I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction to believe that public financing of professional sports stadiums is bad policy.
Yes, it's true, NFL owners will shop cities for free stadiums. Houston got one. So did St. Louis. Does that make it the best use of public money?
The Rams are already extorting St. Louis for massive upgrades. The Georgia Dome has only been open since 1992. I mean, when these place are built, aren't they designed to last longer than a couple decades?
The question of whether these things pay for themselves is literally something people write theses about.
I personally believe that these stadiums do not pay for themselves.
Professional sports team aren't the only entities that do this, btw. I've seen bordering cities get taken to the cleaners as they stumble over each other to throw freebies at Costco or something else that provides lucrative sales tax income. I've also seen tax increment financing work. Sadly, it's so ripe for abuse that our state had to put redevelopment on hold.
Perhaps if the NFL was a fledgling enterprise, there might be a reasonable argument that it needs government assistance. But the NFL is printing money. It can afford to build its own stadiums. Maybe if the NFL had pay its own way, those stadiums would not need to be replaced after two decades of use.
To me, the real question is "how does the government prevent the NFL from pitting cities against each other?"
On a side note, government agencies aren't always do great at financing things. Looks like Miami went the way of the Poway School District to pay for the Marlins new digs:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/01/27 /miami-marlins-have-become-baseballs-most-expensiv e-stadium-disaster/
kelomar wrote: The people in the NFL communities like their teams.
A historical reference: (not chronological)
The Baltimore Colts wanted a new stadium, the poiticians said no and the Colts went to Indy. A few years later with different politicians and the Community missing their team, Baltimore builds a new stadium and lures the Browns to Baltimore, which changes it's name to the Ravens.
The Cleveland Browns wanted a new stadium and the politicians said no, and the team went to Baltimore. After a few years the politicians changed, and the Community wanted a team, and voted to build a new stadium and an expansion franchise was granted. And the team became the Browns again.
Houston - Oilers moved and new stadium brought Texans.
St Louis - Cardinals moved and new stadium brought Rams.
You get the idea, but why go through losing the team to only go through the process again a few years later? Many teams got new stadiums in nearby locations from their original sites, like Buffalo, Miami, Dallas, NE, etc.
The Niners are supposedly moving to Santa Clara from Candlestick in SF. Candlestick doesn't handle the Giants anymore and the Niner players have to use the old baseball dugouts to get from the locker room to the field. I've been there a couple of times. A new stadium inland, away from the ocean will be nice.
The question is...do these new digs eventually pay for them selves? Does the State or region get its money back for ponying up some bucks to get it going? Atlanta would be a good SuperBowl venue, is that in the equation? Can local contractors be assured of getting the construction work so the community prospers? Is Atlanta rife with corruption or would most of the money get to where it needs to go?
There are too many questions for a kneejerk reaction. The Chargers have the same problem.
