Great timing - Bill introduced to eliminate tax subsidy for pro sports stadiums

[The 9 Isles]

Bill introduced to eliminate tax subsidy for pro sports stadiums

 

“Super-rich sports team owners like Dan Snyder do not need federal support to build their stadiums, and taxpayers should not be forced to fund them,” Beyer said in a statement. “Billionaire owners who need cash can borrow from the market like any other business.”

 

more complications. 

[JoPoy88]

Very unlikely this even gets to a vote, let alone passes. 
 

Edit: as others have said, this is likely a tactic from Congress to persuade the NFL to cooperate with their sexual harassment inquiries. Owners (including the Bills’) looking to build new stadiums now are more likely to place more pressure on their peers to dial back their stalling and obstruction.

 

Anything that gets Dan Snyder out of the league asap I’m on board with.

Edited February 23, 2022 by JoPoy88

[DJB]

Im confused. 

 

Are the Patriots getting more comp picks now? 

[CA OC Bills Fan]

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

[WhoTom]

10 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

 

Seems to me that corporate welfare (i.e. government subsidies for billionaires) is the opposite of a free-market economy.

 

[DallasBillsFan1]

I will always defend the taxpayer as they are over-burdened as it is.  The want and "need" for taxpayer money is insatiable ... federal, state, local, and corporations.  As much as I love my Bills and the NFL product ... and as much as I am a capitalist pig ... the taxpayer should not be funding these stadiums.  It's that simple.  Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

[DCofNC]

1 minute ago, DallasBillsFan1 said:

I will always defend the taxpayer as they are over-burdened as it is.  The want and "need" for taxpayer money is insatiable ... federal, state, local, and corporations.  As much as I love my Bills and the NFL product ... and as much as I am a capitalist pig ... the taxpayer should not be funding these stadiums.  It's that simple.  Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

[HardyBoy]

8 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

 

Nothing about the nfl is free market though.

 

Also, I think the argument is that the money could be better spent to help children in really tough situations. Children made zero choices to get in those situations, so the personal choices have consequences argument does not apply.

 

Very acceptable initial position to take that tax money is consistently not spent wisely (I don't think this is a slam dunk though), but if you take the position that tax money is spent poorly, then spending tax money on a stadium is an example of poor spending of tax money.

 

If all is spent poorly, then that would include sports stadiums. Otherwise, one opens up themselves to saying that tax money is spent poorly unless they see a direct benefit while others do not, and that is just a pretty massive contradiction.

 

Unless you go zero taxes, which then how do you pay for roads and other infrastructure, you are always going to have fewer benefits of some taxes and more from others. And taxes don't always help only those without...taxes spent on a toll road for example, those roads are inaccessible to people without cars or who cannot afford to pay the tolls.

 

It's a messy, complicated, nuanced conversation ultimately that I'm not sure we are capable of having with the current two sides and not being able to acknowledge good points by others because it amounts to some fictitious "win" that we cannot allow them to have.

[DCofNC]

3 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Nothing about the nfl is free market though.

 

Also, I think the argument is that the money could be better spent to help children in really tough situations. Children made zero choices to get in those situations, so the personal choices have consequences argument does not apply.

 

Very acceptable initial position to take that tax money is consistently not spent wisely (I don't think this is a slam dunk though), but if you take the position that tax money is spent poorly, then spending tax money on a stadium is an example of poor spending of tax money.

 

If all is spent poorly, then that would include sports stadiums. Otherwise, one opens up themselves to saying that tax money is spent poorly unless they see a direct benefit while others do not, and that is just a pretty massive contradiction.

 

Unless you go zero taxes, which then how do you pay for roads and other infrastructure, you are always going to have fewer benefits of some taxes and more from others. And taxes don't always help only those without...taxes spent on a toll road for example, those roads are inaccessible to people without cars or who cannot afford to pay the tolls.

 

It's a messy, complicated, nuanced conversation ultimately that I'm not sure we are capable of having with the current two sides and not being able to acknowledge good points by others because it amounts to some fictitious "win" that we cannot allow them to have.

Well said.  I also don’t think this is the forum for a political discussion on the subject.  This may impact the Bills funding, but overall, this is a political pissing match just waiting to break out.

[BuffaloBillies]

How about...

 

Tax payer help = NO PSL and cheaper tickets

No tax payer help = PSL and more expensive tickets

 

Either way they'd get theirs.

 

But, tax payer help AND PSL AND more expensive tickets = not cool

[Don Otreply]

18 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

  So the multi billionaires that own the NFL monopoly should not carry their own weight, and wage earners should come out of pocket to build their corporation infrastructure?  
 

  I for one don’t care if folk are or get rich, that doesn’t mean they don’t have to pay there way anymore. 
 

  This corporate worship really does need to stop. 

[Saxum]

Considering almost every senator or representative ends up much richer when they leave office or are in office for substantial period of time sometimes cashing in donations when they retire they should stop feeding off the public trough. The Senate and House of Representatives has proven many times that it can’t play by the rules and when they are caught they change the rules.

[Don Otreply]

29 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

So you are saying that the county government via taxpayers wages foot that portion alone? I’m thinking the folk that live their aren’t down with that…, 

[BillsVet]

I don't care for state and local money tax revenue and tax expenditures paying for stadiums.  That said, those who make spending decisions are duly elected (for the most part) and their constituents have a say.  

 

The Federal government passing a law to bar public spending probably doesn't even survive a committee vote.  Kinda late to be even thinking this way given that it's been a practice for decades already throughout the nation.  

[HardyBoy]

23 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Well said.  I also don’t think this is the forum for a political discussion on the subject.  This may impact the Bills funding, but overall, this is a political pissing match just waiting to break out.

 

Totally agree, and when I said we can't have a civil nuanced conversation on it, I didn't mean this board, but society in general.

 

I think if you look at the posts so far, 90% if not really 100% are basically saying the same thing, from different perspectives.

 

People get really hung up on the words people use instead of what they are trying to actually say. The other side of that though is people intentionally saying things in a certain way to get reactions out of people to then be able to say see I can't say anything without being attacked.

[msw2112]

I'm going to talk out of both sides of my mouth here and be a total hypocrite, but here goes:

 

1.  Generally speaking, I don't think there should be public funding for professional sports stadia.  They are used by private entites to generate private revenue.  If the state/county/city own the facility and rent it back to the team, and it can be shown that the rent and/or stadium taxes results in the state/county/city breaking even or making a profit, then I'm OK with it.  That said, and I am not an economist, but from what I have read, these situations are always money-losers for the public entities.

 

2.  Specifically as a BILLS FAN, I support public funding.  If we are talking a true capitalist/free-market concept, the Pegulas could move the Bills to bunch of other markets (Austin, San Antonio, Portland (OR), Toronto, maybe even St. Louis) and make more money than they would in Buffalo.  In order for a small market to compete with larger markets and get or retain a team, the community may need to step up and help out.  Given the positive psychological impact of having major league sports in a market such as Buffalo, I believe it's worth it to have the taxpayers contribute.  I realize that the Pegulas will make money either way, as the NFL TV contract is the primary source of revenue, but there's no question they could make more money (A LOT MORE) in a larger market.  In larger markets, teams can have more skyboxes and fancy bars & restaurants in the stadium, charge more for tickets, charge more for concessions and parking, get more corporate sponsorships at higher rates, etc.  I have been to NFL games in Dallas and LA, where it costs $100 or more more to park your car.  Would that fly in Buffalo?

Edited February 23, 2022 by msw2112

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

If this passes ( which I doubt)...say goodbye to the Bills.

 

But, the way government operates, by the time this passes, the new stadium will have been built.

[RangerDave]

1 hour ago, DallasBillsFan1 said:

Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

Hmmm...makes me wonder.  Do governments in other countries pay for stadiums for things like soccer, hockey. cricket, etc?  That would be interesting to know.

 

29 minutes ago, msw2112 said:

1.  Generally speaking, I don't think there should be public funding for professional sports stadia.  They are used by private entites to generate private revenue.  If the state/county/city own the facility and rent it back to the team, and it can be shown that the rent and/or stadium taxes results in the state/county/city breaking even or making a profit, then I'm OK with it.  That said, and I am not an economist, but from what I have read, these situations are always money-losers for the public entities.

Don't other businesses get public funding to build things like factories, restaurants, hotels?  I know a small town in upstate NY where I lived got $10m for "downtown revitalization".  That means taxpayer money went into renovating or building places for private companies.  The only difference I see is the huge difference in money involved.

[Albany,n.y.]

1 hour ago, DallasBillsFan1 said:

I will always defend the taxpayer as they are over-burdened as it is.  The want and "need" for taxpayer money is insatiable ... federal, state, local, and corporations.  As much as I love my Bills and the NFL product ... and as much as I am a capitalist pig ... the taxpayer should not be funding these stadiums.  It's that simple.  Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

When the county stops owning stadiums, then you can say you don't want taxpayer funded stadiums, but the bottom line is Erie County is the owner of the stadium & the land & it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the Bills to pay everything for something they don't own.  

 

When municipalities stop building stadiums on municipally owned land, the taxpayers will be able to stop funding stadiums.  Until that actually happens there is no reason to expect the Pegulas to foot the entire bill to build a stadium on Erie County's land.  

 

Every time the state, county, town or city builds a new building on land they own, from a tiny garage to an office building to a stadium, the taxpayers pay for it.  

 

What you really want are private stadiums on private land owned by private individuals-Good luck with that.

1 hour ago, DCofNC said:

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

It's really a local/state's rights issue that the federal government shouldn't come anywhere near. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Albany,n.y.

[Albany,n.y.]

26 minutes ago, RangerDave said:

Hmmm...makes me wonder.  Do governments in other countries pay for stadiums for things like soccer, hockey. cricket, etc?  That would be interesting to know.

 

Don't other businesses get public funding to build things like factories, restaurants, hotels?  I know a small town in upstate NY where I lived got $10m for "downtown revitalization".  That means taxpayer money went into renovating or building places for private companies.  The only difference I see is the huge difference in money involved.

When olympics are held in a city for the1st time, new stadiums & arenas are built with government funding, often at a loss since there are no permanent tenants.  Real Sports once did a segment on this.

 

There are a lot of private buildings built after tax breaks have been granted so that a building can be built in a specific municipality.  Many times with the promise of bringing hundreds of jobs into the area.  

 

If the Bills were to leave, there would immediately be fewer jobs from people directly employed by the Bills all the way to restaurants and motels in the area that gain customers on football weekends.  

Edited February 23, 2022 by Albany,n.y.