Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
In his cartoon from our June issue, Peter Bagge recounts the joys of paying for gigantic sports stadia.
|5.23.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I watched this whole scenario play out in Pittsburgh, and read
about a similar story in Miami (Thanks Dave Barry!!!).
Nuff' said.
|5.23.07 @ 4:21PM|#
For all you geeks out there, I wish to remind you that Mr. Bagge is scheduled to attend Dragon*Con in Atlanta over Labor Day weekend. That is all
|5.23.07 @ 4:54PM|#
DC seems to be going through the double whammy of unnecessary stadium funding and unwise convention center funding.
Bill Pope|5.23.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Unfortunately, this is one of the consequences of treating corporate political donations as a form of "speech" to be protected. It's completely disingenuous to say they should be allowed to give as much as they want to whomever and say the solution is to curtail governmental intervention so these donations won't matter. It 's these donations that ensure corporate welfare and preferences will be maintained while at the same time the average Joe is forced to compete against the wage rates pervailing in India and China.
|5.23.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Isn't "stadia" the correct plural in both Greek and Latin? Greek stadion and Latin stadium, I think. If so, it's hard to argue that stadia is wrong in English, even if stadiums is now the accepted plural. My dictionary accepts either plural.
|5.23.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Bill Pope,
So, companies give millions to candidates so that the candidates
will earmark millions for the companies? And this problem resides
with the fact that the companies can give the money freely, not
with the fact that the politicians can forcibly tax the money and
pass it back out to them? Oh, and this has something to do with
outsourcing, too, right?
|5.23.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Don't feed the pedants!
(I'll apologize later for feeding the trolls.)
|5.23.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Actually the bigger scam is the agreement made with the local government to continually fund the stadiums. Several years ago Forbes Magazine came out with an article that showed how several of these super-sized stadiums were being financed by the taxpayers, allowing the team owners to spend 100% of the money coming in to pay for the player salaries. The basic utilities and the staff that work there are all covered by taxpayers just so Mr. MVP can get his $600 million paycheck and then sit on his ass for most of the season with a "sprained thumb".
Robert|5.23.07 @ 5:36PM|#
"So, companies give millions to candidates so that the
candidates will earmark millions for the companies? And this
problem resides with the fact that the companies can give the money
freely, not with the fact that the politicians can forcibly tax the
money and pass it back out to them?"
I think cause & effect were being imputed there -- that the
politicians might not have that power otherwise.
|5.23.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Rimfax,
Don't you see. If we just pass enough regulation and put enough
power into the RIGHT hands, corruption will simply cease to exist.
Corporations will stop trying to influence legislators into passing
rent seeking legislation. And the legislators? Why they'll just
stop being influenced by all that dirty money and act only in the
best interests of their constituents.
|5.23.07 @ 5:49PM|#
"Isn't "stadia" the correct plural in both Greek and
Latin?"
Yeah, but "stadiums" in good old American English is 30 times more
common, according to my usage dictionary.
"Stadia" bugs the hell out of me. And yes, I freely admit that's
pedantic!
|5.23.07 @ 6:04PM|#
Well, color me didactic, but I like the Latin plurals. I suppose
that's assumed, given my cognomen.
I guess you don't care for "media", either? Or is mere popularity
your only guide?
I kid! I kid!
|5.23.07 @ 6:07PM|#
I guess you don't care for "media", either?
I only use the term "alumnuses", for what that's worth.
Urkobold®|5.23.07 @ 6:33PM|#
SHUT UP, MR. JF! YOU WERE NOT BROUGHT UPON THIS WORLD TO BE
AMUSED!
THE PLURAL OF LOL IS LOLAE.
|5.23.07 @ 7:04PM|#
And the plural of vomitorium is vomitoria. And it doesn't have anything to do with vomiting.
|5.23.07 @ 7:14PM|#
I understand that "stadiums" is acceptable, but would think that
"stadia" is equally acceptable, even if less common.
Although honestly, I don't have enough datums to say for
certain.
|5.23.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Although honestly, I don\'t have enough datums to say for
certain.
Don\'t you mean datae?
|5.23.07 @ 7:16PM|#
And the plural of vomitorium is vomitoria. And it doesn't
have anything to do with vomiting.
When ever I am in stadias, I make it a point to refer to the exit
as a vomitorium. Because I'm a pedantic douchbag, mostly.
|5.23.07 @ 7:28PM|#
And the plural of vomitorium is vomitoria. And it doesn\'t
have anything to do with vomiting.
The entrances and exits in Roman stadiums were called vomitoriums.
I didn\'t know that.
I have learned something today. And for that you shall all pay
dearly!
Witness:
\"And after the Circus Maximus was over, the exits therein vomited
out the vulgar crowd.
Contented with Wine, they all proceeded calmly to their dwellings;
where they did, then, fornicateth with their
mother-in-laws.\"
|5.23.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Because I'm a pedantic douchbag, mostly.
I guess that's better than being a pedantic
douchebag.
Nick
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 8:06PM|#
ProGLib,
I think Rimfax called you a troll @ 5:32!
Congratulations are in order. Urkobold will be proud.
|5.23.07 @ 8:31PM|#
Gosh, can getting banned be far behind?
I'm not sure I was really getting the troll label, though.
I can only dream.
A|5.23.07 @ 8:45PM|#
About damn time Peter Bagge wrote another lengthy comic-article. This one just underscores the fact that he should publish more.
|5.23.07 @ 10:22PM|#
SHUT UP, MR. JF! YOU WERE NOT BROUGHT UPON THIS WORLD TO BE
AMUSED!
Too bad. That's twice in one thread you've got LOLAE out of me.
Incredible, considering my previous opinion of you and your
(group?) blog.
|5.23.07 @ 11:13PM|#
Justified threadjack:
Consumer groups in Italy demand the cancellation of a Babara
Streisand concert due to high ticket prices.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6682831.stm.
I suggest that libertarians make common cause with these groups to
prevent the horror of another Streisand performance.
|5.24.07 @ 3:59AM|#
Great comic by Peter, but it passes along a myth or two about
the Packers. Packer stock cannot be sold for big bucks.
Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value, and there are no season ticket privileges associated with stock ownership. No shareholder is allowed to own more than 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no one individual is able to assume control of the club. - Packers.com
The team managed to survive in the NFL's smallest market by playing
some of its home games each year in Milwaukee, at such venues as
the infield of the State Fair Park racetrack (government), the old
Marquette University football stadium (private), and finally
Milwaukee County Stadium (government). By having, in effect, two
home cities, the Green Bay team extended its market size. During
the "glory years" of the 60s, Milwaukee was one of the nation's top
20 cities. Wisconsin media markets frequently top the lists of % of
households that watch NFL games, for both telecasts involving the
Packers and those featuring other teams. Even the XFL and Arena
football on NBC did well here, and we had no XFL team and the arena
league was only around for a few seasons. Pittsburgh, PA and
environs and the state of Ohio are similarly mad for pro football,
and vie for the top spot on those lists.
IIRC, the Feds never recognized the ostensibly non-profit Pack as
tax exempt, though the state did.
I was pleased to see that Pete didn't repeat the oft heard canard
that the Packers are owned by the City of Green Bay, or by Brown
County, or by the state of Wisconsin. Most of the stockholders live
behind the Cheddar Curtain, but many do not. Some even live in
Illinois!
There is at least one reason to have been initially sympathetic to
team owners who begged for tax funded arenas. In the early 20th
Century, when pro sports started to be big business, an owner like
Charles Ebbets could raise the funds to build his own venue and
make a go of it. Ballparks such as Ebbets Field or Fenway park were
once considered state-of-the-art facilities. They didn't have much
in the way of parking, built as they were in the days when most
fans arrived by streetcar or train. (Hence the Brooklyn team's most
famous nickname, the Trolley Dodgers.) As the century progressed,
night baseball and televised games changed the economics of sports.
Running a stadium became more expensive. Besides the added costs of
land for parking lots, and installing and operating lighting, local
property taxes were not kind to private stadium owners. The New
York Yankees had a sweet deal. They owned the House That Ruth
Built, but in 1953 the land it sat on was sold to the non-profit,
tax exempt Knights of Columbus, while the structure itself was
donated to Rice
University.
One could say that the cities, by taxing team-owned arenas at the
same rates as more profitable commercial buildings, ran the sports
barons out of the stadium business. The most infamous example of
this meddling was Robert Moses' hostility to Walter O'Malley's plan
to replace Ebbets Field with a retractible-dome ballpark on
property owned by the Long Island Rail Road, near the current
Atlantic Yards project being built for the NBA's Nets. Moses wanted
to plant the Dodgers roughly where Shea Stadium is now, in Queens.
To his credit, Moses complained that Federal slum clearance funds
had to be used for a "public purpose" which he noted that the
Dodgers weren't. Against him is that he wasn't opposed to a
subsidized stadium, if he got to site it, and, one suspects, if
O'Malley wasn't the tenant. The Dodgers would have had to rely on
the city to take land and "clear slums" to put together a large
enough site.
L.A.'s bribe, complete with a disgusting example of ED in Chavez
Ravine that came close to ethnic cleansing, ended the dream of
keeping Brooklyn in the the NL.
I'd start pointing fingers at the City of Cleveland. Municipal
Stadium, which opened in the early 1930s, was financed by a bond
issue. I've got a notion that WPA funds were involved, but I can't
find a cite for that. In the 1950s, Milwaukee built County Stadium
on spec, and while the AAA Brewers could have played there, it was
always planned to lure an NL or AL team that was unhappy with its
current situation. That turned out to be the Boston Braves, the
Brewers parent club.
If municipal and state officials had never committed the original
sin of dangling cheap or free rental of new arenas in front of
sports teams, would all this franchise hopping and subsidy
mongering ever get started? I wonder. If I were a local councilman
back in the `50s, I might have argued for favorable tax treatment
of stadiums, perhaps by designating most of their non-land
assessment as special use equipment, rather than as real estate.
Sure, tax the value of the land, but if someone buys an obsolete
baseball or football stadium, it either has to be renovated or
razed before the property it sits on can be profitably developed.
By having the arena owned by a governmental or non-profit entity,
the tax issues are avoided.
Kevin
|5.24.07 @ 4:01AM|#
Threads are rather silly today.
I've noticed that apparently Grotius spent the day smoking pot, and
highnumber, VM, and Pro Libertate have been mighty prolific.
|5.24.07 @ 4:10AM|#
You know, the Cleveland Indians were recently, for a rather brief time, a publicly held corporation. Apparently there were conditions attached, because when the team was sold, shareholders were forced to sell to the new owner (but, it should be noted, at a handsome profit).
Mike Kozlowski|5.24.07 @ 5:20AM|#
Kevin-
Cleveland Municipal Stadium was indeed built with a bond issue, but
it was intended as a high school and college venue - although the
Indians played about half their home games there from 1932 on, they
played the rest at tiny League Park until 1948.
Also, Cleveland may have had the right idea about how to deal with
'build-or-else' owners. Not long after the Jacobs brothers bought
the Indians, they started dropping the usual extortionate hints.
Plans for a new stadium/arena complex had been in the works for
years, but the voters kept shooting it down at the polls. Finally,
an MLB executive let slip (whether intentionally or not was ever
determined) that the owners' committee had already approved in
principle allowing the Indians to move to Tampa. A few days after
that, Cleveland political and business leaders took the Jacobs' to
lunch and pointed out that their fortune was based on their real
estate investments and developments in downtown Cleveland - and
they were based (and apparently fairly precariously at the time)on
tax breaks, exemptions from local and county laws, and the overall
goodwill of the Cleveland power structure.
NONE of which would ever be forthcoming again if the Tribe
moved.
It would be another year or so before the new stadium was approved
by the voters, but there has never since been any suggestion by the
Jacobs that they would move the Indians.
Mike Kozlowski
|5.24.07 @ 8:04AM|#
Mike K:
Live by the subsidy, die by the subsidy, huh?
As for TMOTL, how did the loss of the NFL Rams and the creation of
the AAFC Browns figure into things?
Kevin
Garth|5.24.07 @ 9:33AM|#
I hope Bagge does one of these about all of the aquariums (aquaria?) that popped up all over the country during the dot-com boom, saw a brief flurry in attendance and now are essentially fish retirement homes at huge public expense in maintenance, and debt service.
|5.24.07 @ 10:30AM|#
In a nutshell: the masses are forced to subsidize the salaries of the owners and athletes.
ed|5.24.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Don't worry, Garth. I predict that all those fish tanks will be converted into municipal fish farms to feed the homeless. They'll be healthier by eating more fish, see, and therefore will cost the state less in healthcare. Everybody wins.
Russ 2000|5.24.07 @ 10:55AM|#
The point about subsidizing the giant salaries is well-taken and
usually missed.
The thing is, even in the one or two cases where the boondoggle
actually winds up not being a boondoggle, it just creates an urge
to make sure another bonafide boondoggle does happen. Case in point
is Comiskey Park. This was built based on a "temporary" sales tax
on hotels and restaurants in an expanded downtown area of Chicago.
A rip-off to be sure, but it came at a fortunate time and enough
revenue was generated so that the bonds could be paid off
early.
So the bonds were paid off, the baseball team paid for the
maintenace of the park, and they paid (low) rent. Of course, being
a public facility it isn't subject to property tax, although a tax
on tickets sort of replaces that.
Anyway, since the debt was retired, the businesses in the expanded
sales tax area started pushing for an end to the extra sales tax.
Instead, the body created to oversee Comiskey Park was used to
re-do Soldier Field, which has no chance even in a booming economy
to ever recoup its costs.
Also, Fenway Park does suck off the public teat. The seating area
was expanded using public property which the Red Sox paid zero
dollars for. The Red Sox also get exclusive use of a public street
(Yawkey Way) on every game day for the grand total cost of zero
dollars.
|5.24.07 @ 11:00AM|#
"I predict that all those fish tanks will be converted into
municipal fish farms to feed the homeless."
Or possibly vice versa; who wouldn't pay to see some smelly
panhandler tossed into the shark tank?
ed|5.24.07 @ 11:11AM|#
who wouldn't pay to see some smelly panhandler tossed into
the shark tank?
Two tickets, please.
|5.24.07 @ 11:16AM|#
I don't get the arguments against cities funding stadiums. Obviously, the people of such cities feel that it's worth it to do so, and are willing to make free-market offers to teams in order to bring them to their areas. They do this sort of thing for a lot of businesses, and it usually works out for the best.
|5.24.07 @ 11:23AM|#
ps-
I hereby nominate, for the position of Smelly Panhandler Numero
Uno, Little Jimmy Irsay. I might actually be induced to return to
Indpls for an afternoon if the payoff was seeing Jim Irsay (lashed,
in a comical yet sexually suggestive posture, to Bill Polian and
Bart Peterson) lowered slowly into the polar bear enclosure at the
Indpls Zoo.
|5.24.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Obviously, the people of such cities feel that it's worth it
to do so, and are willing to make free-market offers to teams in
order to bring them to their areas.
At best, this is "some of the people of such cities", and the
offers are funded with tax money taken with the threat of force,
rendering them something other than "free market" offers.
They do this sort of thing for a lot of businesses,
That doesn't make it right.
and it usually works out for the best.
How so? Massive transfers of wealth from average citizens to very
wealthy citizens sure works out for the recipients, but I'm not
clear on how Jose Taxpayer is better off having his pockets
lightened for the benefit of the wealthy.
|5.24.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I don't get the arguments against cities funding stadiums.
Obviously, the people of such cities feel that it's worth it to do
so, and are willing to make free-market offers to teams in order to
bring them to their areas. They do this sort of thing for a lot of
businesses, and it usually works out for the best.
Dan T.,
That read more like libertarian true-believer sarcasm. Are you
finally coming around or are you just phoning them in today?
|5.24.07 @ 1:01PM|#
P Brooks | May 24, 2007, 11:23am | #
ps-
I hereby nominate, for the position of Smelly Panhandler Numero
Uno, Little Jimmy Irsay. I might actually be induced to return to
Indpls for an afternoon if the payoff was seeing Jim Irsay (lashed,
in a comical yet sexually suggestive posture, to Bill Polian and
Bart Peterson) lowered slowly into the polar bear enclosure at the
Indpls Zoo.
I make a trip back to Indy for that.
Nick
|5.24.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Good piece by Bagge. He doesn't mention, however, some
interesting details about why the Kingdome got demolished.
The Kingdom was indeed a concrete monstrosity and it was so large
it could only be effectively used for major league sporting events
and the occasional boat show, home show, monster truck rally and so
forth. The interior had seating all the way to nosebleed altitudes
and the ceiling consisted of large fiberboard panels tacked onto
the concrete shell with metal clips. Then, in the 90's, there began
a little problem with the panels falling off by themselves. After
investigation it was discovered that the original design hadn't
accounted for condensation between the concrete and the panels--
this rusted out the clips. The potential liability of panels
dropping and killing some sports fans was, needless to say, of
great worry and the cost to repair was astronomical. And a great
reason to blow it up and justify building something new (i.e.,
spend more tax money).
Interestingly, contrast this with the city of Tacoma, Seattle's
less-prosperous cousin to the south. After the Kingdome was built,
Tacoma experienced edifice envy and felt they MUST have a dome as
well. So they erected the Tacoma Dome, a much less ambitious,
smaller center, built primarily from wood. (This was a great source
of amusement for smug Seattleites at the time.) But since it was
smaller it could be used for a wider variety of smaller events, and
it didn't have the problem of potential deadly missiles falling on
the crowd. It's ironic that, while Seattle's Kingdome is now
history (except for the debts that still are being paid by the
taxpayers) Tacoma's dome is still in use, hosting profitable
concerts by the usual array of pop-tarts, big-hat country stars and
aging rockers. Who woulda thunk?
|5.24.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Dan T.,
That read more like libertarian true-believer sarcasm. Are you
finally coming around or are you just phoning them in
today?
Just pointing out that if communities didn't feel like it was worth
it to fund sports arenas, they'd stop doing it. That's all.
NoStar|5.24.07 @ 2:23PM|#
The design of the Kingdome did in fact take into account the condensation. State of the Art De-Humidifiers were installed, but they were never turned on.
|5.24.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Thanks for the clarification, NoStar. It was reported that the clip problem was caused by condensation; I had always wondered why they didn't try to pin liability back as a design error. So instead they just didn't use/maintain it as originally specified.
|5.24.07 @ 4:40PM|#
At best, this is "some of the people of such cities", and
the offers are funded with tax money taken with the threat of
force, rendering them something other than "free market"
offers.
The free market I'm referring to is between cities, who compete to
land pro sports teams by making better offers than other
cities.
How so? Massive transfers of wealth from average citizens to
very wealthy citizens sure works out for the recipients, but I'm
not clear on how Jose Taxpayer is better off having his pockets
lightened for the benefit of the wealthy.
Because the taxpayers are getting something in return that they
feel is worth it - in this case a pro sports team in their
town.
Otherwise, the taxpayers would vote against these measures and
candidates who support them (which has happened in few
cases).
I'm a big fan of community freedom. If the residents of a certain
city want to publicly fund a stadium, then they by all means should
do so.
biologist|5.24.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Dan T.: the voters of Tampa turned down a sales tax to build a new stadium for the Bucs. City council and the mayor manipulated the system to hold another vote with some other goodies (like schools, equipment for the fire dept., etc.) tacked on so that it passed. When voters were given the first up or down vote on the single issue of whether to fund a stadium, they declined. That wasn't good enough for the politicians.
|5.24.07 @ 7:41PM|#
The free market I'm referring to is between cities, who
compete to land pro sports teams by making better offers than other
cities.
This is the comment of a person who has absolutely no
concept of what a free market is. Cities are governments.
Governments are collections of people with guns who are prepared to
kill people who do not comply. I do not wish to be killed because I
do not want to support a local sports team.
A free market is dependent on people who participate for voluntary
gain, not those who comply because they will be killed
otherwise.
Voters frequently approve things because they believe others will
pay (only the rich will pay taxes - to pay my medical bills - to
pay for my sports team, only the negroes will have to live on the
other side of the tracks, only the Jews will go to the death camps
etc). They are frequently surprised when the storm troopers show up
on their doorsteps.
|5.24.07 @ 7:58PM|#
biologist,
And that vote barely passed, even then. It was a horrible
demonstration of the city not giving a rat's ass about the voters.
Or the good of the city. I was livid over that for a good
month.
biologist|5.24.07 @ 8:14PM|#
I was most astonished at the time at the vitriol aimed at the former mayor, Bill Poe, IIRC, for suing the city government for violating state law by using public funds to benefit the Glazers. Then I was pissed at the state supreme court for its doublethink based ruling.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245