I apologize for your wasted education dollars in the land of goon
Thunder to ask OKC residents to fund ~$730 million toward new stadium
- Thread starter Polds4OSU
- Start date
100% reimbursed via my Job so didn't cost me a single dime in the overall picture and Never stepped foot on the campus until I had already received my Masters in the Mail. Wouldn't even go walk there. Had an uncle who told me that even if I did go to graduation and walk and they showed it on closed circuit TV he still wouldn't watch it.
The price tag to taxpayers is insane especially compared to the nfl domes listed above. SoFis price is different because I think it includes a ton of surrounding real estate developments. If I lived in OKC I’d probably vote yes because pro sports are neat but man I don’t like the current state of sports venue financing.
Your two posts are my point exactly
Once again, if it were a profitable investment the billionaire owners would build it themselves and make more money. The average lifespan on an arena is 27 years, not that they’re falling apart just outdated. So by the time taxpayers are done paying for one the owners are expecting a new one.
Kind of a long read but this article debunks pretty much every reason stadium proponents throw out as a reason taxpayers should pay for one.
globalsportmatters.com
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kind of a long read but this article debunks pretty much every reason stadium proponents throw out as a reason taxpayers should pay for one.
So, Your City Wants to Build a Sports Stadium? - Global Sport Matters
Here's what anyone debating public financing for a sports stadium needs to know to combat half truths and exaggerations.
globalsportmatters.com
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think most people understand this. Monetary value is not the only type of value. There is no difference in building an arena for basketball than there is building a civic center for plays or musicals. You can use both for multiple different forms of entertainment. T they bring in different types of events for different types of people. This type of spending of my tax dollars actually gets me tangible evidence that it’s working for me.Once again, if it were a profitable investment the billionaire owners would build it themselves and make more money. The average lifespan on an arena is 27 years, not that they’re falling apart just outdated. So by the time taxpayers are done paying for one the owners are expecting a new one.
Kind of a long read but this article debunks pretty much every reason stadium proponents throw out as a reason taxpayers should pay for one.
So, Your City Wants to Build a Sports Stadium? - Global Sport Matters
Here's what anyone debating public financing for a sports stadium needs to know to combat half truths and exaggerations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can understand that. If that’s how you feel then cool, I’m glad you get to see that. Just speaking for me I’m not onboard with the blackmail aspect of it. Pro sports is a business, and I think building their own arenas should be absorbed by the owners as part of that business. If they can make money by renting out the space for other events then great, it would still contribute to the local economy. Building these best of the best, newest and greatest buildings on the taxpayer’s dime certainly can bring some events to town that would have gone somewhere else for a few years but in the long run cities are going to be left with these venues long after they’re considered outdated, which is really quick these days. Kind of like the empty malls all over that no one knows what to do with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Republicans propose spending $614M in public funds on Milwaukee Brewers' stadium upgrades
MILWAUKEE (AP) — Republican legislators announced a bill Monday that would devote more than $614 million in public funding to repair and renovate the Milwaukee Brewers' stadium — far more than taxpayers spent to build it more than two decades ago.Under the proposal, the state would give the team $60.8 million next fiscal year and up to $20 million each year after that through 2045-46. The city of Milwaukee would contribute a total of $202 million and Milwaukee County would kick in $135 million by 2050.
The team would contribute about $100 million and extend its lease at American Family Field through 2050, keeping Major League Baseball in its smallest market for another 27 years.
“It’s a win for Wisconsin,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said at a news conference at the stadium, American Family Field.
Seeking to justify the public spending, Vos said losing the Brewers to another city would cost the state and local economies tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue each year, which could lead to diminished state aid for communities around Wisconsin.
Baseball operations at American Family Field generate enough tax revenue that lawmakers can afford to give the team money without imposing any new taxes, Vos said.
Rick Schlesinger, the team’s president of business operations, called the proposal a “good first step” during a separate news conference later Monday. He said he expects the plan will be amended, but that he'd be happy with it if it were passed today.
The proposal would have to pass the Republican-controlled state Assembly and state Senate and get Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ signature before it could become law. Evers’ office issued a statement Monday saying he looked forward to reviewing the proposal.
Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson, a Democrat, said the proposal would put too much of a burden on the city. Since city residents are Milwaukee County residents as well, they’re being asked to pay twice, he said. He also complained that that the bill removes the mayor’s appointment to the stadium district board.
Assembly Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer issued a statement echoing Johnson, saying the bill asks too much of the city and the county.
Reports commissioned by the Brewers and another by a state consultant found the stadium’s glass outfield doors, seats and concourses should be replaced, its luxury suites and technology such as its sound system and video scoreboard need upgrades, and its signature retractable roof needs repairs. Fire suppression systems, parking lots, elevators and escalators need work, too.
Schlesinger and Vos said at their respective news conferences that the renovations could include winterizing the stadium so that events could be held there in the cold months, including concerts and NCAA basketball games. Even with the stadium's retractable roof, the temperature inside the stadium can drop below zero, they said.
According to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo attached to the legislation, baseball operations at the stadium currently generate about $19.8 million annually in state and local taxes. That figure is expected to grow to $50.7 million annually by 2050, according to the memo.
Public funding for professional sports facilities is always a hotly debated issue.
The team's principal owner, Mark Attanasio, has an estimated net worth of $700 million, according to Yahoo Finance. The team itself is valued at around $1.6 billion, according to Forbes. Still, the Brewers have been working for months to secure public funding for stadium repairs and upgrades.
Evers proposed giving the team almost $300 million in the state budget in exchange for the team extending its lease by 13 years, to 2043. Evers would have pulled the money from the state's $7 billion surplus, but Republican lawmakers killed the plan after Vos said he wanted a longer lease extension.
The stadium opened in 2001 as Miller Park and replaced aging County Stadium. Construction cost about $392 million and was funded largely through a 0.1% sales tax imposed in Milwaukee County and the four other counties that surround the stadium.
Construction got off to a tough start. The tax was a lightning rod for criticism; Republican state Sen. George Petak was recalled from office in 1996 after he switched his vote from no to yes on the tax plan. And three construction workers were killed at the stadium in 1999 when a crane collapsed.
But the park ultimately got built. Known for its distinctive fantail retractable roof, the stadium became a destination for Wisconsin baseball fans as the Brewers experienced a resurgence in the late 2000s, advancing to their first playoff appearance in 26 years in 2008. The team has made five other trips to the playoffs since then, including two appearances in the National League Championship Series. The Brewers currently lead the NL Central by 6 ½ games as they pursue their fifth playoff appearance in the last six years.
The five-county sales tax generated about $605 million before it expired in 2020. The stadium name changed to American Family Field in 2021 after the Brewers struck a 15-year naming rights deal with the insurance company.
The Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District essentially serves as the Brewers’ landlord at the stadium. The Brewers’ lease calls for the district to cover repairs, but Evers’ office and the Brewers said in February that the end of the sales tax has left the district short of funds.
The package introduced Monday would create provisions for the state to loan the district up to $50 million for stadium repairs.
Republicans propose spending $614M in public funds on Milwaukee Brewers' stadium upgrades
Republican legislators announced a bill Monday that would devote more than $614 million in public funding to repair and renovate the Milwaukee Brewers' stadium — far more than taxpayers spent to build it more than two decades ago. The city of Milwaukee would contribute a total of $202 million...
PF5
Ranger
Oklahoma City voters consider 1% sales tax to build a $1 billion arena for NBA's Thunder abcnews
...
But the team owners want a new arena, and under a deal they cut with city leaders, they want taxpayers to foot most of the $900 million price tag.
...
Oklahoma City voters are set to decide Tuesday whether to approve a six-year, 1% sales tax to help fund construction or risk the same fate as Seattle: losing the team to another market. But some residents and experts who have studied public-private partnerships say the deal is much better for the wealthy team owners than the average resident.
...
Many city residents say the deal is far too generous for the Thunder owners, who include some of the wealthiest residents of Oklahoma, especially at a time when most arenas are being funded primarily by private investment or a much smaller public investment.
...
Still, economists who study arenas and their impact on cities say research consistently shows they have little tangible economic impact in the community and that public subsidies for arenas and stadiums far exceed any financial benefits they might have.
A group of more than 20 Oklahoma-based economists and finance professors published a letter on Dec. 4 encouraging a “no” vote on the new arena, which they said would not have a meaningful impact on economic growth and would instead divert public money from other needs while incurring new debt.
They also pointed out that for the 12 new arenas and 12 new stadiums built across the U.S. since 2010, the average public expenditure was about 42% and that since 2020, three arenas have been built with no public money.
...
“Whoever negotiated this for the city of Oklahoma City should be fired for incompetence,” said Bradbury, who said he is particularly concerned about the lack of price ceilings.
“When you tell me an arena is going to be a minimum of $900 million with no caps, you've just committed to a $2 billion arena,” he said. “It is by far the worst stadium deal I've ever seen negotiated from a public standpoint.”
...
But the team owners want a new arena, and under a deal they cut with city leaders, they want taxpayers to foot most of the $900 million price tag.
...
Oklahoma City voters are set to decide Tuesday whether to approve a six-year, 1% sales tax to help fund construction or risk the same fate as Seattle: losing the team to another market. But some residents and experts who have studied public-private partnerships say the deal is much better for the wealthy team owners than the average resident.
...
Many city residents say the deal is far too generous for the Thunder owners, who include some of the wealthiest residents of Oklahoma, especially at a time when most arenas are being funded primarily by private investment or a much smaller public investment.
...
Still, economists who study arenas and their impact on cities say research consistently shows they have little tangible economic impact in the community and that public subsidies for arenas and stadiums far exceed any financial benefits they might have.
A group of more than 20 Oklahoma-based economists and finance professors published a letter on Dec. 4 encouraging a “no” vote on the new arena, which they said would not have a meaningful impact on economic growth and would instead divert public money from other needs while incurring new debt.
They also pointed out that for the 12 new arenas and 12 new stadiums built across the U.S. since 2010, the average public expenditure was about 42% and that since 2020, three arenas have been built with no public money.
...
“Whoever negotiated this for the city of Oklahoma City should be fired for incompetence,” said Bradbury, who said he is particularly concerned about the lack of price ceilings.
“When you tell me an arena is going to be a minimum of $900 million with no caps, you've just committed to a $2 billion arena,” he said. “It is by far the worst stadium deal I've ever seen negotiated from a public standpoint.”
I hate the idea of taxpayers paying that much money to support a private enterprise. I absolutely understand and appreciate the vote NO crowd.
But I sheepishly admit that if I lived in OKC I would most likely vote YES.
Having a pro basketball does wonders for downtown and Bricktown, a new arena will continue interesting concerts and events, and I like the fact I have a NBA team with a reason to support during the season.
But I sheepishly admit that if I lived in OKC I would most likely vote YES.
Having a pro basketball does wonders for downtown and Bricktown, a new arena will continue interesting concerts and events, and I like the fact I have a NBA team with a reason to support during the season.
This goes a LONG way toward support TONS of local and small businesses in OKC and supporting ALL enterprise in OKC
In 2023, the value of the National Basketball Association franchise Oklahoma City Thunder grew to 3.05 billion U.S. dollars. This denoted an increase of around 63 percent over the previous year, when the franchise had an estimated value of 1.88 billion U.S. dollars.
cybercowboy
New member
While I agree that it doesn't look like a very good deal, I lived in Seattle when they built a new football stadium, a new baseball stadium and then refused to build a basketball stadium and now the Sonics are the Thunder. The Thunder can just as easily move somewhere else to get a better stadium. The people in Seattle are still pissed off that we 'stole' them. The people of OKC at least get to decide what they want to do, its not being forced on them.
It kind of is being forced on them, though. People with a lot of money are telling people with not a lot of money "you better give us more money or we'll take this away from you.". Sure, it's a choice, but not a great one.
Owners could not care less about where the team resides, because they get richer either way.
You can fix a lot of what you said for 50 million. The city already got the bump they are going to get from the Thunder in the downtown area. Making things nicer for media and players isn't a tax payer concern.
cybercowboy
New member
In Seattle, we actually voted against the new football/baseball stadiums and the council went around us and implemented nasty taxes on rental cars, hotels and restaurants.. figuring that tourists don't have a say.
