|
|
Post by jdogge on Sept 13, 2016 12:31:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Sept 13, 2016 12:46:03 GMT -8
Since I'm in one of the few State's having that discussion right now, and used to live in the other. Both Las Vegas and San Diego are proposing building stadiums with enormous amounts of public financing. However, the public in this case, are tourists, as both are proposing increases to room taxes. There was a study in the local rag that said something to the affect the total increase per room is less than $1.00 per night. Also, opposition will say those funds should be earmarked for general funds to pay for schools, roads, etc. Here's the deal, and only in the situation of these two cities. The hotel industry is never, ever, ever, going to buy in on raising tourist taxes to pay for schools, or roads, or etc. So in the case of Las Vegas...we raise taxes on tourists at $1/room night, and private financing kicks in $1.2 Billion to get the stadium built, which will generate huge tourism #s not just for NFl football, but for at least 25 to 50 other events annually that will be held there. IMO for Las Vegas, it's a no brainer. Tourism is what this city is built on. It is THE industry that makes this city survive. It competes with Orlando, and if this was a debate there, it wouldn't be one, it would pass in a new york minute. San Diego is a little more tricky. San Diego doesn't need tourism, it just gets it, and quite frankly, they are awful at promoting it. But they are about to lose their NFL team, every other event that can be held there (rodeos, motorcross, concerts etc), anbd some argue Comicon and other big conventions will leave soon. In the end, SD will be left with a 50 year old leaking stadium that costs more to maintain than it does generate revenue, and it will need to eventually be replaced to accommodate their top 25 ranked football team. I also think these studies inherently undervalue the impact of a stadium and the multiplier affect it has on the community. It is simply too hard to quantify. But that doesn't necessarily relate to the topic of public funding. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Sept 13, 2016 13:28:07 GMT -8
Since I'm in one of the few State's having that discussion right now, and used to live in the other. Both Las Vegas and San Diego are proposing building stadiums with enormous amounts of public financing. However, the public in this case, are tourists, as both are proposing increases to room taxes. There was a study in the local rag that said something to the affect the total increase per room is less than $1.00 per night. Also, opposition will say those funds should be earmarked for general funds to pay for schools, roads, etc. Here's the deal, and only in the situation of these two cities. The hotel industry is never, ever, ever, going to buy in on raising tourist taxes to pay for schools, or roads, or etc. So in the case of Las Vegas...we raise taxes on tourists at $1/room night, and private financing kicks in $1.2 Billion to get the stadium built, which will generate huge tourism #s not just for NFl football, but for at least 25 to 50 other events annually that will be held there. IMO for Las Vegas, it's a no brainer. Tourism is what this city is built on. It is THE industry that makes this city survive. It competes with Orlando, and if this was a debate there, it wouldn't be one, it would pass in a new york minute. San Diego is a little more tricky. San Diego doesn't need tourism, it just gets it, and quite frankly, they are awful at promoting it. But they are about to lose their NFL team, every other event that can be held there (rodeos, motorcross, concerts etc), anbd some argue Comicon and other big conventions will leave soon. In the end, SD will be left with a 50 year old leaking stadium that costs more to maintain than it does generate revenue, and it will need to eventually be replaced to accommodate their top 25 ranked football team. I also think these studies inherently undervalue the impact of a stadium and the multiplier affect it has on the community. It is simply too hard to quantify. But that doesn't necessarily relate to the topic of public funding. Vegas is one of the few places where a new stadium makes economic sense, in my analysis. First, they are not replacing an old stadium, they are getting a new team with the new stadium, and tax revenues from the team salaries and such will be substantial. Second, in most other cities, the fans fly in, stay maybe two nights, go to the game and that's about it. When my wife and I went to Vegas for the OSU game in 2009, we were there for 4 nights, hit casinos and shows and there were several thousand other orange clad fans shouting "Go Beavs!" all over the Strip - people will turn the fact that their team is playing there into an excuse for an extended visit. Cha ching! Third, if one pro team goes, others will follow, and there is already a suitable, sweet arena for basketball and hockey at the MGM Grand, so no more tax dollars needed. Just more team salaries and fan dollars to look forward to. |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Sept 13, 2016 14:59:10 GMT -8
Vegas is one of the few places where a new stadium makes economic sense, in my analysis. First, they are not replacing an old stadium, they are getting a new team with the new stadium, and tax revenues from the team salaries and such will be substantial. Second, in most other cities, the fans fly in, stay maybe two nights, go to the game and that's about it. When my wife and I went to Vegas for the OSU game in 2009, we were there for 4 nights, hit casinos and shows and there were several thousand other orange clad fans shouting "Go Beavs!" all over the Strip - people will turn the fact that their team is playing there into an excuse for an extended visit. Cha ching! Third, if one pro team goes, others will follow, and there is already a suitable, sweet arena for basketball and hockey at the MGM Grand, so no more tax dollars needed. Just more team salaries and fan dollars to look forward to. I'm guessing it's been a while since you've been to LV, but T-Mobile puts MGM Grand to shame. LV also has a new NHL franchise to play in it starting in 2017.  As for the football stadium, you are right. When there is an NFL game here, there will be 30,000 opposing fans in the stadium every week. Not to mention the benefit to UNLV, and the MWC in general. For a city like Portland, it would depend on how the public financing was structured. Portland does fairly well with tourism too. The entire state has proven it would support a franchise, whether it be football or baseball. IMO there is intrinsic value to having a franchise, sorta like Trump is worth $10B, $8.5B of which is his "brand". It's hard to quantify, but it exists. These studies also tend to downplay the private investment aspect. In Las Vegas, $1.2B is nothing to sneeze at. People were against the new baseball stadium in SD (Petco) and it got caught up in litigation for years. Well that stadium fueled literally billions in investment in downtown SD (high rise condos, restaurants, bars, retail, office buildings, etc.) and millions in tax revenue for the City of San Diego. The opposition likes to say all that new development and redevelopment would have happened anyway. Sure it would have, over 50 years, not 10. So these studies I think tend to be arbitrary as its difficult to quantify both sides, the positives and negatives. Obviously every city is different, every case different. |
|
