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.
Deborah Jay, president and CEO of Field Research — whose Ph.D. led Sonics attorney Jim Webb to her as “Dr. J” — testified about a January poll of more than 400 Seattle-area adults. The poll found that 58 percent of those surveyed said the team’s departure would make “no difference” to them, and 7 percent said they’d be “better off.” Only 31 percent said they’d be “worse off.” (The remainder had no opinion.) The Sonics paid $100,000 for the poll.
$100k for a poll of 400 adults. Say what?! and 16 of them (4%) "had no opinion". WTF
It's very difficult to believe a war of experts and "studies" on this topic when there is substantial money at stake. Corporate welfare and subsidizing sports venues... aka attracting business, with all the revenue that comes along with it; has become part of doing business for municipalities all over the country.
I see both sides of the coin here, but there is zero doubt how nice the Uptown area is around the baseball field and football stadium. There is definitely value to the city and by extension all of us there. How much I can't say for sure, but it isn't zero.
What are other ideas for use of the tourism taxes? Outside of sports, concerts, and entertainment, the city could potentially pump some of the tourism tax revenue into museums and the arts. they could look into directing funds towards a zoo too, though finding land in city limits would be challenging. At the end of the day, I suspect the hotel and rental car industry benefits more from sports though than people visiting Charlotte to go to the Mint Museum and would lobby to keep the taxes they have to charge in areas like sports.
$100k for a poll of 400 adults. Say what?! and 16 of them (4%) "had no opinion". WTF
It's very difficult to believe a war of experts and "studies" on this topic when there is substantial money at stake. Corporate welfare and subsidizing sports venues... aka attracting business, with all the revenue that comes along with it; has become part of doing business for municipalities all over the country.
I see both sides of the coin here, but there is zero doubt how nice the Uptown area is around the baseball field and football stadium. There is definitely value to the city and by extension all of us there. How much I can't say for sure, but it isn't zero.
The only thing it proved for sure is you and I got in the wrong occupational field. Pollster must be where the money tree is located.
1. The Panthers are owned by David Tepper, a billionaire. He wants taxpayer funds for a new stadium. The current stadium was built in 1996.
Why would (1) a billionaire receive funds (2) for a new stadium? If the Panthers are a viable business, couldn’t it afford its own stadium, and couldn’t the stadium be renovated? There are plenty of older sports stadiums in use.
2. The Epicentre was built as an entertainment district, and there are plenty of entertainment options uptown and in the South End
Why does uptown need another entertainment district, particularly paid for with tax dollars?
The reason why he is a billionaire is because he knows how to make money off of other people's money.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,793,764 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative
I’m sincerely curious:
1. The Panthers are owned by David Tepper, a billionaire. He wants taxpayer funds for a new stadium. The current stadium was built in 1996.
Why would (1) a billionaire receive funds (2) for a new stadium? If the Panthers are a viable business, couldn’t it afford its own stadium, and couldn’t the stadium be renovated? There are plenty of older sports stadiums in use.
2. The Epicentre was built as an entertainment district, and there are plenty of entertainment options uptown and in the South End
Why does uptown need another entertainment district, particularly paid for with tax dollars?
Gastonia is building an entertainment district. Are you saying that you'd like to see that expendable money all go to Gaston County? Other posters have addressed your other points.
Were you aware of the entertainment district in Gastonia? How about the casino just outside of Kings Mountain? Charlotte can do nothing and watch money leave Charlotte and Mecklenburg County or use the money paid by nonresidents. If it would be up to me, I'd tap the tax money from nonresidents.
What are other ideas for use of the tourism taxes?
How about eliminating them, and letting businesses and customers keep the money and spend it how they want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295
Gastonia is building an entertainment district. Are you saying that you'd like to see that expendable money all go to Gaston County? Other posters have addressed your other points.
Were you aware of the entertainment district in Gastonia? How about the casino just outside of Kings Mountain? Charlotte can do nothing and watch money leave Charlotte and Mecklenburg County or use the money paid by nonresidents. If it would be up to me, I'd tap the tax money from nonresidents.
No, I'm saying that tourism taxes, to the extent that they're used to support a private business owned by a billionaire, shouldn't exist. If a billionaire isn't willing to use his own money, maybe the expenditure isn't a wise one? (I acknowledge that he is willing to pay for 1/3 of the cost of a new stadium and have seat revenues pay for 1/3, so that indicates that it may make sense economically to build a new stadium that costs only 2/3 as much as what is proposed.)
How about eliminating them, and letting businesses and customers keep the money and spend it how they want?
Consumers would likely keep the money by not visiting Charlotte at all as those taxes fund many of the amenities and events that draw in visitors and fill hotel rooms. Obviously the city would prefer to draw in visitors to support the local economy. The hospitality industry has a vested interest in the taxes they pass on to customers keeping their rooms filled.
Tourism taxes fuel investments that keep tourists coming back, with visitors to Mecklenburg County spending $5.7 billion annually and approximately ~68,000 jobs are directly supported by tourists / visitors.
The amount of sales tax generated by visitors contributes to the county budget, amounting to about $370 in annual funding per citizen that the county would need to charge residents to balance the budget if the visitor economy wasn't so large.
Consumers would likely keep the money by not visiting Charlotte at all as those taxes fund many of the amenities and events that draw in visitors and fill hotel rooms. Obviously the city would prefer to draw in visitors to support the local economy. The hospitality industry has a vested interest in the taxes they pass on to customers keeping their rooms filled.
Tourism taxes fuel investments that keep tourists coming back, with visitors to Mecklenburg County spending $5.7 billion annually and approximately ~68,000 jobs are directly supported by tourists / visitors.
The amount of sales tax generated by visitors contributes to the county budget, amounting to about $370 in annual funding per citizen that the county would need to charge residents to balance the budget if the visitor economy wasn't so large.
Seems like a way to help a billionaire owner of the Panthers, and hotel owners, at the expense of people who visit Charlotte and don't vote. It seems inequitable, as if (for example) someone visits Charlotte for a business trip or to see family, the person will pay those taxes but not necessarily enjoy those tourist amenities.
I'd rather ban tourism taxes nationwide, and let the free market decide if an entertainment project is economically viable. That would be a more efficient allocation of resources.
But then again, I'm just on my libertarian soapbox.
I don’t k ow about a new stadium being part of the plan to bring MLS. Tepper has stated that the stadium is dated. He says that with age the cost of maintenance rises significantly. He originally wanted a domed stadium, but due to COVID and it’s impact Tepper has said that he will accept an open air stadium. Tepper has said that he expects the city, himself, and PSL owners to each share a third of the cost. Tepper is of the belief that he and the city have formed a partnership. The stadium provides jobs and property tax dollars so he thinks the city should also contribute to the partnership. The bottom line is that all NFL owners expect this. Cities understand that they must provide new arenas and stadiums to keep their teams. Those cities that have failed to build new arenas or stadiums have lost their teams- Seattle list Sonics, San Diego lost chargers, St Louis lost Rams, Baltimore lost Colts, Houston lost the oilers.
And none of those cities miss those teams either. Billionaire beggar Spanos is now renting from another Billionaire. NFL teams make money for the NFL and hardly anyone else. San Diego didn't skip a beat when the Chargers left. We can still watch them lose on the TV.
He COULD pay for it himself...and he could ALSO move the team somewhere else.
Some place that will pay for it for him.
Charlotte must decide if having Pro-Sports is a thing that makes it more attractive - or less.
Pretty much every major city has decided - it's worth it.
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.
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.
