As I related below, Washington, D.C. is planning to build a stadium for the relocating Montreal Expos. Although the city's government is already cash-strapped, it promises to find some way to squeeze $200 million from its citizens for the new stadium. That's just the construction costs. The operating costs come later.
Doug Bandow writes in Tech Central Station that there is not yet a recorded instance where a publicly-funded stadium has been anything but a bottomless pit for tax dollars. In addition, the long-term economic effect on the city in which the stadium is build ends up being a wash -- it leads more to a redistribution of leisure spending from residents than it does to an inflow of spending from outside the area.
Never mind the fact that rich team owners could build their own stadiums. As long as local governments are happy to fleece the citizens in order to attract or retain a sports team, the owners have no real reason to part with their billions.
3 comments:
There's precedent in DC for an owner financing his own stadium; Jack Kent Cooke did that for the Redskins. Thing is, and this hasn't been brought up much, the Expos currently have no "owner", as they are now owned by Major League Baseball. Once an owner (or ownership group) is found, then they can re-name the team, if they choose to do so.
Mayor Williams is already turning this into a political issue by saying he wouldn't want the team named "Senators" again because, you see, DC doesn't have one. Funny, DC didn't have a Senator 80 years ago but it didn't seem to bother anyone.
Wait a minute, I think $25 million just fell into their laps. Check this out, from today's Post:
Drop in Out-of-Wedlock Births Rewarded
The District was awarded a $25 million bonus from the federal government for reducing out-of-wedlock births without a corresponding increase in the abortion rate, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced yesterday.
The money has been given out annually to up to five states and three territories as a way to encourage local governments to create innovative social programs.
To receive the money, states and territories must show a decrease in their abortion rate, measured by the number of abortions divided by the number of births.
The federal government reported that the District had 499 fewer out-of-wedlock births from 1999 to 2002, according to the most recent figures available.
In addition to the District, New York, New Hampshire and Maryland were awarded $25 million. Maryland had 245 fewer births.
Huh.
I wonder how easy it is to fudge the numbers so that they qualify for the award...
Post a Comment