Jump to content

"Miami" Marlins stadium approved!


BaltimoreTerp

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I'm still waiting to see what they do with him in the outfield. If he can be the backup CF that might make it easier for Kjerstad to beat out Cowser for first crack at an OF job.
    • No, they can’t fit them both in all likelihood, unless they do the smart thing and make some trades, which they should have done already.
    • A lot good they did 😛 Off topic that was the excuse used when the team wasn't hitting the last 2 weeks of the regular season. It wasnt true considered it continued in the playoffs..    Hopefully the Mateo PAs is under. With Felix gone and Bradish and Means missing time they are going to win as many of those games where they only score 1 or 2 runs that seemed to go through a lot last year
    • The problem is you only get 13 spots. Right now it's hard to see how you could fit both Kjerstad and Cowser on the roster without an injury or trade. As it is, for either of them to make the roster, Mateo has to be the defensive OF guy (which is OK, since Hays and it seems Cowser could also be adequate defensive subs, as well as Westburg). Adley McCann Mountcastle O'Hearn Gunnar Urias Westburg Mateo = 8 spots  Mullins Hays Santander = 3 spots That leaves two spots. Holliday or Maton/Wong gets one.  I just don't see a way to fit both Kjerstad and Cowser without an injury or move. Still, one of Kjerstad/Cowser can play the Hicks 3-4x per week role with the other being the next man up. There will be struggles and there will be injuries and both will get to play that role at times, maybe more. If Kjerstad and Cowser have success in their opportunities, they may well push Hays to the 5th OF spot, or O'Hearn to AAA, but I don't think we make those moves prematurely. I think both get 300+ AB's this year but they don't have to make the opening day roster for that to happen. Will be interesting to compare the end of year AB's for Cowser, Kjerstad, O'Hearn, and Mountcastle.   
    • If Buck O’Neil were there yesterday, he’d tell Roch about how he heard a sound that he’d never heard before. And it was Babe Ruth hitting that ball. And then he didn’t hear it again until a few years later, and it was Josh Gibson hitting that ball. Then he didn’t hear it again until it was Bo Jackson hitting that ball. And then he didn’t hear it again until it was Kyle Stowers hitting that ball. 
    • Updated through leap year game. - Mateo keeps getting SS starts but no outfield time. - Basallo takes BP - Yennier Cano has been put on a milk carton - McKenna hitless while battling for a spot - Holliday has first good game at the plate - Burnes struggles - Kimbrel, Coulombe and Webb all scored upon. (Bullpen not looking strong in early going)  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...