Obama Tries to End Federal Tax Breaks for Stadium-Building Bonds

[iluvatar5150]

Gets stymied by both sides:

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2015/03/18/obamas-proposed-end-to-stadium-tax-breaks-goes-wide-right/

WASHINGTON – If you don’t want taxpayers nationwide to help pay for a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills, you have a friend in the highest of places: the White House.

But you don’t have many other friends in Washington.

President Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget proposal includes a little-noticed provision that would bar the use of tax-exempt bond financing for new stadium projects.

But the Republicans who control Congress have not included that provision in their budget plans, and Republicans said that repealing the stadium tax break would be, in effect, a tax increase – something that virtually all GOP lawmakers have vowed not to support.

And New York Democrats, such as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, are just as opposed to repealing the federal tax break for stadium construction as Republicans are.

 

[cow451]

The tax payers have been roasted too often on these deals. And I say that as a fan of the NFL.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

They should be building libraries, anyway.

 

[TerranceL]

The problems with this issue is a stadium will bring lots of jobs, hotels will be built in the area, new restaurants etc, so I can understand why politicians on both side of the aisle are loath to get rid of the bonds.

As a taxpayer though the idea of billionaires expecting the citizens of a city to fork over money to pay for a stadium so that the teams owners have somewhere for their teams to play bugs me too.

 

[wing2000]

The problems with this issue is a stadium will bring lots of jobs, hotels will be built in the area, new restaurants etc, so I can understand why politicians on both side of the aisle are loath to get rid of the bonds.

As a taxpayer though the idea of billionaires expecting the citizens of a city to fork over money to pay for a stadium so that the teams owners have somewhere for their teams to play bugs me too.

It is bogus.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The problems with this issue is a stadium will bring lots of jobs, hotels will be built in the area, new restaurants etc,

Do they really bring in that many jobs? I live in Baltimore now and moved here from Foxboro, MA, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with life in a sports town, and the amount of real growth I see around stadiums is marginal. Sure, they can serve as anchors for business developments (Gillette Stadium, for example, is now the anchor for a large outdoor shopping mall), but I don't see them as being the sole drivers for most of those other businesses. People only visit the stadiums for a few hours at a time; in the case of baseball, that's a couple days a week; in the case of football, that's one day every other week - and for both, it's for only about 6 months out of the year. That's not enough to keep these other businesses going without other outside traffic.

so I can understand why politicians on both side of the aisle are loath to get rid of the bonds.

I understand that politicians like having their names attached to big showpieces.

 

[wing2000]

Exhibit A

Glendale bet big on professional sports in the last 15 years, spending millions of dollars on a hockey arena for the Arizona Coyotes and investing heavily in a spring training ballpark for the Chicago White Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers. Then the economy tanked, and the hockey team went through bankruptcy, with several different owners in recent years. It got so bad for Glendale that leaders were talking about bankruptcy at one point as its credit rating faltered.

The city has found stronger financial footing since then and its bond rating has improved markedly, but not without having to raise taxes, trim 25 percent of the municipal workforce, cut back on paving projects, and reduce hours at municipal swimming pools and libraries. The 9.2 percent sales tax that shoppers and diners pay in Glendale is among the highest in the state.
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-we...ndale-arizona-still-reeling-over-sports-deals

 

[TerranceL]

Do they really bring in that many jobs? I live in Baltimore now and moved here from Foxboro, MA, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with life in a sports town, and the amount of real growth I see around stadiums is marginal. Sure, they can serve as anchors for business developments (Gillette Stadium, for example, is now the anchor for a large outdoor shopping mall), but I don't see them as being the sole drivers for most of those other businesses. People only visit the stadiums for a few hours at a time; in the case of baseball, that's a couple days a week; in the case of football, that's one day every other week - and for both, it's for only about 6 months out of the year. That's not enough to keep these other businesses going without other outside traffic.

I believe that's usually the argument made for it, "it'll bring conventions who can use the stadium! It'll bring tourists!" the problem is, even if those arguments are true, which I can't say yes or no to that, the only people benefiting are people who work in that area or the tourism industry. I don't see how the average tax payer benefits. It's not like they discounts to the games.

I understand that politicians like having their names attached to big showpieces.

That's so embarrassing.

 

[A2SG]

Do they really bring in that many jobs? I live in Baltimore now and moved here from Foxboro, MA, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with life in a sports town, and the amount of real growth I see around stadiums is marginal. Sure, they can serve as anchors for business developments (Gillette Stadium, for example, is now the anchor for a large outdoor shopping mall), but I don't see them as being the sole drivers for most of those other businesses. People only visit the stadiums for a few hours at a time; in the case of baseball, that's a couple days a week; in the case of football, that's one day every other week - and for both, it's for only about 6 months out of the year. That's not enough to keep these other businesses going without other outside traffic.

We love going to eat at Patriot Place when the seasons over or the Patriots are away. There's plenty of parking!

-- A2SG, and it's so much fun watching the tumbleweeds blow by....

 

[AceHero]

Reports of positive economic impact are dubious at best, and cities rarely get to share any direct profits the teams make even though the stadiums are almost always publicly-financed these days. The fact that billionaires expect us to foot their bill is so ridiculous.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker handed $400 million to the Milwaukee Bucks for a new stadium while cutting the University of Wisconsin system by $250 million. Priorities!

 

[trunks2k]

The problems with this issue is a stadium will bring lots of jobs, hotels will be built in the area, new restaurants etc, so I can understand why politicians on both side of the aisle are loath to get rid of the bonds.

My understanding of the issue is that this doesn't happen. Or at least not the extent that the economic benefit out weighs the money spent by the public on the stadium.

 

[iluvatar5150]

We love going to eat at Patriot Place when the seasons over or the Patriots are away. There's plenty of parking!

And that's when Trader Joe's sells alcohol!

Also, for being a chain restaurant, Davio's was surprisingly good.

But I don't understand why there's a giant Bass Pro Shop there. Who around there has a boat?

-- A2SG, and it's so much fun watching the tumbleweeds blow by....

Lol, seriously.

 

[mark46]

Huge tax benefits for sports teams (corporate welfare) must be terrible because Obama opposes them.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Personally it doesn't bother me one way or another, as states already give huge tax breaks to corporations to entice them to move there. It bothers me more that we give huge tax breaks and even grants to "green" companies that go bankrupt leaving no jobs for anyone at all but lawyers and such to clean up the mess made a better investment statistically speaking could perhaps be made for stadiums which at least could be used by local schools and colleges if the sports teams becomes unprofitable.

 

[TerranceL]

When it comes to tax breaks to bring companies to your city I'm a lot more on the fence with that.

I live on the south side of san antonio, it's not the poorest part of town but by far not the richest, growing up if I wanted to go to a book store or any kind of electronics store or a nice restrurant you would have to drive across town.

A decade ago something changed, the city gave some tax breaks to Toyota and they built one of the Tacoma factories on this side of town. I didn't think anything of it then I started to notice new construction, we started getting stores on this side of town that we've never seen here before. It started a domino effect after that, other businesses realized that the south side of town actually had a market for their products and more businesses started to come to this side of town.

Now that's not to say that Toyota just showed up built a factory and BAM MAGIC more prosperity, they worked with the community and local businesses.

http://therivardreport.com/toyota-the-engine-driving-change-on-san-antonios-southside/

“The best thing about Toyota is that it is in the right place in terms of where the city needed it,” said Cisneros, founder and chairman of CityView, an institutional investment firm that focuses on urban real estate and infrastructure projects. “It is almost unimaginable that something so appropriate, in terms of scale, job, training potential, the investment, would come to the Southside of San Antonio, the part of the city with the greatest needs, the poorest school districts and a workforce without many opportunities. Now we have a world-class automotive company there, arguably the number one entity we would have wanted to land there. It’s been a perfect, perfect match.”

The Cisneros quoted is Henry Cisneros, former san antonio mayor and former head of HUD under clinton.

October marks the 10th anniversary of Toyota breaking ground on what would become a 2.2 million sq. ft. manufacturing facility built on 2,000 acres of Medina River ranchland. Its network of 21 suppliers occupies an equal amount of building space – none of which existed a decade ago.

Today, according to Toyota, the company’s total direct investment in the plant has reached $2.1 billion, with $1.5 billion or more invested by the supplier community for a total of more of $3.6 billion. The plant now employs more than 2,900 people, and on-site suppliers account for another 2,800 jobs, putting campus employment at more than 5,700. Officials say Toyota’s presence in San Antonio accounts for about 18,000 indirect jobs. The company has given out $13.5 million in philanthropic funds in San Antonio and South Texas.

Along with its surprise site selection, Toyota also spurred local entrepreneurship in the minority business community by inviting several qualified individuals into the Tier One supplier community. Some in the business community grumbled about favoritism, but Toyota saw it differently as it established a beachhead in on one of America’s most Latino cities.

“Toyota wanted to support local entrepreneurs and minority business growth, so we helped locals to partner up with known suppliers, learn the business, and eventually go out on their own,” said Mario Lozoya, Toyota Texas’ director of government relations and external affairs. “It’s good for community development and good for local job creation.”

Still, no single manufacturing entity can serve as a quick fix for such intractable problems, but the presence of Toyota has sparked interest and confidence in the Southside’s potential and its future. The establishment of Texas A&M-San Antonio is the most visible demonstration of the Southside working to shed its underperforming record and image. The long-established Palo Alto College in the Alamo Colleges system now serves as a feeder campus to students seeking a four-year degree close to home. Both TAMUSA and Palo Alto will be examined more closely in the series later this week.

Toyota’s commitment to improving education initiatives includes its partnership with the Alamo Colleges and the March launch of the Toyota Advanced Manufacturing Technician (AMT) program.

Now I wont pretend that such benefits as seen above are common, but it does show that there can be a benefit to giving tax breaks to bring companies to your city that might not have otherwise come.

 

[Sophrosyne]

When it comes to tax breaks to bring companies to your city I'm a lot more on the fence with that.

I live on the south side of san antonio, it's not the poorest part of town but by far not the richest, growing up if I wanted to go to a book store or any kind of electronics store or a nice restrurant you would have to drive across town.

A decade ago something changed, the city gave some tax breaks to Toyota and they built one of the Tacoma factories on this side of town. I didn't think anything of it then I started to notice new construction, we started getting stores on this side of town that we've never seen here before. It started a domino effect after that, other businesses realized that the south side of town actually had a market for their products and more businesses started to come to this side of town.

Now that's not to say that Toyota just showed up built a factory and BAM MAGIC more prosperity, they worked with the community and local businesses.

http://therivardreport.com/toyota-the-engine-driving-change-on-san-antonios-southside/

The Cisneros quoted is Henry Cisneros, former san antonio mayor and former head of HUD under clinton.







Now I wont pretend that such benefits as seen above are common, but it does show that there can be a benefit to giving tax breaks to bring companies to your city that might not have otherwise come.

Well all I can say is even if this tax incentive was repealed it wouldn't pay for probably even a day of Obama's military actions overseas lately nor will it make even a microscopic dent in the cost of Obamacare.

 

[TerranceL]

Well all I can say is even if this tax incentive was repealed it wouldn't pay for probably even a day of Obama's military actions overseas lately nor will it make even a microscopic dent in the cost of Obamacare.

Ok.

 

[AceHero]

When it comes to tax breaks to bring companies to your city I'm a lot more on the fence with that.

I live on the south side of san antonio, it's not the poorest part of town but by far not the richest, growing up if I wanted to go to a book store or any kind of electronics store or a nice restrurant you would have to drive across town.

A decade ago something changed, the city gave some tax breaks to Toyota and they built one of the Tacoma factories on this side of town. I didn't think anything of it then I started to notice new construction, we started getting stores on this side of town that we've never seen here before. It started a domino effect after that, other businesses realized that the south side of town actually had a market for their products and more businesses started to come to this side of town.

Now that's not to say that Toyota just showed up built a factory and BAM MAGIC more prosperity, they worked with the community and local businesses.

That can certainly happen with companies that manufacture things, but cities tend not to see the benefits that are promised by professional sports teams. Cities obsessed with trying to get a sports team would probably be better off trying to attract a truly job-generating corporation to the area.