We have money for pro sports, but not for foster children. (sales, how much)

[travis t]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...r-foster-kids/

There currently is a crisis in the region due to lack of funding for foster care.

One hundred foster kids in King County have stayed in hotels over the past year because the state had no place to put them, a situation that Washington’s child-welfare secretary called “disastrous for children.”

Even Ross Hunter, the secretary of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, said it was a terrible practice.
“It’s insane,” said Hunter...But Hunter said that the state’s rates for group homes and other kinds of care providers are far too low, and until the state can pay more, the problem will persist. Hunter said that more than half the workers in state group homes make less than $13 an hour.

At least the children will have plenty of tax-funded sports to watch while languishing. We've built three subsidized pro sports stadiums since 1995. We imploded a fourth, before it was paid off. The M's just arranged to suck up an additional $135 million in tax dollars.

We are poised to build a fifth stadium now, for hockey. Contrary to popular misinformation, this will not be subsidy-free:
https://deadspin.com/seattle-somehow...bly-1829284068

The city will pay ArenaCo about $350,000 a year for the first 10 years of the deal to cover the sales tax ArenaCo will pay during construction. The city will also pay ArenaCo any admissions taxes collected on tickets for events at the new arena beyond the amount the city currently collects from admissions taxes on events at KeyArena.

These are just backdoor subsidies, similar to what was sought by Chris Hansen (would-be NBA owner). Try getting a deal like that for your small business--your sales tax and admissions tax revenue get plowed back into your business. Good luck with that.

It's a sleight-of-hand move so that they can falsely claim they are 100% privately funded. The billionaire owners and millionaire players get more millions; the children get leftover crumbs.

[thatguy950]

We could also use some of that money wasted in entitlement programs to discourage the scumclass from breeding excessively and creating more foster kids, or just cut them off from it all together so they won’t lay around and breed all the time with those govbuck$,
but that’s a chicken and the egg thing

We need to be proactive and not reactive

[turkeydance]

sports and movie stars get the money since "replacement costs" are so high.
1. who could replace and Have the Same Results of the Green Bay Packers starting quarterback?
2. how much would the "box-office" sales decline if Meryl Streep does not appear in the movie?
3. there are LOTS of foster care options which are "replaced" daily.
foster care is extremely cheap. money-makers are not.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by turkeydance

sports and movie stars get the money since "replacement costs" are so high.
1. who could replace and Have the Same Results of the Green Bay Packers starting quarterback?
2. how much would the "box-office" sales decline if Meryl Streep does not appear in the movie?
3. there are LOTS of foster care options which are "replaced" daily.
foster care is extremely cheap. money-makers are not.

But we're talking about tax dollars here (and movie production does get tax subsidies, but nowhere near as much as pro sports).

Both get tax dollars because they have the money to hire the best lobbyists. The foster children have no lobbyists. The 'replacement cost' angle does not figure in here at all.

[pnwguy2]

Yes, because pro sports benefit the community in many ways. The amount of giving by the Seahawks, Mariners, Sounders and others would surprise most.

Beyond that, the amount of tourism and/or restaurant dollars infused into the economy because of these teams is huge. Finally the PR as a "big league" city is not even definable.

The phrasing of your question is decidedly looking for a certain response. Sorry, but I can't provide that response.

[turkeydance]

"Both get tax dollars because they have the money to hire the best lobbyists."
they were not Born with the Best Lobbyists. they had to WORK to get them.
"The foster children have no lobbyists."
fake. they have lobbyists. just really ineffective ones, apparently.
"The 'replacement cost' angle does not figure in here at all."
ok.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Yes, because pro sports benefit the community in many ways. The amount of giving by the Seahawks, Mariners, Sounders and others would surprise most.

Beyond that, the amount of tourism and/or restaurant dollars infused into the economy because of these teams is huge. Finally the PR as a "big league" city is not even definable.

The phrasing of your question is decidedly looking for a certain response. Sorry, but I can't provide that response.

I seriously doubt that the teams have given anywhere close to the $1 billion that the stadiums cost taxpayers (including financing costs, which after all do have to be paid by taxpayers). What are the numbers re giving? I assume you have them since you claim the numbers 'would surprise most.'

The benefits of pro sports, including tourism etc. have been studied to death by economists. Virtually all studies, other than those funded by interested parties (i.e. teams themselves), conclude that the subsidies are a bad deal for taxpayers.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publ...orts-stadiums/

economists generally oppose subsidizing professional sports stadiums. When surveyed, 86 percent of economists agreed that "local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises."

n a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that "Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated."

In their book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist present a comprehensive review of stadium investments. In all cases, they find a new sports facility to have extremely small (or negative) effects on overall economic activity and employment. Furthermore, they were unable to find any facilities that had a reasonable return on investment.

[mhays25]

Pro sports subsidies are an investment in economic development and entertainment. They don't make money directly.

I'm on the fence about these subsidies. The "economic impact studies" are mostly BS....they count everything as additional private spending (tickets, TV, etc.) when really it's mostly just shuffling the same entertainment dollars. But I value the entertainment and there's something to be said for civic branding, a common cause, and so on.

We should spend more in the public sphere, certainly. Investment there can go a long way. This is an example where a little spending might help reduce much bigger problems later. But it's not an either-or. Investments in one area might help other causes over time.

[pnwguy2]

Travis T.:

Thanks for all your "opposite view" sources and/or links. We will never agree on this because my standards of the value of major league teams is apparently much different from yours.

[CrazyDonkey]

But, how many jobs do foster children generate? How much business? Tax revenues? How many hotdogs do they sell?

Seriously, however, you could cut all of the public supports for sports stadiums and not gain a penny for foster children, mental health, opiate addiction treatment, or whatever other "good cause" you can think of.