Quote:
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.