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.
I'm sure the NFL couldn't care less really if the Super Bowl comes back to AZ or not, there are other cities willing to entice them and in the end, we are the ones losing out.
I tend to think we lose more in the long run if we normalize the practice of private entities extorting money from the taxpayer to maximize the profit margins of events/businesses that are already profitable. These types of tax money grabs should be made illegal. AZ has moved in that direction in banning taxpayer susbsidies to retail developments in the Phoenix area. I hope the trend goes national and this nonsense stops.
I'm a huge NFL fan, but I wouldn't vote for a tax on this. Patrick is right, this is them pitting cities against each other. Though I'm a fan, I still think the NFL is one of the greediest corporations around. Look how they skimp on former players' health care?
I say no for using our tax dollars for just another super bowl. What does the super bowl do for the non-business people...only make the city full of people, more accidents on the 101 freeway, more traffic, etc. This past super bowl did nothing for me; I don’t even care for football. I don't see it putting food on my table or giving me any extra money. I still work everyday and make my living same old way. The only person who is getting rich off this is the NFL and they want to use our money so they can profit from all of us. How stupid are we. I say use our tax dollars for something more useful...for example getting more buses on the road, fixing up the streets, signs on the road, planting more trees grass, etc. Not wasting another millions of dollar on something we all see on tv and not able to afford going to the event we put our tax dollars into. Come on people...HX_GUY the only reason why you want the Super Bowl back is because you made money out of this in your business so if course your going to say yes.
What does the super bowl do for the non-business people...
Well, as others have mentioned, it benefits the city as a whole, in fact the entire region, and that certain will affect non-business owners. If your employer made a little extra money last weekend, that's good for you--if not, maybe your neighbor's business did.
Plus, the city did collect some additional tax revenue that weekend, that's taxes that people from outside the state paid toward our city's coffers--restaurants, hotels, airport taxes, probably others too. What's so bad about that? It seems like a pretty wise investment. Even if the Patriots lost.
I say no for using our tax dollars for just another super bowl. What does the super bowl do for the non-business people...only make the city full of people, more accidents on the 101 freeway, more traffic, etc. This past super bowl did nothing for me; I don’t even care for football. I don't see it putting food on my table or giving me any extra money. I still work everyday and make my living same old way. The only person who is getting rich off this is the NFL and they want to use our money so they can profit from all of us. How stupid are we. I say use our tax dollars for something more useful...for example getting more buses on the road, fixing up the streets, signs on the road, planting more trees grass, etc. Not wasting another millions of dollar on something we all see on tv and not able to afford going to the event we put our tax dollars into. Come on people...HX_GUY the only reason why you want the Super Bowl back is because you made money out of this in your business so if course your going to say yes.
How short sighted can you be?
You want money to go toward buses, improved streets, street scpaing and such...and then you oppose $400 MILLION DOLLARS going to the local economy? A big...a HUGE chunk of that money will be in sales taxes to the city. How would you like the city to pay for these services you want? Money doesn't grow on trees...but a huge boost, as in millions of dollars, sure can go a long way toward the things you are asking for.
Again...how exactly do you know what your employer didn't benefit from this? Or maybe a client of your employer did...and therefore put in a bigger order with the company you work for which in turn ensures your employment that much more.
All I'm saying is look a little bit outside yourself. You live in a city and you are part of that city. The Super Bowl was a huge success for your city which will trickle down to make your life better.
The Superbowl is much more than one sports contest. It's a week long event that generates a lot of revenue locally. In 1996, the Superbowl brought in an estimated 300 million dollars in revenue to the city. This Superbowl brought in nearly double that amount. The Superbowl is good for any city because of the exposure it brings. It's certainly worth the additional tax in my opinion. Exposure does a lot for the city. It enables business executives to see the city upclose which could lead to potential job growth as companies relocate branches or build additional sites in your city. It can raise the demand for a particular city which would lead to increased growth and increase housing prices. In short, it spurs growth of the local economy.
I'm very pro business but this is a bad proposition.
And I'm o.k. with some taxes going towards general business and economic development programs... but would prefer those to be longer term propositions like T-Gen, venture capital programs, recruiting more corporations to set up shop here, etc.
- Big sums of money shouldn't go to one particular entity doing a one-off event - no matter the ancillary benefits and revenues.
- it creates a situation where a for-profit entity can pit cities against each other to provide even more incentives. We've seen that locally and nationally where local govts. get caught up in the "auction."
- That $17 million could provide seed capital for 40-50 start-up companies, many of which might fail, but some of which could turn into significant companies. Google was started with a $100,000 check just 10 years ago.
- Part of the idea of govt. is to have an entity step in to provide things that the private sector can't... a legal system, protection, infrastructure, public education, etc. Should it be asked to fund something that can pretty easily create that revenue on its own?
Just sell some more corporate marketing deals.
I'm very pro business but this is a bad proposition.
And I'm o.k. with some taxes going towards general business and economic development programs... but would prefer those to be longer term propositions like T-Gen, venture capital programs, recruiting more corporations to set up shop here, etc.
- Big sums of money shouldn't go to one particular entity doing a one-off event - no matter the ancillary benefits and revenues.
- it creates a situation where a for-profit entity can pit cities against each other to provide even more incentives. We've seen that locally and nationally where local govts. get caught up in the "auction."
- That $17 million could provide seed capital for 40-50 start-up companies, many of which might fail, but some of which could turn into significant companies. Google was started with a $100,000 check just 10 years ago.
- Part of the idea of govt. is to have an entity step in to provide things that the private sector can't... a legal system, protection, infrastructure, public education, etc. Should it be asked to fund something that can pretty easily create that revenue on its own?
Just sell some more corporate marketing deals.
You are speaking as if you can prevent this phenomenon from occurring but it's already exists. Unfortunately, private companies already force state and local governments to bid for the rights to private sponsored events. Arizona is trying to become a regular host of the Superbowl much like Miami, New Orleans and San Diego. They want to be involved in their rotation in which they will host at least 1-2 Superbowls per decade. if they acquire another Superbowl, and Phoenix does another excellent job hosting it, it will start to be involved in that regular rotation. If that occurs, that will increase tourism and enable companies to invest in Glendale and Phoenix to accomodate this increased tourism.
You want money to go toward buses, improved streets, street scpaing and such...and then you oppose $400 MILLION DOLLARS going to the local economy? A big...a HUGE chunk of that money will be in sales taxes to the city. How would you like the city to pay for these services you want? Money doesn't grow on trees...but a huge boost, as in millions of dollars, sure can go a long way toward the things you are asking for.
Again...how exactly do you know what your employer didn't benefit from this? Or maybe a client of your employer did...and therefore put in a bigger order with the company you work for which in turn ensures your employment that much more.
All I'm saying is look a little bit outside yourself. You live in a city and you are part of that city. The Super Bowl was a huge success for your city which will trickle down to make your life better.
You make excellent points about events such as this benefitting the area ... and that's why I'm in favor of more Super Bowls being hosted in the Phoenix area. But what Azkoolchik & I are opposed to is creating ADDITIONAL taxes or raising taxes just to lure a 2012 Super Bowl to the Valley. Hotels, bars, restaurants, cabs, and many other businesses profitted from Super Bowl XVII this year, and they will again if such an event returns. The free market will provide the tax revenue to the cities and the state ... but expecting Joe Average to pay more taxes just to bring this event back is absurd!
In a way, this reminds me of the 1990 MLK holiday fiasco. Arizona didn't have a paid state holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. at that time, and it was put to a vote in 1990. The NFL commissioner at that time was pushing for the MLK holiday to be implemented in order for the Super Bowl to be played here in '93. Well, it didn't pass ... so the NFL broke the contract and moved the '93 Super Bowl to California. The main reason the Super Bowl was hosted by Tempe in 1996 was our approval of the MLK holiday in 1992.
The NFL's fat cats are pretty arrogant to think they can boss us around and dictate that we have to approve paid holidays or raise taxes in order for another Super Bowl to come here in the future. Enormous profits were made during Super Bowl week, resulting in more than enough tax money for the government's coffers, so more taxes are not necessary. Besides, taxes shouldn't be used to fund sporting events!
In a way, this reminds me of the 1990 MLK holiday fiasco. Arizona didn't have a paid state holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. at that time, and it was put to a vote in 1990. The NFL commissioner at that time was pushing for the MLK holiday to be implemented in order for the Super Bowl to be played here in '93. Well, it didn't pass ... so the NFL broke the contract and moved the '93 Super Bowl to California. The main reason the Super Bowl was hosted by Tempe in 1996 was our approval of the MLK holiday in 1992.
And you think this is a bad thing. It was a pure embarrassment this state didn't honor the MLK day. We still get accused of being a backward or racist state because we didn't approve of the MLK holliday. The NFL did the right thing and punished us for not honoring the holliday. It reminds mr of the Olympics boycotting South Africa because of their apartheid policy. I'm glad the NFL stood for something and forced us to address this issue. If our state was stupid enough not to honor Martin Luther King and the ideals he represents then we don't deserve a Superbowl. It served us right and I'm glad Arizona is much more progressive and evolved than it was in the early 90's. Quite frankly, there are thousands of us that are embarrassed by that legacy. I'm sorry but as a proponent of civil rights, your post angers me because you act like our state was a victim when it was clearly in the wrong. The MLK holliday isn't just about Martin Luther King, it's about the ideals he stood for regardless if it was a paid holliday. Thank god this state has grown up.
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.
