This is why you build a stadium with public funds

Offices, condos flock to be near Nationals

from JoeUser Forums

Somewhat an 'I told you so!' to some people that were upset about the idea of using 'public funds' to build a stadium for the Washington Nationals in Washington, D.C.

First, keep in mind that the Washington Nationals wouldn't have come to Washington, D.C. if there wasn't the promise of a publicly financed stadium.  No stadium there to play in temporarily, and no stadium to be built there within a few years of moving there, meant losing the team to some other location (Las Vegas, Portland, or the like...)  D.C. had the existing stadium so they didn't have to rush to build the new stadium, but they did have to rush to promise to build a new stadium with all of the modern ammenities and goodies for the owners to take advantage of, or profit off of.

D.C. did just that by making plans, compliments of Anthony Williams and a city council that had to be drug along for the ride (I'm looking at and talking about you there Mr. Current Mayor Adrian Fenty!!!).  Former Mayor Williams made it the goal of his administration to bring baseball to D.C. and to keep it once there, so he moved heaven and Earth to get a new stadium deal for the city and the team.  That happened, and we are about to see the results as history.

But, and here's where we come to a bit of an "I told you so!!!" moment for me, Mayor Williams was looking at the bigger picture, and the longer term.  He was looking at a total rejuvenation and redevelopment of a blighted area of the city of D.C.  He knew that getting the Nationals into D.C. and then building them a beautiful new stadium in the city would lead to a lot of new buildind and development in the surrounding areas and that is exactly what is now happening.

Don't believe me?  Feel free to ignore my own words on the topic if you want.  Instead, check out this article from the Washington Times:

Offices, condos flock to be near Nationals

After you read that, think a bit about the tax revenue that will come streaming into D.C.'s treasury from the property taxes on these new structures and properties.  Think about the taxes that will be generated on the businesses that move into those properties.  And think about the taxes on the employees that will work for those businesses.

The ripple effect of the urban renewal that will happen in the area surrounding the Nationals' new ballpark will be amazing.  Mayor Williams knew that.

Other politicians in other areas know that as well.  They normally balance out the demands of the greedy owners (robber baron billionaires in many cases!) with the need to boost development in a blighted area.  If the numbers work, the stadiums get built.  If not, the projects never get done and the owner considers options to take his ball and go play with it elsewhere (assuming that there is another city/locality that wants to be a suitor for them).  The number of other cities that will let themselves get used to help blackmail or extort another city to get such structures built is dwindling as there just aren't many cities/localities left that can support a major sports franchise that don't already have one of their own.  But, as long as there is one wannabe out there, there will likely continue to be games played to try to get a new stadium/ballpark built with public money.

Do remember though that building with pulbic money isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes it can lead to a lot of wonderful renewal (such as happened in Baltimore's Inner Harbor area, and other areas where new stadiums were built).  I believe it's going to happen in D.C. over the next few years and in about 10 years from now we'll be looking back and remembering the dump that used to be Southeast D.C. and thinking about how much has changed in the 10 years hence.

politics
2,650 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't care, corporate welfare still sucks.  Why is it wrong to want to pay taxes so a kid can go to the doctor instead of payiing for a millionaire owners stadium? 
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Don't care, corporate welfare still sucks. Why is it wrong to want to pay taxes so a kid can go to the doctor instead of payiing for a millionaire owners stadium?

How many kids do you NOT want to send to the doctors?

Kill the corporate welfare, or the handouts for building these stadiums, and see just how much tax revenue you lose that you *could* have used for schools (as D.C. will be doing), for health care and other needs for youngsters (again, as D.C. will be doing), for public safety (as D.C. will be doing) and a host of other things that support *EXACTLY* what you claim to be demanding here.

Spending public money on something that generates more than you spent on it, in some cases many times over, is not just a smart move, it's a moral obligation for the politicians to take advantage of.

Granted, spending public money on corporate welfare that provides little or no real benefit either in the short or long term is just stupid.  Building a football stadium that costs hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, and then only having it get used for approximately 12 days out of the year is pretty silly.  Helping to build one and letting the government help build such a facility for an owner that puts some of their own money into the building isn't too bad though.

Building a baseball stadium that gets used approximately 85 times throughout the summer is a much better deal.  40,000 fans (give or take) that are buying goods (and paying taxes on them), buying tickets (and paying taxes and fees on same), paying for transportation and parking (and paying taxes and fees on same), and providing JOBS for youngsters and transient workers that might not otherwise have two pennies in their pocket to rub together is a good thing.  Those people get paychecks and income and have money to spend buying other goods and services, and all of this feeds upon itself to generate even more revenue for the government to spend to help their citizens.

Put your foot down and stop the corporate welfare for such things if you want, but be ready to live with the consequences of your actions and the loss of revenue (and eventual lack of services that that missing revenue leads to) because of it.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

By the way, the same sort of math works (for the most part) for Basketball and Hockey arenas.  On average those facilities hold 20,000 fans over approximately 80 - 90 dates per year.  Sometimes more (for concerts and other big events).  The amount of tax revenue that comes back on the sales of tickets for the place is staggering.  The current Verizon Center in D.C. was actually built primarily by the owner of the teams that play there, but a few hundred million dollars was spent on infrastructure and other improvements in the area.  The amount of money that has gone back to the D.C. government and has since been spent to take care of the citizenry there is equally staggering.

Chinatown and the area surrounding the Verizon Center have seen a complete revitalization.  Businesses flock there now rather than doing as they did before -- fleeing.  Business lunches happen there.  Family outings happen there.  And tax money comes in from sales taxes, from sales and use taxes and fees, and from taxes on income from employees that work in the businesses there.  All of which feeds the government beast's desire for more and more revenue to spend to take care of the GIMME's like you seem to be here Loca.

If you want the government to be ready to take care of the babies (including the ones whose parents make enough money to pay for their own damned insurance) and tweeners that aren't covered elsewhere, then you better damned sight make certain that you take advantage of any revenue producing scheme you can.  Those dollars you turn down aren't likely to get made up elsewhere later as the citizens flee the blighted areas, refuse to live there, refuse to work there, and let the property values deflate as properties deteriorate and are ignored because the owners can't afford to keep them up.

That was what was happening in D.C. where this new 'corporate welfare' ballpark is being built.  Southeast D.C. was a den of inequity.  Gay bars and bath houses.  Sex clubs.  Drug dens.  Crime ridden neighborhoods and areas.  Abandoned warehouses and homes.  Former low income housing projects that were condemned and now flattened and removed (because those had turned into drug dens and were destroyed from within by the residents of same).  Areas that were downright scarey to drive through, never mind getting out and walking around in for fear of stubbing one's toes on discarded needles or being mugged for money to buy drugs with.  Those sorts of areas.

Some businesses were there too.  Warehouses and industrial type.  An asphalt manufacturer for one.  Smelled great to be near.  A few stubborn home owners that refused to move and had their property condemned and then still got nearly 3 times what their property was worth in payout from the government.  Those same people would be hard pressed to find any other buyers for their properties, but especially in light of today's "housing crisis."  If not for the urban renewal that is taking place in that area now, the property would be absolutely worthless.  Instead those people that were bought out got a lot of money for the property that is now going to building new facilities.

The people that were there formerly sucked money from the government for free housing, or subsidized housing, and those medical benefits you want them to have.  In their place will be businesses that pay much higher salaries and wages, and provide real benefits to their employees.  New homes that will be there will be in beautiful new buildings that aren't fire traps filled with rats and other rodents and vermin.  Residents that have good jobs and pay taxes that will get spent for other things and other lesser fortunate people.

So again, cry about corporate welfare and handouts if you want, but think hard about where money comes from with these projects.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Don't care, corporate welfare still sucks. Why is it wrong to want to pay taxes so a kid can go to the doctor instead of payiing for a millionaire owners stadium?

For different reasons, we are in agreement.  I think you finally have a good example (and the only one so far) of Corporate Welfare.

But while this stadium is just the most glaring example, it happens frequently (not the welfare, but the incentives).  And for the reasons that Terp says.  It brings jobs.  In most cases, it is just tax breaks so Toyota, or GM or Ford will build a plant in east bumfreak to alleviate the chronic unemployment in that area. In this case, it is west bumfreak, and instead of a plant, it is a stadium, and instead of tax incentives, it is the actual construction (and why I do not agree or support it).