Jump to content

The Ides of March


Heckeroo

Recommended Posts

I strongly disagree that stadiums should be subsidized with general tax dollars. The return for the city won't even come close to what will be spent to construct the stadium. If stadiums were so lucrative, team owners would build them. If a stadium is built, then sure some restaurants and hotels may benefit, but what's in it for the average person in Miami-Dade County? Tourist related taxes for a stadium are okay. That said, if restaurants and hotels want to kick in their funds, then let them. No to property or any other general taxes. At what point do we draw the line when it comes to subsidizing private business? If I wanted to open a business in Miami, should I expect the city to construct an office building for me at little or no cost? I don't think so. I also would not expect the general public to subsidize various entertainment options for me. I have no desire to watch a symphony or ballet and would not want to pay for that either and I shouldn't be expected to be. Let Loria and Marlins fans pay for the stadium. I'd be willing to pay a stadium construction surcharge added to the price of a ticket. I'm sure Loria would object, stating that he would need such funds for payroll.

 

As I stated before, I love the Marlins as much as anyone. Just because I don't want to subsidize a stadium doesn't make me any less of a fan. Maybe I'm a taxpayer first and a Marlins fan second. Maybe I see a fairly new Miami Arena sitting vacant while a new hoops and a new hockey arena are filled with fans disguised as empty seats. I hope a combination of Marlins funds, tourist taxes, naming rights, ticket surcharges, tax incremental financing, and other similar sources can be pieced together to finance a stadium. Let's support the team, but not give up the store and everything else. Maybe I'm willing to let the Marlins move away based on principle, but so be it.

 

Go Marlins!!!!!!!!!!

 

Note to upstatenyfishfan: Yes my previous post was my first. So what. Yes I'm new here. You were new at one time too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and while I disagree with both the substance and direction of your post, for you your position makes sense.

 

While you believe what you wrote to be the sum total of all that we need to know to make a rational decision on the subject, you're ignoring may things that should be considered.

 

The only tax that has been discussed to the best of my knowledge was a 1/2 penny sales tax for 18 months that would be used for construction. That works out to a $50 tax increase on $10,000 spent on taxable goods. Or put it another way, go to Walmart, spend $49 on non-food items (because food is not taxed) and the additional tax would be 24 1/2 cents, less than a quarter.

 

I've read your post three times now and I really question what your agenda is? Is it the 25 cents? I don't so. This isn't about subsidizing private business. Frankly the loss of the Marlins to South Florida in prestige and reputation would probably cost more in bad PR and lost economic development than a half penny tax would cost for 18 months.

 

In short your post doesn't add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Major sports teams are not like an every other form of business, you dont see television talking about how its a beautiful night in downtown miami when they talk about a major miami business firm. How much free press in advertising did the city of miami make during the playoff run? Can you put a dollar amount on making people in the middle of october think about miami right before the start of winter, right when many people in the north are making travel plans? Tell me the city of miami would be smart to lose that advertising. Because Miami makes tons of money of tourism, that fact alone can not be argued. I am willing to bet an extra 50,000 tourists came to miami this winter because they saw or read about miami. You talk about there is no benefit for the average person in dade community, but that hotel and that restraunt pay there employees better. Or they buy more food supplies, or sheets or other services. Much of those contracts go to people in the Miami-Dade area, this is referred to the trickle down affect. And yes it will affect you. Also if we dont build the stadium how does it affect you, the money goes to upgrading a conevention center that does primarily the same thing. If you want to say that the city of miami is wrong for the Miami Arena situation you are totally correct. However, the Marlins should not pay for the mistakes made by the Miami Heat or the Florida Panthers. (Neither of which have won a national championship ever) The city of miami has mismanaged its finances in the past, and if they do not come through for the Marlins when they need them i would not disagree with the move. The marlins have lanquished 11 years in a football stadium, being the only team in Major League baseball to never play a game in a proper baseball stadium. (You could group the Devil rays in ther but another topic another time). Miami has invested nothing in the Marlins, and this is there time to deliver on a promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to add fuel to the fire, but:

 

Gofish, stadiums should be subsidized because cities make money off of the stadiums...For example yankees fan flies down to miami to watch the world series. Chances are he doesnt stay near pro player but stays near downtown. So the hotels benefit, and oh yah there is a city tax on hotel rooms, not to mention his flight to miami also has city taxes or some kind of tax.

Uh, no. First off, revenues from stadium-generated tourism is like peeing in the ocean. Are we to beleive that the hundreds of millions of dollars put up by a munincipality (and the interest they lose off that money)is offset by a smattering of out-of-towners who come down to see a team play a weekender? Stadiums are not a money-maker, they are merely a point of civic pride built by munincipalities that can afford them.

 

Also if we dont build the stadium how does it affect you, the money goes to upgrading a conevention center that does primarily the same thing.

 

No, not the same thing. Haven't heard anyone claiming that the Convo Center will eat up $450 mil. And I'd rather see 2000 middle class, out-of-town businessmen come in for a weekend convo once a month than 30,000 locals show up for a game then go home. I guessing businesses in the city feel the same way.

 

The only tax that has been discussed to the best of my knowledge was a 1/2 penny sales tax for 18 months that would be used for construction. That works out to a $50 tax increase on $10,000 spent on taxable goods. Or put it another way, go to Walmart, spend $49 on non-food items (because food is not taxed) and the additional tax would be 24 1/2 cents, less than a quarter.

 

Taxes are taxes. And citing the isolated effect of one regressive, indiscriminant tax isn't accurate, either. It is the cumulative effect of all levvied taxes that effect the disposable income of the taxpayer. Also, judging by game attendence a vast, vast majority of residents do not use the facility - So they will pay for something that has minimal effect on the quality of their lives.

 

Anyway, I'm as torn as the rest of you and could go on forever arguing either side. But the fact remains that the Fish are trying to squeeze money out of corrupt and financially unviable government(s) that can ill-afford to do so. If this market is so invaluable to MLB, and if this market can make a new stadium break-even or better than why isn't MLB making the investment themselves?

 

There is no money, no land and no substantial commitment from either the public at-large nor any of the involved governments. What's the big mystery? If MLB/Marlins want the stadium then they should pay enough to get the damn thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. FiletO'Fish, always good to read your posts.

 

The reason I brought up and endorse the 1/2 penny/18 month tax was because I feel with it's short duration the effect on average households, after you subtract out non-taxable outlays like food and shelter, etc., it is an acceptable alternative with a minimal affect on the lower end of the wage scale.

 

I would not be in favor of a longterm tax in any way. If this were a tax for say 18 years instead of 18 months, I'd be against it big time. And by the way you are confusing municipalities, it's the county that taxes, not the city that taxes.

 

And as for MLB funding the stadium I know you're smart enough to know the answer - if they do it for one, they have to do for all, which would be a horrendenous precendent to set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the money that the state and Palm Beach County is giving Scripts.

 

How come nobody is making a big deal about this?

 

Yes stadiums and arenas are not money making propositions but they allow a community to provide all different forms of entertainment to all of its taxpayers, both baseball and non baeball fans. I am not an opera fan but have no problem expending tax money to build one because in the long run it is in the best interest of the entire community.

 

Thanks,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the money that the state and Palm Beach County is giving Scripts.

 

How come nobody is making a big deal about this?

 

Yes stadiums and arenas are not money making propositions but they allow a community to provide all different forms of entertainment to all of its taxpayers, both baseball and non baeball fans. I am not an opera fan but have no problem expending tax money to build one because in the long run it is in the best interest of the entire community.

 

Thanks,

First of all, it's Scripps, not Scripts.

 

Second, Scripps will not only bring around 40,000 high-paying, high-tech jobs to Palm Beach County. These are full-time jobs, unlike the part-time, minimum wage jobs that a stadium generates.

 

Third, Scripps will also attract peripheral jobs to the area that are dependent upon the Scripps laboratory, mainly pharmaceutical companies that benefit from the research which is undertaken at Scripps.

 

Fourth, the new jobs at Scripps will mean a housing boom for Northern Palm Beach and Southern Martin Counties. More people means more houses means more property taxes. Therefore, the initial investment made by Palm Beach County in the way of floating a $200,000,000.00 bond would pay off in the long term more than any stadium.

 

What will a new stadium bring? More revenue for the tenant. Discretionary income that may have gone elsewhere gets transferred to the stadium, but the net increase in tax revenue would be indistinguishable at best. Perhaps there is a little development increase in the area around the stadium, but with land sparse and highly expensive, independent development around the stadium would be minimal.

 

Basically, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...