Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
Having read the thread I realize I know very little about this topic, so let me ask a question. If the government is providing financing, what are the terms? In other words, is this a loan that could be had some where else? Could it be had for the same rate and the same terms?
I'm suspecting that the reason one gets government financing is because it is better than private financing. Same reason I financed as much of my education as I could on government loans. I think the the loans I got from the government as a subsidy and I know that there is a cost involved in the government offering me financing at well below market rates.
Is this analogous to what we are talking about here or no? If there is no benefit to public financing then why not finance privately? If public financing is on more favorable terms then there must be a cost to the tax, yes? Or is it simply a benefit conferred? I'm ignorant so DDD or anyone else please enlighten me.
|
I think you are correct, and perhaps this is where SU has some dirt to stand on. In general, the government financing will be better than private...also, with private financing, there is often the hassle of giving up a piece of ownership equity in whatever venture is being financed. Personally, I have no idea what the specific terms would be for one of these stadium deals, but to your question, my guess is that going through the gov is going to be more favorable than going through private VC in almost every instance.
Another issue wherein it is beneficial to go through the gov....some of these stadia require eminent domain (see Dodger Stadium at Chavez Ravine....whoops, sorry poor hispanic farmers). Also, I would imagine that permitting and construction is greatly expedited when the local gov is helping to finance the land.
That being said, the local government has a vested interest in the long run to provide the better financing....local jobs, revitalized neighborhoods, tax revenues from locals and visitors, civic pride, etc...similar to student loans, wherein the government has a vested interested in helping to educate its citizenry (although I am sure those CGers here who are against "socialism" are repaying their government loans at the higher market rate, not the lower, subsidized rate.....)
The Cowboys situation that mikewaters referenced is drastically different from the Lakers or Jazz. Jerry Jones was asking for a massive subsidy, with no obligation for him to repay.
Just my limited perspective. It would be interesting to get 8Ball's take, since he clearly has been following the Seattle issue closely. Also, mikewaters has referenced the Dallas situation a few times, so he could likely provide more color around the terms of the Dallas deal.
I get SU's point, but he is way off base and he knows it. If taxpayers were subsidizing these costs, then owners would not be selling their naming rights to ridiculous companies (Minute Maid Field, Energy Solutions Arena, SafeCo Field, FexEx whatever it is called)...also, they would not be building more and more luxury suites.....ticket prices have gone up every season and are reaching stratospheric levels for NBA games...and several owners have lost money (see the gasol deal as exhibit A).
If he is angry, he should be angry at teams like the Cowboys, not teams like the Lakers.