• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should stadiums and arenas be publicly financed?

Should stadiums/arenas be publicly financed?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 5 11.9%

  • No.

    Votes: 24 57.1%

  • No, but infrastructure improvements around it could be.

    Votes: 9 21.4%

  • Other.

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • Total voters
    42
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should stadiums and arenas be publicly financed?

Yes.
No.
No, but infrastructure improvements around it could be. (Streets, utility upgrades, etc.)
Other.
 
I generally lean towards no, but thinking it over I'm fine with sports venues being publicly financed as long as local government leaders don't try to sell it as some kind of economic stimulus. You should pay for a stadium or arena because you want one, not because you think it's going to create more jobs, because almost invariably they don't.
 
I'm ok with upgrades to the surrounding streets. I'm not ok with taxpayers building the stadium, maintaining the stadium, and then giving the team a cut of every non-sporting event that occurs there.
 
Stadiums and areans are one of the worsts investments cities can make.
 
An exclusively public financed venue for a private organization should not be done. A venue where public financing is done in cooperation with private organizations should be allowable so long as the amount publicly financed is in proportion to the public's usage.
 
ChezC3 said:
An exclusively public financed venue for a private organization should not be done. A venue where public financing is done in cooperation with private organizations should be allowable so long as the amount publicly financed is in proportion to the public's usage.
Click to expand...

How would you define "public usage"? Events open to the public free of charge?
 
Absolutely not, although I see nothing wrong with the taxpayers funding some upgrades around the stadiums, like freeway offramps and the like. The city is going to get more in tax income because of the stadium, therefore they should put something into improving the area around it.
 
Yes so long as it is multiple code and not just for the exclusive use of one team or whatnot.
 
I'd rather see it in the private sector but its usually a break even thing since naming rights cancels out the costs to tax-payers.

What bugs more more is when the government engages in shake down businesses.

-Red light cameras there speeding up the timing cycle on yellow lights in order to hustle more money from motorists like my Republican governor is doing.
-You can't go to any concert, play, sporting even, convention, etc. with the city opening up their parking lots and charging as much as they possibly can to park your car. The bigger the event, the higher the parking fee.
-Speed traps where they LOWER the speed limit to ridiculous levels just to generate revenue.

I just don't think its the role of the government to run businesses, especially no other options businesses. Its the government's job to stand up for consumers and to foster private sector commerce, not compete with it...in a perfect world. I want my government to be my advocate if I feel the parking lot treated me unfairly, not the one's running the parking lot.

But back to the question: I think an argument can be made that says a pro-sports team enhances the quality of life for its citizens. Better if the costs can be recouped by selling the naming rights and leasing out space to food venders and billboards.
 
radcen said:
How would you define "public usage"? Events open to the public free of charge?
Click to expand...

The "allowing for" as well as the "definitions of" would be a great place to allow direct democracy to flourish.

Meaning something which will increase taxes for leisure's purpose shouldn't be under the purview of representative government.

It should be decided by the people of the community.
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely not, although I see nothing wrong with the taxpayers funding some upgrades around the stadiums, like freeway offramps and the like. The city is going to get more in tax income because of the stadium, therefore they should put something into improving the area around it.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how my opinion on the matter has evolved. My only caveat to your freeway off-ramp part would be if it's an off-ramp that goes to the stadium/arena only. Then, I would say 'no'. If it's for an otherwise public street, no problem.
 
radcen said:
This is pretty much how my opinion on the matter has evolved. My only caveat to your freeway off-ramp part would be if it's an off-ramp that goes to the stadium/arena only. Then, I would say 'no'. If it's for an otherwise public street, no problem.
Click to expand...

I don't even mind if it goes straight to the stadium, the more people the city can funnel to the stadium, the more tax revenue they will make.
 
radcen said:
Should stadiums and arenas be publicly financed?

Yes.
No.
No, but infrastructure improvements around it could be. (Streets, utility upgrades, etc.)
Other.
Click to expand...


I voted no. I think states and cities should be banned from using tax payer dollars to fund these things and they should be banned from giving for profit groups or companies tax breaks.
 
jamesrage said:
I voted no. I think states and cities should be banned from using tax payer dollars to fund these things and they should be banned from giving for profit groups or companies tax breaks.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on the tax break thing.

I'm also with you, for the most part, on the stadium/arena thing. My only departure is I'm ok with a city funding surrounding infrastructure upgrades that the entire city can benefit from every day all year.
 
Owners of the teams should pay for the stadium.
 
I said no

I will say yes only to public stadiums used by non professional sports associations/leagues.

In Canada multiple small hockey arenas are located in every city, to allow for minor league hockey to be played. In that case I would say yes. For professional sports, where the team gets basically the revenue and profit, definitely not
 
Yes.
Bread & circuses, remember? :)
 
If we are talking about the stadiums dedicated to professional sports, absolutely not. Facilities oriented toward use by general public could be paid for via municipal or state bonds retired via user fees and lotteries.
 
No. They are financed through advertising and ticket sales, so those who actually use the stadium will pay for it in the end. In addition, this is mere entertainment, not a public necessity.
 
The government steals enough of my money to fund fantasies I have no interest in already. My answer is a firm no.
 
Helix said:
I'm ok with upgrades to the surrounding streets. I'm not ok with taxpayers building the stadium, maintaining the stadium, and then giving the team a cut of every non-sporting event that occurs there.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the teams don't get a cut, here. In fact, IIRC, they pay us a fee for using it, though I'm sure they get one hell of a discount for being long-term "customers" ;) - and they do get a say in any upgrades we make. What I like about it is that the public can also use the space when the teams aren't using it. A lot of people jog out there, teens without licenses learn how to drive (in the parking lots), RC planes and copters take off and land there at times (though there range is limited because of nearby roads), & etc. In short, it's a monitored public park when not in use for a scheduled event.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I'm pretty sure the teams don't get a cut, here. In fact, IIRC, they pay us a fee for using it, though I'm sure they get one hell of a discount for being long-term "customers" ;) - and they do get a say in any upgrades we make. What I like about it is that the public can also use the space when the teams aren't using it. A lot of people jog out there, teens without licenses learn how to drive (in the parking lots), RC planes and copters take off and land there at times (though there range is limited because of nearby roads), & etc. In short, it's a monitored public park when not in use for a scheduled event.
Click to expand...

ours was an exceptionally poor deal. team was privately threatening to leave, and the city desperately wants to be "world class." with no mountain, lake, ocean, or cultural hub, sports is the only thing left. they were able to basically write their own check, and then the basketball team got jealous and also got a renegotiated deal.

i spent much of the mid 2000s bitching about it online, so my anger over the whole thing is pretty much spent. if that's the way we want to allocate tax revenue, fine. i can easily avoid restaurants, hotels, and car rental in the capital city if i don't want to pay. i've basically accepted it at this point.
 
If you are not a taxpayer of that jurisdiction, why is it any of your business?

.
 
Sure...if the community votes on it and agrees to pay for it out of taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom