"Miami" Marlins stadium approved!

[srock]

This deal gives a lot of jobs for the area during this recession. Also they will be making a lot of money once the stadium is actually up and selling beer and other taxed items. There is a reason why cities want sports teams. They increase the tax revenue.

Not to mention increase's property value, brings infrastrure improvements, and increases the culture of an area.

I prefer to see stadiums be privately funded as much as possible, but anything of this scale is going to require a good deal of public support whether it be cash, zoning, roads, tax breaks, etc. In this case the city may be better off owning the stadium as it will be an excellent venue for events throughout the winter which is the high time of the year.

[DrungoHazewood]

This deal gives a lot of jobs for the area during this recession. Also they will be making a lot of money once the stadium is actually up and selling beer and other taxed items. There is a reason why cities want sports teams. They increase the tax revenue.

If you Google "stadiums and tax revenues" or something like that you'll find numerous studies that say otherwise. The only analyses I've seen that agree with you were funded by either sports teams looking for a free stadium, or governments looking to keep their team.

Independent sources almost all agree that stadiums essentially never live up to the economic gains hype. Usually the claims aren't even remotely plausible.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not to mention increase's property value, brings infrastrure improvements, and increases the culture of an area.

Those claims are more plausible than the claimed economic gains and tax revenues, but there's an open question as to whether a publicly funded sports stadium with a lease that's very slanted to the team's million- or bilionaire owners, and that will sit empty for 200 or more days a year, is the best way to obtain those things for half a $billion or more.

[Mark Carver]

I'm happy for the Miami fans but saddened by the continued gullibility of county, city and state governments.

MLB is posting skyrocketing record profits in the multiple of billions and can certainly, and should, fund their own venues or construct agreements locally beneficial to the taxpayers.

The financial breakdown on the $634 million stadium plan is top-heavy for the county. Miami-Dade is on the hook for $297 million from tourist taxes, another $50 million from a separate bond referendum, and $12 million for road and utility repairs, will spend $94 million on the parking structures, $13 million toward stadium construction, and $12 million for other improvements.

Marlins are on the hook for $119 million and repaying a $35 million loan from the county.

The vast majority of private and academic studies have shown the taxpayers don't benefit in proportion to their investment, the bulk of which is returned to MLB.

It's a farce for the taxpayers.

Since taxpayers are on the hook for some of the cash in the construction of this... how about taxing ballplayers 90% that get bonuses!

[Mark Carver]

As I said in another thread, I'm happy that it will be the "Miami Marlins" again, like the MiL teams were.

Calling the expansion team the "Florida Marlins" was kinda like if they had changed the name of the St Louis Browns to the "Maryland Orioles". The "Miami Marlins" name didn't have nearly as much history as the name "Baltimore Orioles" did, but it was very much a local team name that preceded the current franchise. I'm glad that's getting fixed. (Small pleasures.)

Give them time... they could follow the Los Angeles Angels, the California Angels, the Anaheim Angels and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim approach.

[NewMarketSean]

Changing the name to "Miami" is kind of like putting Baltimore back on the road unis. When the Marlins were created they were the only team in FLA, so it made sense to try to appeal to the entire state. Now that the Rays are in Tampa, and winning, it makes sense to try and create a more local appeal for the Marlins, especially if they will be moving into the downtown area with a new stadium. Just like when the Nationals moved to DC, the O's didn't need to try to market themselves in DC as much so they put Baltimore back on the uniforms.

[TyCobb]

If you Google "stadiums and tax revenues" or something like that you'll find numerous studies that say otherwise. The only analyses I've seen that agree with you were funded by either sports teams looking for a free stadium, or governments looking to keep their team.

Independent sources almost all agree that stadiums essentially never live up to the economic gains hype. Usually the claims aren't even remotely plausible.

Could you link me one of those independent sources that you find accurate.

I know that the old Yankee Stadium paid tons of taxes including property taxes AND rent since the City owned the stadium. Something like 30-40 million a year. And that isn't including the sales tax of the items sold at the stadiums.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090324/BUSINESS/90324020

Check out those stadium food tax revenues.

[TyCobb]

Here is an interesting line I found for this dude.

"Claims made about additional tax revenue and jobs created by a new Yankee Stadium depend upon a large increase in fan attendance, but the Yankees broke the American League attendance record last year and new stadium will have fewer seats"

http://www.goodjobsny.org/testimony_finance_04_10.htm

I figure the Marlins have a very good chance to have a large increase in fan attendance from a new stadium, if the stadium was the problem.

[TyCobb]

Even the new Yankee Stadium has net benefit to the city according to this Cost-Benefit-analysis. And that stadium deal is a steal for the Yankees.

http://yonkerstribune.typepad.com/files/brodsky_cost-benefit-analysis-for-additional-public-financing.pdf

[DrungoHazewood]

Could you link me one of those independent sources that you find accurate.

I know that the old Yankee Stadium paid tons of taxes including property taxes AND rent since the City owned the stadium. Something like 30-40 million a year. And that isn't including the sales tax of the items sold at the stadiums.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090324/BUSINESS/90324020

Check out those stadium food tax revenues.

Here's one.

And another.

And another.

Not sure those are the best studies, and one is just an article from a little Fresno paper. But they seem to hit most of the points.

Quote from the first link:

The policy implications of our results are no different from those of the previous studies that found no relationship between the professional sports environment and local economies. Still, they bear repeating. The evidence suggests that attracting a professional sports franchise to a city and building that franchise a new stadium or arena will have no effect on the growth rate of real per capita income and may reduce the level of real per capita income in that city. Yet government decisionmakers and politicians continue to try to attract professional sports franchises to cities, or use public funds to construct elaborate new facilities in order to keep existing franchises from moving. According to public finance theory, the decisionmakers who attempt to attract a new franchise or build a new stadium or arena must value the total consumption benefits, including all nonpecuniary benefits, more than the total costs, including the opportunity costs. The total consumption benefits cannot be directly measured because of the nonpecuniary component of those benefits; in order for these policies to make sense, the total value of the consumption benefits associated with

these policies must be larger than was previously imagined. However, regardless of the size of the nonpecuniary benefits, one thing is clear from the evidence on professional sports franchises: owners are reaping substantial benefits in the value of their teams because they are so skilled

at the stadium gambit.

[Mad Mark]

If it's done in time, the new Marlins stadium would be a perfect venue for the next WBC.

[zff4]

This deal gives a lot of jobs for the area during this recession. Also they will be making a lot of money once the stadium is actually up and selling beer and other taxed items. There is a reason why cities want sports teams. They increase the tax revenue.

Again, most of the studies have refuted this.

For instance, because the stadium construction and improvements is dependent on nearly 500 million in tax generated funds, an actual return on investment for the city is so far down the road as to be meaningless. Additionally when you look at the cost to tax payers per job provided (and the types of jobs), the city comes out behind. Based on the assumption that nearly 2000 jobs might be created, the city sees a net loss when it funds job creation at a cost of upper $100,000's (or more) per job.

According to The Brookings Institution, "a new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. The economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus."

Interestingly, the "negative" effect on a community was found in Baltimore where per capita income in the surrounding area actually dropped.

1, for a general discussion that talks about MD

2, for a paper arguing the effect is actually negative

3, Tax-Exempt Bonds and the Economics of Professional Sports Stadiums

4Public Funding of Sports Stadiums

5The Costly Relationship between Major

League Sports and Government

There are plenty of academic and think-tank resources on the web that refute the notion that there is public gain from tax funded stadiums, I've just cited a few.

Don't get me wrong. In a Miami fan's shoes, I'd support it, but purely for personal reasons. But arguing that tax funded stadiums is a net gain to the community is not supported by evidence.

edit: hahah beaten by Drungo

[DrungoHazewood]

Again, most of the studies have refuted this.

For instance, because the stadium construction and improvements is dependent on nearly 500 million in tax generated funds, an actual return on investment for the city is so far down the road as to be meaningless. Additionally when you look at the cost to tax payers per job provided (and the types of jobs), the city comes out behind. Based on the assumption that nearly 2000 jobs might be created, the city sees a net loss when it funds job creation at a cost of upper $100,000's (or more) per job.

According to The Brookings Institution, "a new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. The economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus."

Interestingly, the "negative" effect on a community was found in Baltimore where per capita income in the surrounding area actually dropped.

1, for a general discussion that talks about MD

2, for a paper arguing the effect is actually negative

3, Tax-Exempt Bonds and the Economics of Professional Sports Stadiums

4Public Funding of Sports Stadiums

5The Costly Relationship between Major

League Sports and Government

There are plenty of academic and think-tank resources on the web that refute the notion that there is public gain from tax funded stadiums, I've just cited a few.

Don't get me wrong. In a Miami fan's shoes, I'd support it, but purely for personal reasons. But arguing that tax funded stadiums is a net gain to the community is not supported by evidence.

edit: hahah beaten by Drungo

More good stuff, and more good Baltimore-centric stuff in that first link. I'd give you some rep if I could.

[TyCobb]

Here's one.

And another.

And another.

Not sure those are the best studies, and one is just an article from a little Fresno paper. But they seem to hit most of the points.

Quote from the first link:

Ok so you believe the Marlins new stadium will not show an increase in total tax revenue (when you account for the cost)?

[DrungoHazewood]

Ok so you believe the Marlins new stadium will not show an increase in total tax revenue (when you account for the cost)?

Probably not, and furthermore it will almost definitely not cause the overall economic output of Miami to increase.