your perspective. If you live or own a business in downtown, sure. If you live or have a business somewhere that'll have money siphoned away to downtown, maybe not so much.

In any case, almost all pitches teams make to government explicitly state that the stadium is going to create jobs, pay for itself, be an engine of economic growth, and drive all kinds of development in the area. And it's almost always a gross exaggeration.

[geschinger]

Depends on your perspective. If you live or own a business in downtown, sure. If you live or have a business somewhere that'll have money siphoned away to downtown, maybe not so much.

In any case, almost all pitches teams make to government explicitly state that the stadium is going to create jobs, pay for itself, be an engine of economic growth, and drive all kinds of development in the area. And it's almost always a gross exaggeration.

Generally speaking cities have been getting the short end of the stick but you are right about it depending on perspective. Agree completely about the claims being exaggerated as well.

[Hallas]

Depends on your perspective. If you live or own a business in downtown, sure. If you live or have a business somewhere that'll have money siphoned away to downtown, maybe not so much.

In any case, almost all pitches teams make to government explicitly state that the stadium is going to create jobs, pay for itself, be an engine of economic growth, and drive all kinds of development in the area. And it's almost always a gross exaggeration.

I think it's also worth noting that OPACY cost significantly less than other stadiums built in its image since then ($110 million). With responsible teams proposing reasonable stadium packages I think it might be worth it for publically funded stadiums. When the stadium costs $300 million or more, it becomes much less so.

To balance the equation, municipalities that agree to the stadiums should force the stadiums into a ticket tax of some sort, so that they at least get some tangible monetary return on their investments.

[FellsPointOsFan]

Here's one example of a number-crunching study that purports to show no net benefit...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479''>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479' rel="external nofollow">

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479

[DrungoHazewood]

I think it's also worth noting that OPACY cost significantly less than other stadiums built in its image since then ($110 million). With responsible teams proposing reasonable stadium packages I think it might be worth it for publically funded stadiums. When the stadium costs $300 million or more, it becomes much less so.

To balance the equation, municipalities that agree to the stadiums should force the stadiums into a ticket tax of some sort, so that they at least get some tangible monetary return on their investments.

And what usually happens is that the teams get the vast majority of the future revenues generated by the stadium, and often tax breaks on top of that. And if you're the Nats, you can even try to avoid paying your minimal rent because you claim your shiny, new $600M stadium isn't quite done 100% to the terms of the contract yet.

Most cities don't see any fiscal benefit from stadiums. They just get that warm, fuzzy feeling from being a Major League City, and they aren't stuck at the kiddy table with Topeka, Norfolk and Spokane at the mayor's conferences.

[Hallas]

And what usually happens is that the teams get the vast majority of the future revenues generated by the stadium, and often tax breaks on top of that. And if you're the Nats, you can even try to avoid paying your minimal rent because you claim your shiny, new $600M stadium isn't quite done 100% to the terms of the contract yet.

Most cities don't see any fiscal benefit from stadiums. They just get that warm, fuzzy feeling from being a Major League City, and they aren't stuck at the kiddy table with Topeka, Norfolk and Spokane at the mayor's conferences.

While I'm not denying that in practice, the teams fleece the cities in these cases about 99%, I think that the O's and Maryland had a much more mutually beneficial situation than any of the more recent stadiums using public money.

[DrungoHazewood]

While I'm not denying that in practice, the teams fleece the cities in these cases about 99%, I think that the O's and Maryland had a much more mutually beneficial situation than any of the more recent stadiums using public money.

That's probably true. And much of the money came from the lottery. Since I never have and never will play the lottery I got OPACY for free!

[longflyball]

I nominate Game 5 of the 2008 World Series the 4th biggest disgrace of the Selig Administration. They're playing through a monsoon, and the umpiring is absolutely disgraceful.

[MurphDogg]

Wouldn't you be pissed if the Orioles were in it and you missed the first inning and a half. Also, Upton hit a first inning home run and Id be pretty pissed if I missed a Markakis home run watching the Steve Harvey show instead.

To be fair, according to your profile you live in Bel Air. If the Orioles were in fact playing the game it would have been simulcast on local TV and would not have affected you. I on the other hand would have a complaint.

[Mu'ayyidSaafir]

I nominate Game 5 of the 2008 World Series the 4th biggest disgrace of the Selig Administration. They're playing through a monsoon, and the umpiring is absolutely disgraceful.

This is an interesting dilemma for MLB. You don't want to hand the Phillies the WS by calling the deciding game, especially a 1-run game, after 5 innings. That would be a huge black eye for the game. MLB should have made it clear a long time ago that no playoff game can be called early due to rain. Regardless of the inning and score, they should all be suspended games. On the other hand, what if it was 12-0 Phillies? How many people would tune in tomorrow to watch 4 innings of a rout just to see the Phillies' celebration pile? Not too many.

[longflyball]

Bud has done a lot of bad things, some good. But I think from the perspective of an American citizen the worst thing he's done is locked in the idea that it's the responsibility of every taxpayer to donate their own dollars to subsidize $half-billion to $billion stadiums for billionaire owners and their millionaire employees.

If politicians are going to steal my money and spend it for the benefit of themselves and others, building a ballpark is among the least objectionable things they could do.

Speaking as a cynic, of course. And a sports fan.