U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
952 posts, read 1,077,214 times
Reputation: 1030

Advertisements

It appears that the Coyotes, Diamondbacks, and Suns are all either publicly (or not so secretly) desiring new stadiums.

Their current facilities are only 14, 18, and 24 years old (respectively).

All 3 of these facilities were built by taxpayers.

It also appears that each team wants its own new stadium.

A new NHL or NBA arena runs about $300 - 400 million

A new MLB ballpark with a retractable roof will run about $600 - 800 million.

If all 3 facilities are built, we could be looking at $1.2 - 1.6 billion in pro sports facilities.

The teams are going to want the best deal possible. That means that they're going to want Phoenix, Tempe, or Maricopa County taxpayers to cough up a large portion of this funding.

I just believe it's ridiculous to essentially commit this much money to corporate welfare for a grand total of 162 events a year (41 hockey games, 41 basketball games, and 81 baseball games).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,918,871 times
Reputation: 7700
I agree but I think there are too many cheerleaders/sports-obsessed people that frankly don't care that they and/or their neighbors are footing the bill for private enterprise.

I'm open to this idea though....those that don't mind this type of funding can write their own check. Those that don't want to can opt out. Make it a true personal choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:29 PM
 
7,081 posts, read 4,086,765 times
Reputation: 6206
The Coyotes I get, the Suns I sorta get (although they are in no position to be asking for anything right now) but the DBacks? That Stadium is one of the nicer ones I've been to in an excellent location.

Let them go, this is greed in the worst way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
952 posts, read 1,077,214 times
Reputation: 1030
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
I agree but I think there are too many cheerleaders/sports-obsessed people that frankly don't care that they and/or their neighbors are footing the bill for private enterprise.

I'm open to this idea though....those that don't mind this type of funding can write their own check. Those that don't want to can opt out. Make it a choice. Sounds fair to me.
I like your idea.

I am a big sports fan (mostly baseball and football).

Would I be disappointed if the Diamondbacks (or Suns or Coyotes) left town? Yes.

Do I want my tax dollars used to keep the Diamondbacks (or Suns or Coyotes) in the Valley? Absolutely not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
952 posts, read 1,077,214 times
Reputation: 1030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64 View Post
The Coyotes I get, the Suns I sorta get (although they are in no position to be asking for anything right now) but the DBacks? That Stadium is one of the nicer ones I've been to in an excellent location.

Let them go, this is greed in the worst way.
The Coyotes were the ones that decided to put forward the plan to have the stadium in that awful location in the first place. The team was the anchor to their then owner's Westgate development.

Let them clean up their own mess.

The Suns, I also sort of get, but the team has been awful. Plus, their current arena was just substantially renovated about 6 years ago or so.

The Diamondbacks ballpark is way too large for a major league team. However, it's not old or outdated in any way. The Diamondbacks should pay for these renovations themselves.

If they can give Zach Greinke $206.5 million in 6 years. They can give Chase Field $187 million in 12 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,918,871 times
Reputation: 7700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztonyg View Post
I like your idea.

I am a big sports fan (mostly baseball and football).

Would I be disappointed if the Diamondbacks (or Suns or Coyotes) left town? Yes.

Do I want my tax dollars used to keep the Diamondbacks (or Suns or Coyotes) in the Valley? Absolutely not.
Agree, it's a private entity that should be funded by private dollars as they are the one's who benefit.

And it certainly isn't the taxpayers or the local region/economy that benefits:

Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost? | Brookings Institution

"In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.

As noted, a stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry—that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports."

Yet we still get stuck funding them over and over again.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64 View Post
The Coyotes I get, the Suns I sorta get (although they are in no position to be asking for anything right now) but the DBacks? That Stadium is one of the nicer ones I've been to in an excellent location.

Let them go, this is greed in the worst way.
Unreal for them to even ask.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
952 posts, read 1,077,214 times
Reputation: 1030
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Agree, it's a private entity that should be funded by private dollars as they are the one's who benefit.

And it certainly isn't the taxpayers or the local region/economy that benefits:

Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost? | Brookings Institution

"In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.

As noted, a stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry—that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports."

Yet we still get stuck funding them over and over again.....



Unreal for them to even ask.....
Using that logic, it makes sense to continue to finance the Cactus League but also makes sense to tell the Diamondbacks that they should finance their own new stadium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 08:04 PM
 
2,530 posts, read 1,670,465 times
Reputation: 2709
People need to chill out, the D'Backs have NOT I repeat HAVE NOT asked to anything from taxpayers at this point. They are doing exactly what any of you would do if you entered into a contract that said maintenance on your home would be managed to a certain level and then told there is no way that agreed upon maintenance will get done.

All they've asked for at this point is the option to explore options as their landlord is not keeping up their end of bargain. The overreaction to this simple request is asinine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 08:14 PM
 
5,261 posts, read 3,311,295 times
Reputation: 6434
They signed a 30 year lease with 12 more years left on the lease, they aren't going anywhere, at least for awhile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,918,871 times
Reputation: 7700
Quote:
Originally Posted by locolife View Post
People need to chill out, the D'Backs have NOT I repeat HAVE NOT asked to anything from taxpayers at this point. They are doing exactly what any of you would do if you entered into a contract that said maintenance on your home would be managed to a certain level and then told there is no way that agreed upon maintenance will get done.

All they've asked for at this point is the option to explore options as their landlord is not keeping up their end of bargain. The overreaction to this simple request is asinine.
Arizona Diamondbacks ask permission to explore new stadium options; Maricopa County says no - ABC15 Arizona

Does almost $200 million dollars for "maintenance" sound a bit excessive to anyone?

Regardless, if this was a contract and agreed upon legally by both parties, I agree with you....the agreement should be honored. But then I think we should all step back to see how beyond bad these deals are for the taxpayer which I'm guessing who are the one's who will ultimately foot some/most/all of this bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top