Voters Don't Want To Pay for Your Dumb Stadium
In Albuquerque, Augusta, and Denver, plans to borrow and spend on stadiums got soundly defeated on Election Day.

Voters in Denver, Colorado, approved ballot measures on Tuesday authorizing the city government to issue bonds to spruce up parks, renovate homeless shelters, and upgrade public transit.
They rejected just one portion of Mayor Michael Hancock's five-part, $450 million bond proposal: the one that would have directed $190 million of that borrowing toward the construction of a new multi-use stadium near the city's hip River North neighborhood. While the first four parts of Hancock's proposal won support from at least 60 percent of voters, 58 percent rejected the stadium subsidy, according to The Denver Post's election tracker.
The stadium project was the most contentious of the bond issues. Hancock trotted out the usual claims, arguing that the new stadium (and upgrades to the neighboring National Western Center, a rodeo complex) would "create year-round jobs and provide funding for community programs and projects important for the well-being of surrounding communities." But the election results would suggest that the residents of the city disagree. If it had been approved, the stadium project would have soaked up 35 percent of the funding in the mayor's proposal, and many people felt "the money would be better spent elsewhere," Colorado Politics reports.
Indeed, there are few more effective ways to waste $190 million than by throwing it into stadium projects, which almost always underperform the lofty promises made about how they will generate jobs, tax revenue, and business opportunities. And when given the opportunity to block those projects, voters seem less likely to be duped these days.
Denver's proposed new stadium was one of three similar projects to get a resounding thumbs-down from the public during this week's elections. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a proposal that would have spent $50 million in public money on a $70 million stadium for the city's minor league soccer team was rejected by 65 percent of voters. That happened despite Mayor Tim Keller—a vocal proponent of the project—winning reelection and despite voters approving all the other bond measures on the ballot, Field of Schemes blogger Neil deMause notes.
"The people of Albuquerque also made it clear they want public resources used on other community and social priorities," Stop the Stadium, a group that led opposition to the Albuquerque project, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, 65 percent of voters in Augusta, Georgia, rejected a similar bond issue that would have seen the city take on debt to fund the construction of a $235 million stadium for a yet-to-be-determined future occupant (possibly a minor league hockey team). The cost of the new stadium was projected to add about $100 to the average property tax bill in the city—all to create "a handful of new permanent jobs," according to The Augusta Chronicle. Who wouldn't vote for that?
But voters in Augusta might not have the final say on whether their wallets get raided for the project. Brad Usry, vice chairman of the county authority that would run the new stadium, told the Chronicle last month that a "no" vote would "only delay the project so the authority can find other means of funding it."
So voters were asked to give their approval for the stadium project, but rejecting it apparently doesn't count? Cool democracy you have there, Augusta.
For the proponents of stadium boondoggles, however, Tuesday's results are probably just one more reason to prefer backroom deals—like the super swampy agreement that brought the newly crowned World Series champion Atlanta Braves to their home in Cobb County, Georgia—over an open, democratic process. And that's why more cities should embrace an idea pioneered in Boise, Idaho, two years ago and mandate that stadium projects get a public referendum.
If stadiums really were the cash cows that cities promise they are, there would be ample private funding for them. After all, cities don't need to use public funds to build commercial properties like warehouses and office buildings—because those projects can be reliably trusted to turn a profit.
Tuesday's results demonstrate once again that taxpayers are generally unwilling to hand over their money (or be on the hook for borrowed funds) to finance the sportsball dreams of politicians and team executives.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sportsball franchises, after taking a knee, were told to take a hike with their plans to publicly fund their Taj Mahballs.
Taj Mahballs
I giggled.
The singular, Taj Mahball, sounds less nutty.
More creamy!
Taxpayers might get too teste if they were required to fund a pair of Taj Mahballs.
Takes some real cajones to build a stadium
I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss.
that is what I do...... READ MORE
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…AB And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
You hit that one out of the park.
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.VHu Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.......... Pays 24
Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.GFa Everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……
So I started.............. E-CASH
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…EXg And i get surly a check of $12600 what's awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won't regret it! ……...........VISIT HERE
I am taking in substantial income two Hundred$ dollar online from my PC. A month ago I GOT check of almost $31k, this online work is basic and FHj direct, don’t need to go OFFICE, Its home online activity.
For More Information Visit…………Pays24
saw on tv Pat Mahomes is paying for a chick soccer stadium in Kansas City I can't imagine why
Tax write off?
Did he only write the check or will he have a management role such as chief financial officer?
I think he's the Chief Football Ambassador for the KC Royals now after taking a seat under the ownership tent
after taking a seat under the ownership tent
Is that a sexual innuendo? Because it sounds like a sexual innuendo.
is now.
I love football but I don't want any public spending on it. But this shows the problem:
"The people of Albuquerque also made it clear they want public resources used on other community and social priorities,
The spending is going to happen anyway. Apparently it doesn't even occur to people that there are no "public resources" and that this non-spending should result in less taxation.
This is a rather radical position and not obvious common sense. Who owns waterways? The air? Whoever shows up and claims it?
We're allowed to share the resources of this planet as free people. It's a tool available to us. Restricting the notion of publicly shared resources is to be anti-freedom. Any private ownership scheme is by definition a restriction on everyone else's freedom. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's not obvious that it should apply to literally everything.
Tragedy of commons.
The only thing about to destroy the habitable environment of planet earth is the selfish horror of the petroleum industry. Lots of private actors making lots of money there. Decades of propaganda instead of action to preserve resources.
About to destroy? And your focus is on ownership, resources and money. I’m shocked you are focused on wealth taking and not the environment. You’re carbon neutral, right?
Well you mentioned the tragedy of the commons, which refers to unregulated access to resources. You can regulate it with capitalism or you can regulate it totally publicly, but planting that phrase in a comments box does not automatically prove that adding a private profit motive protects resources, even though it has been used as propaganda to those ends.
It's used to argue for why the continent was rightly stolen from Native Americans, for example, who I suppose were on the precipice of using up all the natural resources until Europeans came along?
So punt on the “about to destroy” comment?
They used up all the mammoths that were in North America when they arrived but were gone by the time white man bad arrived. Some signed agreements; the agreements should be honored and in cases none exist, they should be made whole.
China is publicly regulated, no? How is that working out?
My private land is managed better than 95% of the public land in the US. No, I’m not interested in being forced to pay for poor service.
If you care about carbon pollution, why aren’t you carbon neutral? Just waiting for that wealth redistribution you fantasize about?
We're bringing back the mammoths.
I hope they're delicious.
Imagine all the methane that will be released from their dung. Kill them!
It doesn't matter how much I "care" about carbon pollution. There are simply the facts. Sitting idly by and letting the status quo go on can be, and is, the most radical course of action available. Sometimes it works out that way, per the tragedy to which you referred.
Humans are simply terrible at long-term thinking, though some are worse than others. I would have definitely been the kid who delayed gratification in those "don't eat the candy" experiments. I may end up delaying gratification so much that I die on a pile of money that was never spent, so it's all about the circumstances you find yourself in.
As to your bizarre implication that preserving the environment is about whether some individual is a hypocrite or not, all I can say is do better with knowledge. The entire point here is that individuals acting, even perfectly rationally as they see it, doesn't solve global problems.
So avoid all the questions other than implying that you aren’t carbon neutral. Way to be the change you want to see. You aren’t acting like it is an issue. Neither are the folks pushing this.
Are these “facts” the ones voted on by politicians that gain control and power? And the ones that supporting scientists maintain employment and gain notoriety if the same “facts” are true?
A high school education in science should be enough for you to figure it out.
So you have nothing. Beyond just wanting to take shit for yourself. Understood.
Humans are simply terrible at long-term thinking, though some are worse than others.
There is no point in saying 'some are worse than others'. That creates a hubris that some are not particularly terrible at long-term thinking and that they are thus better equipped to decide for those others who are worse what should happen. ALL of the current options - whether privatizing or socializing the decision create that hubris. It's the same problem that underlies the resource uses of climate change, $30 trillion of perpetual debt, and most sources of intergenerational conflict.
For thousands of years we have seen the problem of the long-term - the biblical Jubilee was designed to zero out the problems every other generation. For thousands of years, someone with a vested interest in perpetuating a problem has undermined whatever is proposed to solve it - the biblical Jubilee only happened a couple of times and then disappeared. For thousands of years, land was owned as usufruct, then it changed to 'property' (usus + fructus + abusus) and now no one knows what usufruct means.
I think this stuff is a really interesting challenge. The 10,000 year clock. Steps to figure out how intergenerational governance might actually work. etc
But when American politics is dominated by 70+ year olds, it's real safe to assume that in the long-term everything is not just dead but fully composted.
Who owns waterways? The air?
Is the quote suggesting we sell public waterways and use the proceeds for social spending? Or is she referring to taxpayer money?
Reason would be better if the retards went back to Daily Kos.
Or maybe the people of Albequerque came to their senses and didn't want to pay any amount of money for any kind of soccer stadium because, you know, it's soccer.
At least in New Mexico voters realize that bond measures are spending.
California voters appear to believe that bond money is free since investors buy the bonds (i.e. loan money to the state for taxpayers to pay back forever.)
I ended up interacting with the pro-stadium spambot that texted me to try and convince me to vote yes. It swore up and down that they'd conducted a study which would show that it would definitely be a cash positive choice to vote yes.
I was skeptical.
Eventually I decided I wasn't still bored enough to keep interacting with it and blocked it.
Politicians aren't trying to fund stadiums per se. They are funding ribbon-cutting ceremonies at which all the local news cameras will be rolling.
Oh no, they care about the stadium. It's the reason they get those kickbacks from their team owner buddies.
Please ignore the impostor below.
Please ignore the impostor below.
I assume you were referring to your duplicate post, but M4E posting in the middle makes it delightfully meta.
I hardily endorse the idea of referendums for public spending on stadiums and other entertainment facilities. I suspect that stadium will be able to find the money, they are asking just to see if they can get the public money first.
Teams have in the past used the threat of moving, but as more of these referendums fail, I think that threat will decline.
Congress can and should deprive them of the ability to make that threat by enacting a law that any sports team or affiliated entity that receives direct or indirect public subsidies must pay an equal amount in federal taxes, due upon receipt. So if the Chargers (to pick on a team with no fans) had persuaded San Diego to subsidize a new stadium to the tune of $200 million, they would have received a $200 million bill from the IRS.
Oh no, they care about the stadium. It's the reason they get those kickbacks from their team owner buddies.
Who can turn down JOBS, infrastructure, world championships, and the right to pay $25 just to park your car and then $500 for a family of four to see multi-millionaires sleep walk through meaningless games in order to enrich billionaires? What is wrong with you people?
But some teams make the playoffs, and the players start to care then.
And then it will cost you $5000 to watch those games.
I really gotta start that Budget Football League I've been contemplating for years.
Shit, even going to college and minor-league games is hardly worth the cost these days.
Go to high school games.
The refreshments are reasonably priced, you can always get a good seat, and you’ll see your neighbors.
Unless you’ve got to stay 100 yards away, go enjoy a local game. Support your community and have fun.
Denver's football stadium is currently (well, as of last time I checked a couple of years ago) funded by a sales tax district named the Science and Technology Arena.
Yeah, all they really did was switch the one for Coors Field over to Mile High. That had to be approved with a vote as well, but it was right after the Super Bowl wins, so the team had a lot of goodwill.
Denver got lucky getting their new sports buildings constructed when the economy was good.
The major pro sports could easily pay for their own stadiums. Baseball did for a long time. Some studies have suggested that the public subsidy mostly goes to inflate player salaries and owners egos.
Does any one really believe that the stars would stop playing the sport if they were paid less? Where else could Patrick Mahomes earn $45,000,000? If the team had to pay for the stadium maybe he would only make $20,000,000, I doubt he would quit and do something else.
Yes, it does go to player salaries, perhaps indirectly. There is no need for the public to fund stadiums since the league takes in plenty of money.
Why should I help pay, through taxes, for a grown man playing a game making millions of dollars?
States and local governments frequently spend big bucks to make privately-funded building possible: brownfield remediation; building new roads; installing or upgrading utilities infrastructure, especially sewers. That Business A and its employees are paying taxes to make things easier for a new, competing Business B sucks. This is often done via tax breaks B will be eligible for that A can't access. Not saying this is right.
It's one thing to put in new public infrastructure for everyone to use, that ends up getting used disproportionately by a specific business.
It's another thing entirely to fund their factory for them.
I like Greg Esterbrook's suggestion, especially for the major pro-teams.
No broadcast from a publicly funded stadium can be copywrited.
They would find the money to build their playpens real quick
Won't hurt the Budget Football League. We're not going to have broadcasts. Or cable- or webcasts. Just a live audience.
But we're not going to need new stadiums either. Just some additional markings on existing fields.
Tell me you are not going to protect the QB and I am in. Watching Theismann get his leg snapped was spectacular.
Will a league that doesn’t protect its stars have the legs to operate long-term? Or will the extra hitting give them a leg up on the competition?
Better not kill the golden calf early, it might be kneeded later.
I can still hear it.
As I type this, I hear helicopters off in the distance about a mile or so away. It is for a parade in the commercial area of my immediate neighborhood to a certain stadium brought to the area by a "super swampy agreement", a parade that I might add that I am NOT going to walk the one-mile to the corner to go see. This should be no surprise to those who know me, because I have yet lower myself to setting foot on stadium property though my wife talked about it, but only because the World Series merchandise bought from the company store would excite a certain 12-year-old we know (close friend's child).
I might add that the "super swampy agreement" didn't consider the additional costs for providing game day traffic control. As a result, the county had a $1 million budget shortfall the first year, and the then newly elected county commission chairman had to push through a reversal of property tax cuts that his predecessor pushed through in order to try and bribe the voters into re-electing him. The attempted bribery through lower taxes didn't work. He was promptly voted out at the next election. As to that sports franchise shouldering some of the cost of traffic control, I don't know if it was ever fixed. If not, another reason for why my wife says a major league sports stadium makes for the worst neighbors ever!
What kind of idiots need traffic control provided by the locality?
The team can hire it’s own, or the locality can close parking lot access.
No reason you’ve got to pay for a problem they cause.
its own*
This brings to mind the effort by Columbus, Ohio and Nationwide Insurance to build a hockey arena in the late 1990's. I believe it was a vote for a county-wide sales tax. The exact quotes was "If this measured fails, THERE WILL BE NO HOCKEY IN COLUMBUS! There is no 'Plan B'! "
Well, come Election Tuesday, the measure fail miserably with >65% voting "No". On Thursday that week -- less than 48 hours later -- they found their "Plan B" they were able to build the arena, launching the Columbus Bluejackets into the powerhouse team of today.
From that day on, I was convinced only fools vote for taxes for this stuff.
"So voters were asked to give their approval for the stadium project, but rejecting it apparently doesn't count? Cool democracy you have there, Augusta."
The Democrats in Augusta were taking notes when the employee vs. independent contractor vote and overturning was going on in California.
People realized last year that they could survive without pro sports.
For some reason the TV contracts are still getting bid up, even as viewership falls.
Expect reality to set in at some point, and salary caps to fall accordingly.
Lemme see I got this right: The defeat of the stadium proposal not only doesn't mean they won't find some other way to fund it with government money, but also that it doesn't diminish the total amount of borrowing? And this is cause to celebrate? HyR bloggers really care whether government borrowing goes to a stadium project rather than for some other purposes? It's like it's not individual liberty they care about, but just some institutional betes noirs.
Stadium corporate welfare is a bad way to spend your tax dollars. Maybe they'll use the dollars to fix potholes or repair water systems instead. You don't know what they use it for is going to be bad until you know what it is. If government didn't spend at least some tax money you'd have to pave your own roads.
Prbably different in a unique setting like green bay, and i have no idea if they recieves public funding. But i was there before and after the renovation and I'd bet dollars to donuts the city has made far more in taxes over the last 20 years than the renovation cost.
Sometimes it's a waste of money, sometimes it isn't. Let the voters make their choice and live with it.
Free a rodgers and he can go to hell at the same time. He's an OG karen, so the schadenfreud is nice.
I'm old enough to remember 3 Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, PA home of the Pittsburgh Steelers. I also am old enough to remember that when the city of Pittsburgh entered into negotiations with the Steelers, Pirates and other sports teams for a new stadium, it was discovered that of the 35 million dollars borrowed nearly 25 years earlier, 26 million was still owed. Three Rivers Stadium was torn down in 2000 and Heinz Field (the replacement stadium, with naming rights) was started in its place. Pittsburgh said "Wow, we can't afford to float 281 million dollars to build a new stadium. Let's put it up as a tax referendum and let everyone join in on paying for the stadium. Yay us!" The day after the referendum was defeated "Damn cheap taxpayers!" So within 3 months Allegheny county (where Pittsburgh is located) passed a 1% tax on all transactions in the county. (The defeated referendum would have taxed all of the surrounding counties, spreading the luv to 6 or 7 counties.) So Pittsburgh not only said "I'm going to dry fuck you...uhhhnnn!" when the people said no, they got double dry fucked Uhhh....UUUUUHHHHHH!!! Of course this was so far back (1998) that it was actually new back then. So I'm not really surprised that other sports teams saw what could be done, just that it took them this long to get around to doing it. Voters may have turned it down, but politicians will still make it happen.
Yes yes. Stop paying for ridiculous stadiums. Why we have one here in St.Louis where the Rams used to play. Right now? Vacant! A complete waste of money ????????.
Making taxpayers fund stadiums for privately-owned sports teams is just another subsidy for millionaires we cannot afford and choose to no longer fund.
Private businesses, like sports teams, should pay for their own facilities. Do cities pay for the buildings occupied by Ace Hardware or Burger King? Nope. If they cannot generate enough revenue to cover their facilities, they should not be in business.
One way to think about this is: If your city was to borrow $190 million what would you do with it?
A) Provide $100,000 loans to 1,900 entrepreneurs that start in your city?
B) Provide $1,000,000 loans to 190 established companies to move their operations to your city?
Or...
C) Line the pockets of the ultra-rich by subsidizing an
entertainment venue and guaranteeing them a profit.
Everyone should review how Kansas City's Power & Light District has NOT worked. They can't pay their own way and KC has to continue to subsidize them.
From the KC Business Journal in February:
"Kansas City will consider refinancing the debt it incurred to develop Downtown’s Power & Light District... the city has had to take out $15 million per fiscal year from the general revenue fund to pay the debt... since the entertainment district hasn’t generated enough revenue on its own to pay it down."
DON'T BE STUPID!!