The Florida Legislature set aside $7 million to subsidize private sports stadiums this year, with much of the money potentially earmarked for a new soccer stadium in Orlando, for the Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, and the the NFL’s Jaguars in Jacksonville. In addition to direct state subsidies, such stadium projects can also rely on tax-free bonds, which amount to another form of tax subsidies. President Obama’s budget proposes to end such tax-free bonds. Stateline reports.
If President Barack Obama has his way, the nation’s taxpayers would not help finance a new arena proposed for the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.
Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area’s professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.
An obscure item in the president’s new budget would put an end to the longstanding practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.
The proposal comes as many team owners are pressing cities and states for new facilities, with some threatening to move elsewhere if they don’t get them. State and local officials are wary of seeing pro teams depart, taking prestige and tax revenue with them. But they are also taxpayer-minded and budget-conscious.
Dennis Zimmerman, an economist who worked for the Congressional Budget Office and is now director of projects for the American Tax Policy Institute, is a longtime critic of the financing. He said the president is right in proposing to eliminate the subsidies that benefit often wealthy professional team owners.
“I’m glad he put it in the budget,” Zimmerman said. “Tax-exempt bonds are supposed to be for state and local infrastructure” and not private business.
But politicians and pro-growth business advocates say stadium construction creates jobs, promotes economic development and boosts ancillary retail businesses, such as restaurants, which benefit from having a team in town. They say the teams generate income and sales tax revenue. For their part, team owners are more than happy to get the financial help.
In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker in January proposed funding a $470 million arena for the Bucks with the help of $220 million in state bonds as part of his budget plan.
Walker said that without a new arena, the Bucks would “likely leave Wisconsin in 2017, costing the state nearly $10 million per year in income tax collections alone.”
The proposal is drawing criticism from conservatives such as the Wisconsin chapter of the free-market group Americans for Prosperity. State director David Fladeboe said the group is “disappointed that the (governor’s) budget still plans to use public funds on the Milwaukee arena.”
Laurel Patrick, Walker’s spokeswoman, said that until Congress acts, the governor is undeterred.
“If the president’s proposal is approved by Congress, we will review the proposal to determine if there is any impact on the Bucks’ … arena plan,” Patrick said.
Others Want New Facilities
Fearing it could lose the Rams or its designation as an NFL city, St. Louis is looking for a new facility that would meet the requirements the National Football League expects of stadiums its teams play in.
Dave Peacock, a former Anheuser Busch executive who is spearheading the drive to keep St. Louis an NFL city, regardless of whether the Rams stay, told a Missouri House committee earlier this month that building a new stadium is the key.
He told lawmakers that the NFL has made it clear that if there’s public financing, a good location and land, and a stadium design that meets the league’s criteria, “you control your own destiny.’’ The implied threat is that if the city cannot assemble those elements, St. Louis will not have an NFL team.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has said losing the Rams would cost the state at least $10 million a year.
In California, state and Oakland city officials, along with economic development entities, are working on a plan designed to head off the potential defection of all three of Oakland’s major professional teams: The NFL Raiders, Major League Baseball’s Athletics and the NBA’s Golden State Warriors.
The city is looking to construct “Coliseum City,” with new sports facilities for all three teams and retail, residential, commercial and industrial components.
In Minneapolis, construction is underway for a new nearly $1 billion roofed football stadium that has been chosen to host the 2018 Super Bowl and the 2019 Final Four, the climax of the NCAA’s annual men’s basketball tournament. It’s being financed with nearly $500 million from the city and state using federally tax-exempt bonds.
The city maintains that the new construction has also spurred construction of new office space, apartments and a medical clinic near the new stadium.
Michele Kelm-Helgen, chairwoman of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, said the benefits are already evident.
“We already have over $800 million in development in the few plots around the stadium,” she said. “All of them have indicated the reason they are making the investment is that they want to be part of this stadium complex.”
She said the development includes two office towers being built by Wells Fargo and a hotel project, along with other office buildings and a clinic.
“It’s no longer speculation as to what kind of economic development has resulted from the stadium,” she said. “It’s actual proof.”
Up To Congress
What Congress will do with the president’s proposal to eliminate the tax exemption is uncertain. But tax writers have said that making comprehensive tax changes is not out of the question this year.
President Obama has changed his mind on the issue. In a 2007 presidential primarydebate, he was asked whether he made the right vote in the Illinois legislature to finance an upgrade of Chicago’s Soldier Field, where the NFL Chicago Bears play.
“Absolutely, it was the right call because it put a whole bunch of Illinois folks to work, strong labor jobs were created in this stadium, and at the same time, we created an enormous opportunity for economic growth throughout the city of Chicago. And that’s good for the state of Illinois,” Obama responded.
But according to his budget, he now sees tax-free bond financing as setting up an unfair market.
“Allowing tax-exempt governmental bond financing of stadiums transfers the benefits of tax-exempt financing to private professional sports teams because these private parties benefit from significant use of the facilities,” the U.S. Treasury’s “Green Book” said in its explanation of the budget. “State and local governments subsidize that use with taxes or other governmental payments to enable the facilities to qualify for tax-exempt governmental bond financing.”
The Bloomberg analysis found that in the past 25 years, some 22 NFL teams have played in stadiums that were built or renovated using tax-free public borrowing. Sixty-four other teams – baseball, hockey and basketball – also play in arenas constructed with similar financing.
Over the life of the $17 billion of exempt debt issued to build stadiums since 1986, Bloomberg said, taxpayer subsidies to bondholders will total $4 billion.
The tax-free bond provision dates to the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The authors of the bill actually sought to restrict the use of public subsidies for sports teams. The law said that no more than 10 percent of tax-exempt bonds’ debt could be repaid by ticket sales or concession – a provision its authors thought would deter using them to finance stadiums because cities and states wouldn’t want to obligate taxpayers to pay off the rest of the financing.
But it didn’t work. The bonds became attractive to investors because states and cities got creative in the ways they paid off the rest of the bond obligations.
According to Zimmerman, they’ve often stuck tourists with the bill by imposing hotel and rental car taxes that raise “a whopping amount of money that’s paying off a stadium.” Or, he said, they’re “sticking constituents with the tax bill.”
–Elaine Povich, Stateline
The taxpayers have made all Team Owners Billionaires, well past time to eliminate this abuse.
Is was overdue to stop us funding these billionaires sucking our ever dwindling tax funds. They sure make plenty profits out of all these sports and keep asking for more. They are billionaires on our sacrificed backs! Good for POTUS!
While you are at it also cut the ridiculous foreign aid that has proven nothing else but disastrous except the Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program ERP https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=marshall%20paln, to rebuild Europe after WWII.
Enough is enough, thank you Mr. President!
The owners are already wealthy, being wealthy is a perquisite to being admitted into the fraternity.
The consensus among economists is that sports stadiums and franchises have little to no consistent, positive impact on jobs, income or tax revenues of the municipalities that fund them.
Now if poor or working people were getting these subsidies it would be called welfare and would more than likely stop, forthwith.
Well, it’s not as obnoxious as the mandatory voting idea.
Nalla C. says
It’s about time! I’ve never been the biggest fan of this President, but I’ll give credit where it’s due–he is absolutely right, this obscene con job by these “team owners”–along with their blackmailing the city and its fans if they don’t get their way–has to be stopped. It’s a joke, particularly in the case of the billionaire-class-yet-non-profit National Football League.
Obama 2015 says
So the guy wants to stop Millionaires from getting subsidized loans for their teams and then allowing the middle and lower class to afford college and healthcare. Sounds like a good leader to me.
I agree with all of the above. I just don’t trust Obama. He’s lied before so many times I feel this money will be given away to his special interests.. He will not reduce taxes or reduce our debt. It will disappear into the black hole.
Obama 2015 says
Obama raised taxes once but that is because Congress didn’t want to renew the tax break from the stimulus package he put in in 2009. So basically your taxes dropped for a few years and went back to normal.
I wouldn’t say he’s lied. Maybe made comments that could be misleading our true at the time but what politician doesn’t do that.
Then…why hasn’t 0bam-bam issued an executive order? It’s not like he works or goes through congress.
Obama 2015 says
Obama has vetoed just two bills during his presidency and has had to issue executive orders on a wide array of issues,as congressional gridlock has blocked much of the domestic agenda.
Past presidents have also repeatedly used this power, too. Ronald Reagan issued 381 executive orders. Bush I had about 160 and Obama has issued 193. GWB had almost 300.
So the hero Reagan and Bush Jr bypassed congress and the Senate 381 times. Socialists!
History sometimes is hard .
Obama 2015 says
So the hero Reagan and Bush Jr bypassed congress and the Senate 681 times… sorry math is hard when you don’t have coffee.
Sherry Epley says
Right On Obama 2015! It’s typical for too many people to conveniently FORGET when the “other” party’s President has bypassed Congress with their “Executive” directives.
If “twice elected” President Obama had to go through the complete “political obstructionist” in Congress for everything, even less governance would be accomplished.
The leftist parrots shout it again,”But Bush! But Bush!”
It’s not “the amount of executive orders”. It’s what the executive orders allow.
Bush was a leftist, not a conservative. Bush’s election also saved the democrat party. Had Algore been elected and 9/11 had happened, along with a recession. Democrats would not have recovered for decades. Repubs under Bush, drunk on power, grew government and government spending by 100%. They passed “The Patriot Act”, another government lovely. The started another government bureaucracy…Homeland Security. They got more involved with a domestic agenda that had: The Prescription Drug Plan and No Child Left Behind that doubled education spending! Democrats scoffed because, of course, the spending spree wasn’t enough! He even started a few wars…much like, JFK’s and LBJ’s Vietnam.
Had Bush been a democrat…you would love him!
But…dems run from the light when you show them:
Hillary voted for the Iraqi War.
They controlled congress Bushy’s last two years and authorized Stim I, Stim II and TARP….basically paying off Wall Street and authoring the greatest theft in the World’s History.
Doubled the nation debt.
Armed, virtually every, government agency to the hilt.
Spied on its own citizens.
Drone bombed countries without a declaration of war or congressional approval
Did dems do away with the patriot act? nope, they continued it!
It always makes me laugh…Leftists love to say how bad Bush was as a president…then, constantly compare 0bam-bam to him!
“Aim low, hit the mark!” A leftist chant since 1964.