1. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    01 Mar '12 05:02
    http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-forbes-atlanta_most_miserable_sports_cities_022812

    As a resident of Seattle, I can honestly say there is a growing resentment concerning pro sports in this city. A few years ago the NBA's Seattle Super Sonics gave Washington lawmakers and fans an ultimatium, it was "Pay for a really nice sports facility or we're leaving town!" The folks in Seattle, and Olympia said "Go...Interstate 5 is right over there!" I've heard this growing resentment echoed from sports fans in Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and other cities. Using tax dollars to subsidize a for profit business is corporate welfare, pure and simple.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    02 Mar '12 16:44
    Originally posted by bill718
    http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-forbes-atlanta_most_miserable_sports_cities_022812

    As a resident of Seattle, I can honestly say there is a growing resentment concerning pro sports in this city. A few years ago the NBA's Seattle Super Sonics gave Washington lawmakers and fans an ultimatium, it was "Pay for a really nice sports facility or we're le ...[text shortened]... ing tax dollars to subsidize a for profit business is corporate welfare, pure and simple.
    Of course Seattle hates pro sports. You have two professional sports teams and they both stink. Seattle is the 23rd largest city in the US with the 15th largest metro area in the country, a good economy and no competition from any professional sports franchises anywhere in the vicinity other than one basketball team 175 miles away in Portland.

    There is absolutely no reason Seattle cannot support its MLB and NFL teams better than it does and it should be able to sustain NBA and NHL teams as well. You don't support your teams and so they stink or they leave. Fine. That's your choice, but nobody's going to have much sympathy for you in that regard.

    Pro sports are doing just fine in New York and Boston, thank you.
  3. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    02 Mar '12 20:231 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course Seattle hates pro sports. You have two professional sports teams and they both stink. Seattle is the 23rd largest city in the US with the 15th largest metro area in the country, a good economy and no competition from any professional sports franchises anywhere in the vicinity other than one basketball team 175 miles away in Portland.

    There is abso for you in that regard.

    Pro sports are doing just fine in New York and Boston, thank you.
    Wut? Basketball left Seattle because the previous owner sold it to people from OKC and the Seahawks have some of the best fan support of any team as evidenced by the loudness of the stadium and the most false starts by opponents for a stretch of some years. The MLB situation isn't the general publics fault... we're sick and tired of the crappy management going on and who wouldn't be? We went from 116 wins in a season to one of the worst teams in history.

    PS We also have the most dominant WNBA team in the nation.
  4. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    02 Mar '12 22:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course Seattle hates pro sports. You have two professional sports teams and they both stink. Seattle is the 23rd largest city in the US with the 15th largest metro area in the country, a good economy and no competition from any professional sports franchises anywhere in the vicinity other than one basketball team 175 miles away in Portland.

    There is abso ...[text shortened]... for you in that regard.

    Pro sports are doing just fine in New York and Boston, thank you.
    Yes...Seattle teams do stink, and have for quite some time, but that is not what this is about. It's about using tax dollars to subsidize a for profit business. Do the tax payers give you money to support your business? I don't think so. Why then do professional sports teams think they're entitled to tax dollars to build sports facilities so they can charge these same taxpayers to see there "entertainment"??

    Oh...and by the way, I'm not looking for sympathy, and I'm so happy the teams back east are doing so well (actually I'm a Boston Bruins fan). I'm just looking to make the point that it's wrong to use tax dollars to support a for profit business.
  5. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    02 Mar '12 22:491 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    Yes...Seattle teams do stink, and have for quite some time, but that is not what this is about. It's about using tax dollars to subsidize a for profit business. Do the tax payers give you money to support your business? I don't think so. Why then do professional sports teams think they're entitled to tax dollars to build sports facilities so they can charge to make the point that it's wrong to use tax dollars to support a for profit business.
    Again... wut? Seattle, within the past decade, has been one of the best MLB teams (although not in the latter half of the decade), one of the best NFL teams and THE BEST WNBA team.

    I wonder what you mean by quite some time?


    PS There is also the Vancouver Canucks just a little north of us.
  6. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    03 Mar '12 12:09
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Again... wut? Seattle, within the past decade, has been one of the best MLB teams (although not in the latter half of the decade), one of the best NFL teams and THE BEST WNBA team.

    I wonder what you mean by quite some time?


    PS There is also the Vancouver Canucks just a little north of us.
    tomtom...missing the point here I think. This has nothing to do with which team is better, or for how long. This is about using T A X $$ to subsidize a for profit business.
  7. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Mar '12 02:33
    Originally posted by bill718
    Yes...Seattle teams do stink, and have for quite some time, but that is not what this is about. It's about using tax dollars to subsidize a for profit business. Do the tax payers give you money to support your business? I don't think so. Why then do professional sports teams think they're entitled to tax dollars to build sports facilities so they can charge ...[text shortened]... to make the point that it's wrong to use tax dollars to support a for profit business.
    First of all, the tax dollars could be a good investment if it brings jobs and tourism to the city. The tax dollars are not necessarily just for "entertainment."

    Second, there's nothing morally right or wrong about using tax $$ to fund any specific public works project. If you don't like it, vote the local officials out.
  8. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    53348
    04 Mar '12 22:55
    It is one thing to pay for certain infrastructure like subway stops or buses to a new stadium or for the city to own a stadium and collect huge amounts from sports teams. But private industry should build their own stadiums if they want them.
    When they built a new stadium for the Giants/ Jets in New Jersey they mentioned that only the interest was paid for on the old stadium (balloon mortgage). Thus, the taxpayers are on the hook for the whole old stadium. When exactly do they intend to pay for this?
  9. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Mar '12 23:38
    Originally posted by quackquack
    It is one thing to pay for certain infrastructure like subway stops or buses to a new stadium or for the city to own a stadium and collect huge amounts from sports teams. But private industry should build their own stadiums if they want them.
    When they built a new stadium for the Giants/ Jets in New Jersey they mentioned that only the interest was paid ...[text shortened]... xpayers are on the hook for the whole old stadium. When exactly do they intend to pay for this?
    The teams pay the states rent for use of the stadium.

    In any case, it's simple economics. If Seattle won't build, say, the Seahawks a new stadium, but Los Angeles will, why shouldn't they move?

    Is it worth it for the taxpayers to build a stadium to collect rent from the team and add its infrastructure to its economy? That's a public works issue that it's for the public officials and/or voters to decide in each individual case. There's no moral issue here one way or the other.
  10. Subscribershortcircuit
    The Energizer
    where you want to be
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    66528
    05 Mar '12 00:32
    Originally posted by sh76
    The teams pay the states rent for use of the stadium.

    In any case, it's simple economics. If Seattle won't build, say, the Seahawks a new stadium, but Los Angeles will, why shouldn't they move?

    Is it worth it for the taxpayers to build a stadium to collect rent from the team and add its infrastructure to its economy? That's a public works issue that it's ...[text shortened]... oters to decide in each individual case. There's no moral issue here one way or the other.
    I will give you the perfect example to show why public money should not be used
    to build sporting arenas.

    I Houston, the taxpayers are STILL paying off the debt they incurred for modifications
    made to the Astrodome to satisfy Bud Adams' demands for keeping the Oilers in Houston.

    Two years after the upgrade, Adams decided he wanted a new stadium because other
    teams were getting one. When the Sports Authority said no, because they just
    upgraded the Astrodome for him, bottom-line Bud bolted with the Oilers and moved to
    Nashville. Houston was without a pro team for over 5 years, but all the while, the taxpayers
    were still paying for the upgrades to the Astrodome.

    When the opportunity for a franchise team came about, the NFL strong-armed the city by
    making a new stadium mandatory if they wanted a franchise.
    The city caved, built the stadium in a joint venture, and they are still paying for
    the upgrades to the Astrodome 13 years later, while it sits vacant.

    Pro sports owners think they are the darlings of the community, but they should
    pay their own way if they want to be the darlings. Otherwise, the city should get
    part ownership in the team for putting up the facility.
  11. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    05 Mar '12 04:04
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    I will give you the perfect example to show why public money should not be used
    to build sporting arenas.

    I Houston, the taxpayers are STILL paying off the debt they incurred for modifications
    made to the Astrodome to satisfy Bud Adams' demands for keeping the Oilers in Houston.

    Two years after the upgrade, Adams decided he wanted a new stadium ...[text shortened]... rlings. Otherwise, the city should get
    part ownership in the team for putting up the facility.
    Then the city should have gotten Bud to sign a 20 year lease in exchange for the improvements.

    The city made a bad business deal and was inept at negotiating.
  12. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    53348
    05 Mar '12 13:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    The teams pay the states rent for use of the stadium.

    In any case, it's simple economics. If Seattle won't build, say, the Seahawks a new stadium, but Los Angeles will, why shouldn't they move?

    Is it worth it for the taxpayers to build a stadium to collect rent from the team and add its infrastructure to its economy? That's a public works issue that it's ...[text shortened]... oters to decide in each individual case. There's no moral issue here one way or the other.
    I agree it is not a moral issue and I certainly do not think there is much unique about Seatle losing its team (NY lost the Dodgers and Giants; LA lost the Rams and Raiders; the Braves left Boston and Milwaukee; Seatle even lost the Pilots etc)

    I just think the reality is that in a world where taxes continually increase and costs of government projects always exceed estimated costs, that it is a bad economic investment to be held hostage. Once you build a stadium 15- 20 years later they will want another one; more luxury boxes; bigger score board; more offsets etc. I live in Nassau County and we just voted on whether to pay for a new stadium for the Islanders and we were told that it would be more than paid for (increased tax revenue would be greater than costs). I would guess the majority of people did not believe that to be true because it was defeated by a wide margin. The Islanders will leave and I can't blame them -- especially since they lose money each year -- but I still don't think it makes economic sense for tax payer to subsize them.
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    05 Mar '12 14:25
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I agree it is not a moral issue and I certainly do not think there is much unique about Seatle losing its team (NY lost the Dodgers and Giants; LA lost the Rams and Raiders; the Braves left Boston and Milwaukee; Seatle even lost the Pilots etc)

    I just think the reality is that in a world where taxes continually increase and costs of government project ...[text shortened]... ey each year -- but I still don't think it makes economic sense for tax payer to subsize them.
    See. Democracy works.

    You don't think it's worth it and so you voted it down. Congratulations.

    Maybe the people of Quebec City or Hamilton or Milwaukee or Salt Lake City will think it worth it to build a nice building to woo the Islanders and so they'll vote it in and the Isles will move (and really, who will miss them? They've basically stunk for almost 2 straight decades).

    Democracy in action.
  14. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    53348
    05 Mar '12 15:31
    Originally posted by sh76
    See. Democracy works.

    You don't think it's worth it and so you voted it down. Congratulations.

    Maybe the people of Quebec City or Hamilton or Milwaukee or Salt Lake City will think it worth it to build a nice building to woo the Islanders and so they'll vote it in and the Isles will move (and really, who will miss them? They've basically stunk for almost 2 straight decades).

    Democracy in action.
    I agree that citizens have the right to vote to pay for a stadium with public funds. I just think it is likely that in 15-20 years later the team will want a better deal, will threaten to leave and if this occurs it will be another stadium which costs more than budgeted without a team.
    It isn't theoretical; hockey teams left Ottawa and Quebec in the mid 1990s to go to areas that traditionally do not care about hockey. I just think it is very much a "buyer beware" situation.
  15. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    05 Mar '12 20:30
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I agree that citizens have the right to vote to pay for a stadium with public funds. I just think it is likely that in 15-20 years later the team will want a better deal, will threaten to leave and if this occurs it will be another stadium which costs more than budgeted without a team.
    It isn't theoretical; hockey teams left Ottawa and Quebec in the mi ...[text shortened]... tionally do not care about hockey. I just think it is very much a "buyer beware" situation.
    No team left Ottawa. They left Quebec and Winnipeg. And Quebec went to Denver, which is not a bad hockey market.

    In any case, all of that is part of the decision making of the team and the city and the voters. I don't even think we're really disagreeing.
Back to Top