No ceiling without a floor, right?

They do it because they can.

Any team that gets public financing for stadiums should be required to open their books. The teams should be forced to show what they are spending for the public's return on investment.

http://sportslocker.blogspot.com/

Well, look at it a different way... Last year their payroll was $31 million. Given that they finished in last place, losing 91 games, how much of that $31 million was a waste? They could've finished in last place spending $10 million on payroll.

If I were a Marlins fan, or a reporter covering the team, I'd want them to spend more. Spending more at least gives the impression that they might compete, and it's surely more fun to watch "my" team when they're competitive. But this team has managed to win 2 World Championships in a very short history partly because of their feast-or-famine spending. They spend money when they have a legitimate shot, and don't spend it when they don't. It's not the business model I'd have chosen, but it seems to have worked pretty well.

Any locality dumb enough to dole out welfare to baseball owners ought not complain when something like this happens.

it's insane the amount of money some teams extort out of their municipalities for new stadiums while totally screwing over the consumer regarding a competitive product. the current Marlins and the Pirates are both guilty of this practice, and the Twins to a lesser extent (they at least put a quality team on the field, or try to).

and the stadia don't even significantly revitalize the area on their own.

the only way they can build a fanbase will be to sign Han-Ram and Maybin to long term deals show some loyalty to your fans and they will do the same

I would have let them move. I think Vegas would support a MLB team; it would be a nice thing for the people tapped out on the slots to do for the last night in the City, and it rains way too much in southern Florida to ever (EVER) generate a walk-up base for your games, unless you build a dome.

LV has a climate problem that would also demand a dome.

OK City is another possibility the mid west is still baseball crazy and Ok would manage more than 1.3 million I guarantee.

Any team that gets public financing for stadiums should be required to open their books. The teams should be forced to show what they are spending for the public's return on investment.

Should individuals be forced to demonstrate what they've spent money on before they receive a public subsidy? Or just corporations? Or just sports teams?

I understand LV is crazy hot in the summer. If you only played home games at night there, would it be tolerable? I am not a weather expert, but is that dry 100 degree heat worse than the 95 degrees with high humidity that Miami has?

OK City is another possibility the mid west is still baseball crazy and Ok would manage more than 1.3 million I guarantee.

I can't imagine a MLB team in OK City. It's a tiny city, and a tiny metro area (smaller, for example, than Portland, Columbus, and hell, Austin). Maybe in the future, but there's a bunch of places ahead of them on the list.

Should individuals be forced to demonstrate what they've spent money on before they receive a public subsidy? Or just corporations? Or just sports teams?

Individuals who receive welfare DO have to open up their books. Pretty extensively, really, considering that you don't need a lot of accounting to track the absence of money.

and the Twins to a lesser extent (they at least put a quality team on the field, or try to).

The former. That is, they do, but I don't think they try to. With the star power they've had, the Twins should have a World Series or two this century, but they are either too cheap, too dumb, or just don't care to upgrade the replacement-level positions in the lineup year after year.

Should individuals be forced to demonstrate what they've spent money on before they receive a public subsidy

Don't they? Last I checked, you have to pass certain requirements to get Medicaid, you have to fill out a FAFSA to get financial aid for college, and you have to document your income to the IRS for such things as earned income tax credit.

If the government is going to gift people like Loria and Lerner hundreds of millions of dollars with little return, the least government can do is make them jump through some hoops before paying off the world's biggest welfare queens.

I understand LV is crazy hot in the summer. If you only played home games at night there, would it be tolerable? I am not a weather expert, but is that dry 100 degree heat worse than the 95 degrees with high humidity that Miami has?

Isn't the gambling issue the real impediment to baseball in Vegas? If not, I'm sure some casino company would gladly pony up for an indoor arena.

welfare queens? I do not consider the notion that they will relocate a franchise to another locale to be a gun to anyone's head. Shoot; I think it is a healthy evolution, that reflects either population migration patterns; economic development at different paces; the notion that maybe someone made a bad decision at inception; or just opportunity. I wonder why there aren't more single city teams, any way. OK City might be a good example. Does the fact that they would be the only major sports franchise there mitigate the fact that there is a small population? The NBA season overlaps the spring MLB schedule; the NFL overlaps the fall. maybe they couldn't draw 40,000 in the summer, but they would beat the pants of off 15,000 in the spring.

Metro Las Vegas is the 43rd largest TV market, behind Orlando (19th), Sacramento (20th), Portland, OR (23rd), Charlotte (25th), Indianapolis (26th), Raleigh/Durham (28th), Hartford (29th), Nashville (30th), Columbus (32nd), Salt Lake City (35th), Greenville/Asheville (36th), San Antonio (37th), Grand Rapids (39th), Birmingham (40th), Harrisburg (41st) and Norfolk (42nd) among markets without a baseball team.

If you're going to use the "give tourists / gamblers something to do" angle, I can't imagine why they'd be attracted to a baseball stadium. Las Vegas is not a city with a lack of things to do.

(OK City is 45th, FWIW, behind Albuquerque.)

Of cities that currently have a stadium that could support a major league team (at least on a temporary basis), I can only think of Montreal, Vancouver and New Orleans. I doubt any of those three cities will be in the running for a team any time soon.

There's no way Peter Angelos would approve a franchise in Oklahoma City.

Don't they? Last I checked, you have to pass certain requirements to get Medicaid, you have to fill out a FAFSA to get financial aid for college, and you have to document your income to the IRS for such things as earned income tax credit.

All of that has to do with income. It has little or nothing to do with what they spend their money on. JRJ's point above was that teams need to show what they're spending on. Does anyone have to show whether they're spending money wisely in order to gain/justify a subsidy?

I get a subsidy on my home mortgage interest, but I don't need to give the government the opportunity to review whether I've pocketed my income rather than spent it on paying down my loan. Towns get federal dollars to build new schools, but they don't have to prove they're not mismanaging the funds they already have.

SFB-That is very funny; really.

welfare queens?

Why not? As much as I supported welfare reform, baseball owners fit the "welfare queen" stereotype far better than even the most egregious inner-city resident receiving welfare ever did.

Whatever a welfare queen is, I suspect if she marched into the mayor of any city and said she would move herself and family if certain conditions were not met, all she would receive is a map and and a smile.

I don't understand why a sports teams would't thrive in the Raleigh/Durham area. You'd think they'd be able to pull in people from Charlotte and the Virginia Tidewater region.

Whatever a welfare queen is, I suspect if she marched into the mayor of any city and said she would move herself and family if certain conditions were not met, all she would receive is a map and and a smile.

Not if she can successfully assert that her existence is good for local business.


EDIT: Poor word choice. Perhaps "convincingly" assert. Convincing to some people, in any case.

"Not if she can successfully assert that her existence is good for local business."

Exactly. I would love to hear the argument, though.

I get a subsidy on my home mortgage interest, but I don't need to give the government the opportunity to review whether I've pocketed my income rather than spent it on paying down my loan. Towns get federal dollars to build new schools, but they don't have to prove they're not mismanaging the funds they already have.

The home mortgage interest, however, is a tax rule that applies to everyone equally. The government's not building places of business for everyone who owns a business however, so if a business owner is selectively chosen to get a welfare grant, paid for by unwilling citizens, then yes, government should require a complete disclosure of all financials.

"paid for by unwilling citizens"

I am not sure I can get behind that one. Citizens certainly get to vote on whomever makes those decisions, and if it is such a clear bad business decision, or the decision is based on graft or bribes, then the politicians who make these deals will be voted out of office. These aren't judicially mandated decisions, were the judges do not face the electorate.

Is there an instance where a local referendum by the people went one way (a "no" vote to a stadium under a particular financing plan), and the place was built in the face of that vote? I do understand there have been no votes by citizens, which is a healthy way to reflect the desires of the citizens.

Is there an instance where a local referendum by the people went one way (a "no" vote to a stadium under a particular financing plan), and the place was built in the face of that vote?

Pittsburgh.

I am not sure I can get behind that one. Citizens certainly get to vote on whomever makes those decisions, and if it is such a clear bad business decision, or the decision is based on graft or bribes, then the politicians who make these deals will be voted out of office. These aren't judicially mandated decisions, were the judges do not face the electorate.

I gotta note here you're talking to a libertarian, so I'm going to have a different view on "should." I don't think that my right to not have my things seized at gunpoint and given to Jeff Loria should have to rely on the ballot box in order to be protected.

fair enough as to being a libertarian, and I agree that for libertarians very little should be funded from the tax base, but my goodness, we are way passed what libertarians would agree should be the subject of government spending. On a purely theoretical basis, I can agree with you to that extent, but I do think the notion of there being a decision made that a MLB franchise and attendant home dates can provide a return on the public investment equals a welfare queen status for the owner is way off base.

The home mortgage interest, however, is a tax rule that applies to everyone equally. The government's not building places of business for everyone who owns a business however, so if a business owner is selectively chosen to get a welfare grant, paid for by unwilling citizens, then yes, government should require a complete disclosure of all financials.

Also, while the government doesn't ask what you are doing with the subsidy, they do ask what you're doing with the house. If it's an investment property, they you don't get the deduction.

A business getting a huge public subsidy like this should have to account for what they are doing with the business.

RDU is full of transplants, which might make initial warming up to a team difficult. And I don't think they'd pull many fans from Charlotte, which is across the state.

I grew up in Raleigh and am always shocked to see how big its TV market is. Even when I go back there, it still seems small-time. Its population may be rising quickly, but it's very spread out. Raleigh's skyline is about two buildings.

On a purely theoretical basis, I can agree with you to that extent, but I do think the notion of there being a decision made that a MLB franchise and attendant home dates can provide a return on the public investment equals a welfare queen status for the owner is way off base.

Jeff Loria is having hundreds of millions of dollars added to the value of his portfolio by having things seized from other citizens, with little (if that) tangible benefit to those citizens.

I think welfare queen is being nice, to be honest. I'd wager that the average store owner gets more of a tangible benefit from their "investment" in a protection racket than the average DC resident will get from their "investment" in a new stadium.

an accounting means they provide some sort of P&L;statement. With all due respect, that is not what is really being asked for here. What people are asking for is for more money to be spent on salaries, and for certain players to get certain contracts. And (I think) one huge difference is that even if the government gets a complete accounting by the taxpayer (the income tax return), that accounting is private (unless, of course, the Clintons want to see it). I am assuming that people don't merely want the government to see the team's P&L;statement; they themselves want to see it. You know, the home mortage public accountability falls off on so many levels, it isn't worth recounting.

"I'd wager that the average store owner gets more of a tangible benefit from their "investment" in a protection racket than the average DC resident will get from their "investment" in a new stadium."

And that is your bet to make. But remember, there are plenty of people in South carolina who think that the citizens are getting robbed when the state induces with some tax abatements another automobile plant for Greenville, too. And maybe they citizens of South Carolina are correct. But that ship passed a long time ago. Governments get to make these decisions now, and the only choice for a citizen is to prove those decision makers wrong and vote them out of office. If they are so brazenly wrong, they will lose their elections, and politicos are not of the mind-set to do that.

And as for the protection racket, really. At worst a baseball owner says "build me a stadium or I will leave and go somewhere else" (giving the municipality a choice). A protection racket says "give me your money or I will break your windows or burn your business establishment." Do you really mean to compare those 2?

All of that has to do with income. It has little or nothing to do with what they spend their money on. JRJ's point above was that teams need to show what they're spending on. Does anyone have to show whether they're spending money wisely in order to gain/justify a subsidy?

You have to show all kinds of things when you apply for Food Stamps, for instance. Take a look at a sample application if you don't believe me.

Dan is right.

so is Colin, for that matter.

fair enough as to being a libertarian, and I agree that for libertarians very little should be funded from the tax base, but my goodness, we are way passed what libertarians would agree should be the subject of government spending.

I have a different libertarian perspective. I see the US as a lost cause re: liberty. Better for government to expand quickly to where it's going, destroy the economy and piss the people truly off. That way lies a quicker revolution.


As to the matter at hand, I think RDU and Charlotte either one could support a team to small market levels. I think OKC would draw a lot from the rest of the state, which wouldn't make it a large market for sure, but I think easterners don't understand that driving 100 miles to OKC is a pretty typical thing to do for entertainment. The Sooners certainly draw from that far, and farther, for home games. How often they could get that draw is an open question.

Isn't this just the inevitable consequence of Budshovism? From each according to their ability, to each according to their willingness to cry poverty? Shameless welfare queens like Jeffrey Loria aren't going to recuse themselves from that enormous free money teat just because some of the peasantry, too impoverished to afford a ballclub of their own, think such overt displays of self-enriching greed are unseemly.

I think if I were a Florida taxpayer I'd want to know where the Marlins are spending their $30 million in revenue sharing, before I decide if they are worthy of spending $600 million.
http://sportslocker.blogspot.com/

I think if I were a Florida taxpayer I'd want to know where the Marlins are spending their $30 million in revenue sharing, before I decide if they are worthy of spending $600 million.

Given that most of the public funding comes from a tourism tax, maybe you should open the books to Florida visitors.

But remember, there are plenty of people in South carolina who think that the citizens are getting robbed when the state induces with some tax abatements another automobile plant for Greenville, too.

BINGO. This is so common as to barely rate as news any more. I don't see the difference with a stadium deal, other than the civic pride angle.

I get a subsidy on my home mortgage interest, but I don't need to give the government the opportunity to review whether I've pocketed my income rather than spent it on paying down my loan.

Actually, the government would prefer you did neither. They'd prefer you went out and spent that subsidy -- new car, new kitchen, boxes of Wheaties, going to strip clubs. They don't really care what you spend it on, just spend it.

Given that most of the public funding comes from a tourism tax, maybe you should open the books to Florida visitors.

Care to elaborate further on the tourism tax? Can you describe to me a "tourism tax" that is not actually paid in full by locals in the form of higher cost of living? It's a sleazy tax-happy government sleight of hand to propose "tourist taxes," because most people fall for that.

Of cities that currently have a stadium that could support a major league team (at least on a temporary basis), I can only think of Montreal, Vancouver and New Orleans. I doubt any of those three cities will be in the running for a team any time soon.

The obvious answer is just to move the team to one of those cities that already has a stadium. Montreal Marlins, anyone?

Care to elaborate further on the tourism tax? Can you describe to me a "tourism tax" that is not actually paid in full by locals in the form of higher cost of living? It's a sleazy tax-happy government sleight of hand to propose "tourist taxes," because most people fall for that.

The "tourist tax" is primarily a tax on rentals of less than six months, the vast majority of which are hotel rooms. These taxes usually are spent on things meant to attract and serve visitors -- convention centers, whatever. My impression is that the taxes for the stadium represent a reallocation of existing tax revenue to the stadium from other things and not an imposition of new taxes. A libertarian could argue that these taxes should be rescinded. Maybe he would be right, but as that's not likely to happen in any time frame relevant to the construction of the Marlins' stadium, the real problem here isn't the tax but rather the opportunity cost of using it on the ballpark and not on whatever the hell else they could be spending the money on.

(There is also a $50 million bond for work on the Orange Bowl which is now going to the Marlins' ballpark, as well as associated costs of new parking, roads and so on, which will not be insubstantial and seem likely to come from general tax revenue.)

"Bed taxes" on hotels seem to be pretty popular for funding sports stadiums and similar things. They don't cause any direct cost to the locals, and the drag on employment (and hotel profits) isn't easy to spot.

"Bed taxes" on hotels seem to be pretty popular for funding sports stadiums and similar things. They don't cause any direct cost to the locals, and the drag on employment (and hotel profits) isn't easy to spot.

Correct. The direct cost is not fronted by the hotels. It's fronted by the locals businesses. You charge me $75 for a hotel room when you used to charge me $60, then that's $15 that I won't spend on meals, souvenirs, etc. That makes tourism more expensive, which decreases tourism as a whole, which is bad for business. That has exactly the opposite effect from what the politico-speak purpose is. And you're right, it isn't easy to pinpoint, which is why politicians love obfuscating taxes like this.

(There is also a $50 million bond for work on the Orange Bowl which is now going to the Marlins' ballpark, as well as associated costs of new parking, roads and so on, which will not be insubstantial and seem likely to come from general tax revenue.)

As part of the deal the Marlins will be leasing the parking spaces as well (for 35 seasons), the payments of which will cover the cost of construction. Roads and Orange Bowl demolition are a different story, but they usually are.

The "tourist tax" is primarily a tax on rentals of less than six months, the vast majority of which are hotel rooms.

Also car rentals. In CT I rented a car once, and they planned to charge me an additional 20% in state-mandated taxes and fees; but when they found out I was a CT resident they waived everything but the sales tax. They specifically target these things to out-of-staters, at least around these parts.

You charge me $75 for a hotel room when you used to charge me $60, then that's $15 that I won't spend on meals, souvenirs, etc. That makes tourism more expensive, which decreases tourism as a whole, which is bad for business.

A lot of travel is for business, and I don't know how many businesses footing the bill for travel are going to change their plans because the cost went up $15 per day in Miami. This has a huge dampening effect.

Is there an instance where a local referendum by the people went one way (a "no" vote to a stadium under a particular financing plan), and the place was built in the face of that vote? I do understand there have been no votes by citizens, which is a healthy way to reflect the desires of the citizens.

Maricopa Co. and I believe Seattle (may have been King Co.), besides Pittsburgh.

A lot of travel is for business, and I don't know how many businesses footing the bill for travel are going to change their plans because the cost went up $15 per day in Miami. This has a huge dampening effect.

True, but I don't think that makes it better just less obvious, as a guy standing at the airport demanding cash would be more obvious. Salami slicing can also be difficult to detect, but it's still stealing.

There's also indirect cost to the local people. If their state is able to effectively tax out-of-staters to get stuff, other states do this and do the same, which will cost those initial locals when they travel elsewhere.

And as for the protection racket, really. At worst a baseball owner says "build me a stadium or I will leave and go somewhere else" (giving the municipality a choice). A protection racket says "give me your money or I will break your windows or burn your business establishment." Do you really mean to compare those 2?

Give me money and I'll break this roster and burn the fan base's hopes for competitive baseball.

David Samson would've been decapitated at a bris.

Best Regards

John

Yes, Seattle also voted against building Safeco (in what I believe was the closest-ever municipal election--less than a thousand-vote difference, or something like that). The city council said that the tight race indicated support for a stadium, just not that particular financing plan. They shuffled some paperwork, approved millions in spending and voila--new stadium.

Maricopa Co. and I believe Seattle (may have been King Co.), besides Pittsburgh.

Yup, it was a quarter-cent sales tax in Maricopa County.

Yup, it was a quarter-cent sales tax in Maricopa County.

County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox was shot over the vote. Few remember this stuff years after the stadiums are built.

Is there an instance where a local referendum by the people went one way (a "no" vote to a stadium under a particular financing plan), and the place was built in the face of that vote?

Pittsburgh.

Wow. And look how that turned out.

Yup, it was a quarter-cent sales tax in Maricopa County.
County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox was shot over the vote. Few remember this stuff years after the stadiums are built.

And Racine recalled a state legislator over his voting for the Miller Park tax. He later threw out the first pitch at one of the early Brewers games in Miller Park.

Mary Rose Wilcox was shot over the vote. Few remember this stuff years after the stadiums are built.

He claimed he was trying to stop the political dictatorship of Jerry Colangelo.

Until the Marlins can realize some benefit to spending that money, don't count on it. They're in a position in which nothing they do - great or terrible - matters.

#30

Charlotte (if you include NBA arenas)

Re #46: That plant will probably create 300 or 400 high paying jobs. A stadium deal creates ZERO new jobs, moves existing low paying jobs over to it, and there is ZERO evidence that show any benefit to the city from building a new stadium. Whether you agree with raising taxes to build the plant or not, the situations are not comparable.

The home mortgage interest, however, is a tax rule that applies to everyone equally. The government's not building places of business for everyone who owns a business however, so if a business owner is selectively chosen to get a welfare grant, paid for by unwilling citizens, then yes, government should require a complete disclosure of all financials.

Also, while the government doesn't ask what you are doing with the subsidy, they do ask what you're doing with the house. If it's an investment property, they you don't get the deduction.

2 other points
1) Home mortgage interest deduction is limited to the first million of mortgage.
2) With the AMT, there are limits to the itemized deductions you can take.

So, there are limits and it doesn't affect everyone equally. The "rich" get limited deductions.

Of cities that currently have a stadium that could support a major league team (at least on a temporary basis), I can only think of Montreal, Vancouver and New Orleans.
Buffalo, Norfolk, and Portland (I think - not sure what renovations have done to PGE's expandability) have stadiums that would work temporarily - I suppose you could say the same of San Juan. Charlotte's park was built to be expandable, but is so popular that it's about to be replaced.
Of course, some existing MLB teams have parks that would do the trick, but those are even worse options.

I don't understand why a sports teams would't thrive in the Raleigh/Durham area.
Already has hockey, plus a lot of college sports (3 ACC teams), plus NFL and NBA in Charlotte, lots of transplants, and a decentralized population (which particularly hurts for baseball). The existing response (AAA team, AA team, easy access to other minor league teams + college and summer league ball not too far away, occasional national team action in Durham/Cary) is plenty sufficient.

If a single city team were to work for MLB, I'd try Norfolk - though bounding by DC to the north and the Atlantic to the east doesn't help.