Did you know that your beloved TD Garden is actually
the root of many economic problems in the city of Boston? In fact, all publicly
subsidized sports organizations harm their local economies. Remember this next
time you’re enjoying a corn dog at Gillette Stadium, or even the next time you
visit Minnesota to watch a Vikings game.
“Why?”
you might ask, crumpling up your forehead at the idea of the government having
anything to do with funding sports stadiums. After all, in every of the fifty
states constitutions it clearly states that the government cannot “use its taxing
power to aid any corporation or association.” You might go on to shrug; sleazy
lawyers always find a way around obeying laws, why would this be any different?
I
advise you against just shrugging, considering that it is you that is paying for the stadiums. Your tax dollars are what is
funding these arenas. Your tax dollars are not all going to education, security,
or to internal improvements. In fact, the average city spends about three
hundred million tax dollars every few years to build new stadiums and then a continuous
three million dollars every year for maintenance.
Detroit,
the most crime riddled city in the country, is spending four hundred million
dollars of taxes this year to fund the building of the Detroit Red Wings
stadium. The police force is going to be cut by eighteen percent because
of this funding. I personally think that the city could use a few hundred policemen
over a new Red Wings stadium, but that’s just me.
Searching
for justification, you may come to the conclusion that the stadiums must bring
in more revenue to the local area than what is paid.
Sadly,
they do not. According to William Kern, associate professor of economics from Western
Michigan University, “Stadium construction generates a shift in entertainment
spending from one form to another.” Individuals have a certain budget they will
devote to their entertainment. The construction of a new sports facility does
not expand that budget; it just forces people to choose where and when they
want to spend their money. Money spent at the sports facility would have been spent anyway at another entertainment venue, such as a
bowling alley, restaurant, or local theater. While some revenues go up, others
go down. The net does not change.
Our
government should not be spending our tax dollars on the funding of professional
sports stadiums. Along with the fact that public subsidies for sports violates
our constitution, there are only negative impacts to the economy. This needs to
be stopped.
So con won it for you this weekend. I thought pro was more compelling. Did you hit any teams with sensible pro arguments? Or was it a wash?
ReplyDeleteI was personally persuaded by the con side; I found it compelling enough to share with the class. After all, public subsidies for sports are illegal and only about 1% of the population knows about them. I think this outweighs all pro arguments. Most individuals just blindly attend games without realizing who is actually paying for the arenas. Best to inform all, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that people should know, it's a huge expenditure of tax dollars. But you can't forget the blood drives and horse racing. I like how your post was about the resolution but it wasn't written like a normal case, it was more interesting. You should try to incorporate some of this into your November case.
ReplyDeleteI agree this type of writing is more interesting than factual bulleted information. I did forgot to include how this all relates back to horse racing and blood drives, haha thanks for the reminder.
ReplyDeleteMaeve, I would certainly never try to argue against a debater who has spent weeks researching this topic. However, I can't help but trouble your argument a bit. I am glad that you addressed the counter-argument about the local economy. Honestly, that was the first thing I thought of when I began reading your post. You do a nice job dispelling this argument. Yet, something still feels incomplete about your argument. You never explore the underlying reason why politicians eventually elect to use public funds to build these arenas. I suspect that when the city of Detroit made the decision to build a new hockey arena, they were only partially concerned about the Red Wings. I bet they envisioned hosting the Democratic National Convention or maybe a National Wine Exhibition. Maybe, they envisioned bringing back the idea of the World Fair. These are not events that can be held at a "bowling alley, restaurant, or local theater." These are events that cities need to compete to attract, and I am sure that they generate huge revenue for the city. This is probably the reason why so many Bostonians are itching for the Olympics. How would Kern respond to this? How does gentrification work? I bet it starts with a major investment by a city. My gut tells me that the arenas are less about the sports that they coincidentally host, and more about the events that they host when the sports teams are traveling. Check out the schedule at the Madison Square Garden. I bet there is an event there every night, and I bet that only a fraction of those events are Knicks's games. Of course, I am sure someone used this argument, and I am sure you have a response. I just thought I would play debate for a couple minutes, and satisfy the urge to argue that I no longer have an avenue to satisfy.
ReplyDeleteThis post is awesome, by the way. It is well written, substantive, and engaging. Lydia is right; it is more fun to read information presented in formats other than debate cases.
Mr. Fitz-
ReplyDeleteYour question of bringing in revenue through charities and large events is a good one; in fact it is one of the points con often had to try to brush under the rug. Kern would most likely look towards other large places to host these types of events, possibly the Expo center in the South End of Boston. You are correct; the stadiums are used for other events when the teams are away. This, however, is not enough to generate a positive impact on the economy. The average sports team plays 48 out of 365 days a year. This point was often used as a con, because it can be a negative thing too. A majority of the time the stadiums fail to bring in other events. As economist Matheson from Atlantic. Com has put it, “the arena competes with facilities nearby.” Just to name a few, the Garden is competing with The House of Blues, the Bank of America Pavilion, and the Brighton Music Hall in hosting concerts. The Garden is still generating a substantial amount, but that is because Boston is different from most American cities. In most cities, especially towards the Midwest, the empty stadiums are a negative impact on the local economies.