Why should we pay for you to get rich?

Just rub my face in it....

Published on July 5, 2005 By lifehappens In Current Events

The recent wave of eminent domain issues in Arlington over the new stadium for the Cowboys has me pondering.

1-Why are we paying for a stadium that houses a PRIVATE team? We pay for it, but the profit goes to an individual...not those who paid for it. It's estimated that it will cost $650 million to build. The Dallas Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones will get a big chunk of money from the hikes in city sales tax ($.05 increase), hotel occupancy tax (2%), and car rental tax (5%). You can tell me that the cost is put back into the city economy from the increased spending, but that doesn't help Joe Shmoe who doesn't get a raise to cover the sales tax increase. He isn't given free tickets to games. He doesn't directly profit from the stadium, but he still has to foot the bill.

2-The Cowboys kept saying they were going to pay half the money for the stadium--$325 million-but that's not exactly the truth. Jones can charge a 10 percent "tax" on tickets and a $3 tax on parking to pay for his side....charging you even more. Jones also could earn $300mil for stadium naming contracts, $100 million+ by selling seat licenses, and the NFL is giving a $100 million (they don't have to pay it back). So before he even sells a ticket or luxury box or hot dog or beer, Jones will be up about $800 million. I think that means HE COULD PAY FOR IT HIMSELF!!!

3-Eminent domain requires that the homeowners be paid "fair market value". Owners who balked at the offers (i.e. amount didn't cover mortgages) will have their property condemed so that the city can then take it. Those fighting the city have forfeited their chances at any "bribes" (currently $5-22K over the offer). Just one more reason to give in, roll over and die.

4-I already knew that nothing belongs to me. Try it. Don't pay taxes...you lose your car/house/belongings. Don't pay vehicle registration or insurance? You lose. Nothing is ever really paid off because the government wants their cut now and forever. Knowing this is one thing, but the current wave of gross injustice just rubs my face in it. Sigh.

Comments

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 06, 2005

And yet, ironically, the NFL put rules in place to prevent other NFL teams from being "community owned" like Green Bay. At least when the Packers build their stadium, it's not to profit an individual...

MasonM

on Jul 06, 2005

The rich get richer, the poor get screwed. Been that way for at least 10,000 years.

bakerstreet

on Jul 06, 2005

You ever play Sim City? I take it you haven't.

Sure, the team and owners make a lot of money, but they aren't the only ones that use the stadium, and places like that are a huge boon to the areas they are in. Many of these stadiums seat up to 100,000 people. That's 100,000 people traveling to town or out of the house, stopping to buy gas, getting something to eat on the way home, staying in hotels, shopping before and after.

No, there's a lot of reason to believe that communities benefit. The main issue is making sure traffic and crime and such are handled. Beyond that, you can't say it isn't beneficial to the community to have tens of thousands of people coming in that wouldn't otherwise.

thatoneguyinslc

on Jul 06, 2005

It's a trade-off at best. But Baker brings up a very valid point.

Stadiums can generate a lot of cash by leasing out the venue for other events. And by default, surrounding businesses also gain revenue during usage of the facility.

In the case of Jerry Jones...He's a sleazeball who is used to bullying people to get what he wants.

bakerstreet

on Jul 06, 2005

Many times these places are used to revitalize urban areas that have been abandoned by shoppers. I'm not saying that this case is necessary or fair, but in general a lot of towns and neighborhoods have been revitalized by such.

The olympics is a good example. It is going to cost untold amounts of money to get London ready. Do you think they will benefit? And that is an expense for primarily one year's use. The re-invigoration and interest it will provide couldn't be rated in cost.

lifehappens

on Jul 06, 2005

Sure, the team and owners make a lot of money, but they aren't the only ones that use the stadium, and places like that are a huge boon to the areas they are in. Many of these stadiums seat up to 100,000 people. That's 100,000 people traveling to town or out of the house, stopping to buy gas, getting something to eat on the way home, staying in hotels, shopping before and after.

But Joe Shmoe still gets paid the blue collar wages. The average low/middle income group doesn't get higher wages because of the sudden influx of cash. The money doesn't go into his pocket. And saying that there are more jobs then avalible doesn't justify the fact he now has to fork out more money for gas and groceries.

That's actually a situation that might warrant such a decision. Removing a run-down or abandoned area that only attracts crime would serve the community. BUT if it includes forcibly removing 90+ families from homes that are not derilict or condemded....then it is another matter. The run down area isn't makiing money for the owners, so selling would be a valid option for them. The community at large would benifit as well.

The olympics is a good example. It is going to cost untold amounts of money to get London ready. Do you think they will benefit? And that is an expense for primarily one year's use. The re-invigoration and interest it will provide couldn't be rated in cost.

Good Point. BUT the Olympics is not an example of citizens paying for someone elses' personal profit. The facilities that are built, presumably using bonds/taxes/private funds would become a source of pride in that nation as they host 100s of other countries. After the Olympics, most facilities would be converted for public use---and thereby offsetting the original cost or simply sold (not given).

I do concern myself with the possibility that private homes/buisnesses would be given to other private investors. But I don't know how emminent domain issues work in London.

bakerstreet

on Jul 06, 2005

Heh, I think you have a higher view of the Olympics than I do. In my experience the cities in question pay the tab for the vast majority of the infrastructure, as happens with World's Fairs and all the rest.

You should also not forget that people, lots of people, scream for these stadiums, many like the "blue collar" people you mention who fill the stands once they are built. You might call it meaningless, but it isn't for the 100,000 or so people that pay ghastly amounts to sit there and watch.

If you have a problem with how this particular case is going, more power to ya, but in general things like this are very good for local economies, and a rare expression of the state putting money back in, instead of siphoning it off.

I suppose they COULD just filch the money as usual and build nothing at all.

lifehappens

on Jul 07, 2005

I think you have a higher view of the Olympics than I do.

I think most people have that high view of the Olympics. Most people relish the opportunity of hosting the Olympics. But the point was about should public funds (taxes) go into private coffers (Sports Teams/buisness owners etc) I don't approve of a city paying for the construction of a hotel....and then the profits going to a private owner. The fact is, this is a dishonest money shifting operation....from our pocketbooks into the wallet of the rich. If the city builds it....sports teams should rent or lease it... or all the profits should go to those who paid for it.

You might call it meaningless, but it isn't for the 100,000 or so people that pay ghastly amounts to sit there and watch.

Hmmmm...Tax increase to pay to build it, then everyone has to pay enourmous sums of money to use it? And the profits for ticket sales don't go to pay back the city....they go into the team owner's wallet.

in general things like this are very good for local economies, and a rare expression of the state putting money back in, instead of siphoning it off. I suppose they COULD just filch the money as usual and build nothing at all.

I know that this is good for the economy in general, but the state is putting public money into a private venture. and the school finance disaster is example enough of how stupid the government can be in managing "public funds"

bakerstreet

on Jul 07, 2005

So you figure people will be so angry that the seats will be empty opening day?

just john

on Jul 07, 2005

You know it could always be worse. I live in Louisiana and we have to foot the bill for the New Orleans Saints. Do you believe they had the gaul to ask for a new stadium?

ParaTed2k

on Jul 07, 2005

Gideon, funny you should mention the Green Bay Packers. Sure, it brings in a lot of money to the city of Green Bay, but as you well know, money brought in to a city doesn't necessarily translate to lower taxes for the people. In fact, in the case of the Green Bay Packers, it only means more taxes for the people.

A few years ago the people of Green Bay complained that they pay all the taxes and the whole state benefits, so they tried to get a state tax passed to help "share the burdon". Counties outside of Green Bay pushed in into referendum... which died a hideously painful death.

The only difference between a privately owned team and a socialist team is, with privately owned the rich owners and investors get all the profits. With a socialist team, the government fatcats have more money to spend. Either way, the NFL, NBA and MLB have each created a "private" situation where the taxpayers loss is the investors (or in case of the Packers, the local government) gets all the bills.

Unfortunatly, the propaganda is strong on the side of major league sports.

BakerStreet, you make a great point, all the support that goes into having a major league team does bring in a lot more dollars. Unfortunatly though, for those who aren't involved in making money off the team pay and pay. Do you know how much property values go up in the area of the city that the stadium stands? Property values go up and so do the headaches.

After working in Bradley Center (Milwaukee Bucks), Miller Park and the old County Stadium (Brewers), I say to Major League Sports, If you want to make private profits, put up or shut up! Quit shaking the taxpayers down to cover your expenses then whining if anything has to cost you a dime!!!

Of course, this comes from someone who isn't much of a sports fan. ;~D

lifehappens

on Jul 08, 2005

So you figure people will be so angry that the seats will be empty opening day?

Now you are being ridiculous. The point I was trying to make is people shouldn't be forced to pay taxes to subsidize someone elses profit. If people are so happy to have a major sports stadium.....have the owner use the money from the overpriced tickets to pay for the construction...not my tax dollars.

Do you believe they had the gaul to ask for a new stadium?

I take it that the Saints suck....

Sure, it brings in a lot of money to the city of Green Bay, but as you well know, money brought in to a city doesn't necessarily translate to lower taxes for the people. In fact, in the case of the Green Bay Packers, it only means more taxes for the people.

EXACTLY THE POINT!!!!
THANK YOU PARATED FOR YOUR INSIGHT!!!!!!

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2005

"Now you are being ridiculous"

Am I? Not only do people tolerate it, but they go and pay MORE money to the people who you are complaining about. Tens of thousands of people will be there cheering when they open the doors. The owners are supposed to think the people are outraged? Is painting their faces and showing up to cheer a sign of their displeasure?

No offense, but this is like saying "Stop hitting me", shortly followed by "Hit me again." If people have a problem with professional sports, they could fix it in about two weeks. The salaries of these players average out to tens of thousands of dollars per game. If the stands were empty for only a few games, they'd be scrambling for public approval.

The second or third game no one showed up to, lemme tell ya, they'd be begging to know what they could do to fix things.

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2005

I don't mean to harrow you about it, but damn, i HATE professional sports. It makes me physically sick to think that people would go pay these sweaty cretins money to half-ass their way through each game.

So when you start talking taxes and injustice and people having their homes stolen, I'm like, WTF! Who is asking for it, the rich guy or the politician? Heck no, all the morons who go pay $30 a ticket to sit and idolize these turds.

If a community gets taxed by professional sports, they asked for it by supporting the garbage. Like I said, a handful of games where no one shows up, and the owners are running in the red. They won't do it.

You want rid of them, stop paying them.

lifehappens

on Jul 10, 2005

You want rid of them, stop paying them.

I don't pay them, but most people would be unwilling to stop supporting them UNTIL it was their home that was on the chopping block. Sigh.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!