Wow- Supersonics leaving Seattle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One thing SU has not addressed is the economic benefits that city's can reap through new arenas. For example the American Airlines Center in Dallas has stimulated a lot of pricey development around it, in what was a delapidated impoverished area (and still is). There are seedy motels and hookers just a couple blocks from it. Yet there is an amazing amount of development going on. All this adds to the tax base.

So you have to figure stuff like that in.

There are more direct ways to use tax free muni bonds--and especially direct government hand outs of hundreds of millions of dollars--to stimulate economic development. If you plow 300 million in capital improvements into an impoverished area you will elevate it, as they have done in many cities in areas unaffected by pro sports. If cities made money automatically from the new stadiums from "increased tax base" they wouldn't have to enact special taxes--in Seattle it has been enhanced sales taxes on hotels, rental cars, and eating and drinking places--to pay for the subsidy.

This argument has been refuted in many studies. It's so discredited no one made it this time in Seattle. The bottom line is the NBA takes more from cities than it gives.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Why would the Lakers receive any money for the Staples Center? The Lakers are just a tenant, like the Clippers.

The Staples Center was built by the owner of the LA Kings (Ed Roski), Anshutz Entertainment Group, and Rupert Murdoch/Fox.

AEG was involved because it was angling to develop more land in the blocks surrounding Staples.....that development has recently come to fruition in the form of the Nokia Theater, across the street from Staples.

Fox bailed out when Rupert decided to buy DirecTV...several years ago, Fox sold its 40% share in Staples to AEG. It also freed up cash by selling the Dodgers, I believe.

Now Anshutz is the majority owner. I dont think the Lakers own any of the Staples Center.

Look, here is the deal....your premise was wrong. You were wrong about who owns the Staples Center (even a basic google search would have answered your question), you were way off on Kobe's salary (again, a basic google search would answer that in less than 1 minute), and you were wrong about how the building was financed. Your entire premise was sloppy and poorly-researched.

Now you are retreating, leaving yourself a little wiggle room by allowing that every team in the NBA other than the Lakers operates this way. Your entire post is based on a short internet blurb which, not coincidentally, doesnt list any specific teams, either.

Now if you have had enough being bent over the barrel, please use lube next time because this go-round was not enjoyable for me. I prefer a little challenge in my men. Take your weak WNBA game somewhere else.

PS Happy 4th of July to you and your family!

So neither the City nor the Lakers don't own the Staples Center. But somebody was subsidized by taxpayers in order to enable them to in turn susidize the lakers. For one thing, the muni bonds are tax exempt, which means the interest rate on the arena financing is way below market. I'm sure that's not all. Your post evinces deep involvement by LA taxpayers.

Of course the Lakers aren't paying a fair rental rate, a high enough rate to enable the owners of the arena to retire any debt and otherwise amortize cost of the building and make a profit absent taxpayer subsidy. That's how it works in the real world.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So neither the City nor the Lakers don't own the Staples Center. But somebody was subsidized by taxpayers in order to enable them to in turn susidize the lakers. For one thing, the muni bonds are tax exempt, which means the interest rate on the arena financing is way below market. I'm sure that's not all. Your post evinces deep involvement by LA taxpayers.

Of course the Lakers aren't paying a fair rental rate, a high enough rate to enable the owners of the arena to retire any debt and otherwise amortize cost of the building and make a profit absent taxpayer subsidy. That's how it works in the real world.

I already told you that the land was, in part, paid for by muni bonds. Your response was that muni bonds were not subsidies, but financing (with which I agree).

Now you are asserting that muni bonds are indicative of deep local taxpayer involvement.

So that brings us back to my question....if someone is a tenant...a renter....on land that was in part financed by muni bonds, you are claiming that taxpayers subsidize that person's salary? How so?

You are all over the map and going in the wrong direction. Now you cannot even cover your tracks coherently because you are blatantly contradicting your own posts.

UtahDan's smart list is getting shorter by the minute.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One thing SU has not addressed is the economic benefits that city's can reap through new arenas. For example the American Airlines Center in Dallas has stimulated a lot of pricey development around it, in what was a delapidated impoverished area (and still is). There are seedy motels and hookers just a couple blocks from it. Yet there is an amazing amount of development going on. All this adds to the tax base.

So you have to figure stuff like that in.

Also I believe pro teams are of cultural benefit to a community. Because of this benefit, I don't have a problem with some public financing of arenas, but the lion share needs to be the burden of the franchise. There are also numerous examples of privately financed stadiums (i.e. AT&T Park in SF). It a great example; privately financed with some re-development loans from the city.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

Also I believe pro teams are of cultural benefit to a community. Because of this benefit, I don't have a problem with some public financing of arenas, but the lion share needs to be the burden of the franchise. There are also numerous examples of privately financed stadiums (i.e. AT&T Park in SF). It a great example; privately financed with some re-development loans from the city.

I dispute that an NBA team is a very big part of a city's civic culture. If it is, what a poor excuse for a civic culture such as city must have. There are about 15,000 hard core fans out of millions of people, and those hard core fans are not big contributers or very interesting contributers to the city, in general.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I dispute that an NBA team is a very big part of a city's civic culture. If it is, what a poor excuse for a civic culture such as city must have. There are about 15,000 hard core fans out of millions of people, and those hard core fans are not big contributers or very interesting contributers to the city, in general.

I mean qua their identity and activities as basketball fans.

[MikeWaters]

For the record, I am strongly opposed to public financing of stadiums for pro sports teams.

Screw them.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I dispute that an NBA team is a very big part of a city's civic culture. If it is, what a poor excuse for a civic culture such as city must have. There are about 15,000 hard core fans out of millions of people, and those hard core fans are not big contributers or very interesting contributers to the city, in general.

That number is very low, but I'll leave it at that. I submit this is the heart of your contempt for stadia - of all types and funding models. You believe it's a base expression of culture for a metropolis. I disagree. Sports teams provide a format for community pride, identity, entertainment and can create milestone markers in its history.

Is Paul Allen an uninteresting contributor to the city?

How was Benaroya Hall funded? I'm asking because I don't know, but I imagine some of the money was public.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

That number is very low, but I'll leave it at that. I submit this is the heart of your contempt for stadia - of all types and funding models. You believe it's a base expression of culture for a metropolis. I disagree. Sports teams provide a format for community pride, identity, entertainment and can create milestone markers in its history.

Is Paul Allen an uninteresting contributor to the city?

How was Benaroya Hall funded? I'm asking because I don't know, but I imagine some of the money was public.

What's more critical to our civic culture, great public schools or an NBA franchse? Seattle schools are not exemplary. How about we improve our schools before we start writing seven figure checks to the likes of Howard Schultz.
Did you know evey time there's a big rain storm raw sewage overflows into Puget Sound? How about we fix that first?

Most people don't live and die by their sports teams. They have a passing interest at most. Can you list the last ten NBA chamions?
Most people can't, and don't care.

I hope you aren't suggesting public assistance for a symphony Hall justifies subnitting to owners' extortion for public handouts. The symphony raises money through donations. It's recognized as a form of higher education. Musical education is a demonstrable aid to brain development. The symphoy doesn't threaten to leave, extort money. Ot doesn't grossly overpay its performers. They are fiscally responsible. If Benaroya Hall doesn't get some public assistance there's no symphony because most people aren't equipped to process high culture though our aim should be to expand this form of enlightenment. There's not much enlightening about an NBA game.

[SeattleUte]

As for Paul Allen, comparing how he and Bill Gates have spent their billions is an interesting contrast. Paul Allen is a big adolescent near as I can tell. The world wouldn't miss him, unlike Bill Gates.