Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took a break from the presidential campaign trail Wednesday to commit $250 million in taxpayer money to pay for a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks.
Walker’s come under a lot of criticism from both left and right for his arena funding plan, including an article I wrote at the Huffington Post after he defended his plan on ABC’s “This Week.” Such deals are paid for by average taxpayers to benefit millionaire players and billionaire owners. But millionaires and billionaires have more influence than average taxpayers, and the pictures around stadium deals are great:
Calling the new NBA stadium a “dynamic attraction for the entire state of Wisconsin,” Walker signed the bill at the Wisconsin State Fair Park surrounded by state lawmakers, local officials and Bucks team president Peter Feigin.
The economics, not so good. Walker has claimed a ”return on investment” of three to one, which he says is “a good deal” for the taxpayers. Economists disagree. As Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys wrote in a 2004 Cato study criticizing the proposed D.C. stadium subsidy, “The wonder is that anyone finds such figures credible….
Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy. The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area.
Republican voters are looking for fiscal conservatives and straight talkers. We’re hearing a lot of denunciations of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. And here’s a leading conservative candidate for president sitting down in front of cameras to sign a bill handing $250 million in taxpayers’ money (Bloomberg says $400 million with interest) to wealthy owners of a sports team (some of whom, no doubt coincidentally, are large donors to his campaign), in defiance of free-market advocates and virtually all economists. Will the other Republican candidates take him on? Will they denounce this wasteful extravagance?
Or will we have to rely on John Oliver to do the job small-government Republicans ought to be doing?
And then we get to the empty promises of investment returns, which Walker ludicrously estimates will be 3-to-1. At this point, the literature debunking the purported benefits that stadiums bring to local economies is too extensive to list at once. But to review: Initial estimates almost always understate true costs; the jobs such projects create are part-time, seasonal and temporary; money spent in sports stadiums is money that would have been spent elsewhere; and arena revenues and signage deals tend to line the pockets of team owners, not public coffers.
It's this economic reality, coupled with some questionable political ties, that has brought together liberals, conservatives and libertarians in opposition to Walker's stadium deal. Walker's association with Jon Hammes, a Bucks minority owner and the national finance co-chairman for the governor's presidential campaign, has raised eyebrows on the left. Lasry's involvement in fundraising for Hillary Clinton has raised objections on the right. Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute have joined the chorus of those calling this what it is: corporate welfare.
Walker's numbers are bogus. The deal is a scam... just another conjob misappropriation of public funds for Walker cronies.
Walker's numbers are bogus. The deal is a scam... just another conjob misappropriation of public funds for Walker cronies.
Shit, you're only mad because that's 250 mill that can't be credited towards EBT cards... money that will never show a return investment. Just squandered on laziness, drug addictions and booze.
This money will bring billions to the community in a return investment.
This money will bring billions to the community in a return investment.
No, it won't. No more than hosting the Olympics ever do.
These things are always a scam. Always.
But Joe Six-Pack loves stadiums and their millionaire players and tycoon team owners. It's stupid but the pols end up playing along because a key bloc of voters demand it.
You are full of garbage. Sporting events bring millions of money IN from people that travel to see them. Hotels, restaurants, ticket fees, bars and retail sales.
You are full of garbage. Sporting events bring millions of money IN from people that travel to see them. Hotels, restaurants, ticket fees, bars and retail sales.
They may benefit hotels and restaurants and such. And local tax coffers. But it never matches what the taxpayers paid to build the stadium.
But it never matches what the taxpayers paid to build the stadium.
The stadium will be used for YEARS... and special events on the off season like concerts and such. You have no clue how much of a draw a stadium is from non local people.
he stadium will be used for YEARS... and special events on the off season like concerts and such. You have no clue how much of a draw a stadium is from non local people.
Which means it will be fantastically profitable for the owners, and so the owners should take all of the economic risk and thereby derive all of the profits.
Taxpayers should not be asked to bear the risk of loss.
Stadium funding is typical "privatize the profits/socialize the risks and losses" crony capitalism.
Which means it will be fantastically profitable for the owners,
It's ignorant to think 100,000 people that drive hours and hours from other states or across the state to watch an event that takes most of the day, to not know they use hotels, taxis, restaurants... some shop, some make a 3 day vacation... Do you have any idea how much money Madison Square Garden has brought to NYC from other states?
The last time I traveled 5 hours to MSG to watch a NY Rangers game, I dropped 400.00 alone in NYC in restaurants, bars, taxis and hotels.
It's ignorant to think 100,000 people that drive hours and hours from other states or across the state to watch an event that takes most of the day, to not know they use hotels, taxis, restaurants... some shop, some make a 3 day vacation... Do you have any idea how much money Madison Square Garden has brought to NYC from other states?
Great! Then the stadium owners can rake in all that profit by investing in hotels, taxis and restaurants.
There is huge profit to be made here, and the private sector will be making all the profit.
Therefore, the private sector should be taking all the risk.
Now, of course, if the setup is that the state provides 50% of the funding, and gets 50% of the profit, that works fine.
But the state paying interest on bonds, to just collect, maybe, some extra tax revenues, while bearing all of that risk on the public dime? Nope. No sale.
You've made a compelling argument for profit galore. And that is a compelling argument for stadium owners to go into the private sector to get all of their funding, because hotel and restaurant owners and taxicab companies want all of that business, and will surely invest in a stadium in order to get it.
This is not hard. Sports are purely private activities, and profitable for the private sector. And the private sector should finance them and bear 100% of the risks.
If there is public funding, there should be public ownership and public profit participation just exactly as with any other source of funding for any other project.
Casinos bring in a lot of money, therefore the government should fund them? Malls do too. Should government fund them? No. Government shouldn't fund any of it.
If it's really that profitable, then government won't need to.
I'm willing to compromise and allow government funding in exchange for government profit-sharing.
