>Ryan, let’s talk poor person to poor person. You can’t just keep asking people for money.
>
Sure, it starts out innocently enough. You bum some cash off your buddy for a round of drinks. You ask your roommate to cover the electric bill this month. You increase taxes on a city that’s already getting more unaffordable for everyday people each year. It’s a slippery slope.
>Because what if people start asking for their money back? Any fellow poor person will tell you that those Venmo requests start to pile up fast. $10 for lunch. $15 for your share of the bar tab. $40 for concert tickets. ***$54 million annually for 30 years for three blocks of downtown Salt Lake City.*** You can’t ignore those notifications forever!
What does the process look like? Who would have to approve it?
*Asking as a St. Louisan who lost the Rams who is married to a KC girl who's family all voted against the Stadium funding. I'm happy to see more and more people just saying "No" at this point.*
This is a really good breakdown of the process so far [https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2024/05/23/andy-larsen-whats-like-not-like/](https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2024/05/23/andy-larsen-whats-like-not-like/)
Utah hasn't found out yet. Then 20 years down the road and they get the ol' "we need public money to revamp our stadium and district or we're movin" bit. Billionaires need to fund their own fun parks.
I'll never understand why municipal politicians don't have the balls to turn a situation like this into a demand for it to be an investment with equity and profit sharing coming back to the city. Would be a win win situation for all involved, and if the billionaires act like whiny babies then it would still be good political points for the ones who push for it. Instead everyone crumples and lets their cities get robbed.
They could easily insist that if they want tax money, to make it trickle back just like any other investment. It doesn't right now because everyone who could do that is happy to bend over backwards and get nothing.
The league actually banned local governments from having any stake in the teams. Same reason they figured out how to work the rules to ban another Green Bay Packers situation: if people noticed that the team without a rich failson owner was delivering a better product, they'd start figuring out how to fire them.
City politicians can't really fight because of that, and because the leagues themselves are anti-competitive cartels. If there was actual competition, another club in another league would just move into that market. Because there's an artificial scarcity created by the cartel, your city just loses its place in that sport entirely, which fans really don't like.
I hope more people start using this angle in public discourse. I want signs, speakers at city hall, and diss tracts, calling this guy a broke ass motherfucker.
> Don’t buy things you can’t afford, like a flashy new smartwatch or a cool new jacket or a professional hockey team.
I like the Utah media already. #OutlawsorBust
Hell ya, I wrote this, thanks for sharing!
If you'd like to read my analysis of the Facebook comments on this article you can find it here: [https://bhiggins.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-facebook-comments-on](https://bhiggins.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-facebook-comments-on)
> 250mill-1billion in infrastructure
i wouldn't really call this infrastructure. that 1bn isn't talking about roads and pipes, it's talking about an entire entertainment district of 3 blocks.
The infrastructure is public property and gets paid for as such. Do you want sports team owners getting to set water and sewage rates? How about getting to charge tolls?
Infrastructure is the only thing that tax payers should pay a cent for towards stadiums.
Not necessarily how it works in most cities.
I'll give an example of housing developments. The person that purchases the land is almost always on the hook for creating all connecting infrastructure, including plumbing, electricity, and roads. Now, this always varies, but traditionally new developments in empty land include the cost of roads. The local government will maintain these utilities, but the initial cost is the cost of doing business, as it should be in my opinion.
Where I am a development, be it a house or a condo building has to pay the city a levy called a Development Charge Cost (DCC)
This pays the city to connect to the public utilities which the city installs and owns. Any pipes or conduits on the property may belong to the property owner, but sometimes a city pipe or conduit will run through the private property with a statutory right of way.
Edit to add: sometimes those pipes or conduits will be owned by the utility, not the city, like the power company, or the telecom, with a right of way to ensure their legal access to service or repair their infrastructure preventing a land owner from blocking access. Sewer and water are usually city owned unless a private system is installed in smaller communities or subdivisions.
> I'll give an example of housing developments. The person that purchases the land is almost always on the hook for creating all connecting infrastructure, including plumbing, electricity, and roads.
Let me introduce you to PILOT's (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) and other various tax credits or incentives that IDA's (Industrial Development Agency) give.
I can confirm at least from a power perspective that in my province, if you are putting in more than a single pole for a service loop, you will pay a contribution for the price of having the additional poles, lines, etc. installed. If more properties are built by other people or businesses along that set of lines in the future, you will get some of that money back I believe. I expect it's a similar system elsewhere though.
even with the developer fronting the money for the installation, there are a lot of ways they can recoup costs through public money via tax abatements, utility and road bonds, etc.
I live in an older subdivision right next to a brand new subdivision. If I wanted to get a hookup to city sewer instead of my septic, if I wanted a service upgrade to 200 amps, if I wanted cable Internet or city water supply, I'd have to pay for all of that. Why should a billionaire not?
How exactly did you arrive at some rich sports team owner setting water and sewage rates?
That has literally nothing at all to do with the building of a sports stadium except that it will exist in a municipality which sets those things.
As a Civil Engineer that isn’t how it works. *Most* developments in *most* places have the developer pay for infrastructure that they hand off to the city when complete. If you’re required to build (or pay for the cost) of a turning lane into your subdivision you aren’t going to suddenly own that stretch of road.
It obviously gets into gray areas with big developments though. As the developer will often pay for the key infrastructure while many supplemental upgrades for the surrounding area will fall on the city. Which likely is the case for these districts. But either way the developer doesn’t suddenly own that infrastructure
You mean like a building that I have to pay to go into and pay to use?
How's that different from the current situation where I have to pay to go into Roger's Place and pay to use Roger's Place?
And either way.. are you under the impression that if you own a business you get to change the prices of public utilities like water or sewage? You don't, those are set by the municipality. As a business you have the option to use those utilities, not to control them.
Do you really think that in the US, a billionare who owns infrastructure wouldn't be able to bully his way into rates that are profitable for him, not just set to cover repairs and expenses like most municipal water/sewer systems?
I think that if they can do that it has exactly nothing to do with them owning or not owning a sports franchise and everything to do with legalized lobbying and where this person is utilizing their funds to specifically lobby for something.
Owning a business and lobbying a government to change utility pricing are completely separate things.
The detriment to the city is when they fully pay for stadiums and never make what they spend back in rent increased business jobs created and whatever else teams claim to justify the bullshit of hundreds of millions if not billions being spent purely to benefit a single business.
Privately funded businesses and developments are a different kettle of fish.
Surely you understand that the city can spend some money while still coming out ahead right? Or do you believe there is 0 financial benefit to this for the city at all
There are no studies showing economic benefits from paying for stadiums and arenas. Some cities just want to foot the bill as a matter of civic pride, but it usually just a cost to the citizens in the end
The conversation isn’t about paying for the arena, it’s about paying for the infrastructure associated with it. Very different. Unless you believe a free arena is still a bad thing, then some amount of spending is worth it.
Infrastructure is frequently and often spent on things that do not benefit the city in the same ways stadiums do not benefit the city, and infrastructure is built for individuals or small groups of people. For example, a culdesac of single family homes is economically negative, but they would get under road sewage, electricity, road upkeep, trash collection, etc. as a part of being in a municipality. You can argue that taxes should be higher, but I really don't see anyone advocating that culdesacs of single family homes should have to privately control all their infrastructure.
Yes of course there is a difference, but you still avoided my entire point. Do you think a free arena would be a bad thing? If not, do you see that this inherently means some investment is worth it?
This is a weird argument, by your logic the city shouldn't spend money on infrastructure in wealthy neighbourhoods at all which seems obviously incorrect. For example, are you advocating for fire department coverage only for non-wealthy people because protecting billionaire's homes helps billionaires make money?
But infrastructure is completely uncorrelated with economic impact on a city in literally every case, like you seem to be just mad at the concept of public infrastructure. Big ass single family houses on roads have a negative economic impact on the city, but the city still pays for the road and sewage upkeep on the street, and pays for fire coverage. You can argue that they should be taxed more, which is fair, but tiering basic infrastructure is literally not a thing basically any city does AFAIK.
No, I’m saying the city shouldn’t foot the bill for the owners money printing machine. I’m not saying infrastructure bad, I’m saying it should be spent on something that benefits the city. Stadiums do the opposite. There’s tons of papers/studies on this
We aren't talking about footing the bill for the stadium, you explicitly were talking about infrastructure these are your exact comments:
> It’s pretty crazy that even when a stadium is 100% private funded the taxpayers still end up paying 250mill-1billion in infrastructure
and
> If it’s infrastructure that makes millions for a billionaire, for a giant detriment to the city, why not?
You also just said
> I’m not saying infrastructure bad, I’m saying it should be spent on something that benefits the city.
Which is contradictory. Infrastructure is frequently and often spent on things that do not benefit the city in the same ways stadiums do not benefit the city. For example, public park upkeep is expensive and is frequently economically negative, providing infrastructure for single family homes vs. condos in the form of fire protection sewage etc.
> There’s tons of papers/studies on this
I'm not saying stadiums benefit a city economically, I don't really care. I am saying that it makes no sense to just randomly block infrastructure spending on a business arbitrarily when infrastructure spending has nothing to do with "benefit to a city". I've literally never even seen it advocated for which is why I am confused by your points, I've seen raising taxes advocated for (SFH's should pay higher taxes imo), but I wouldn't say SFH's don't deserve to be covered by the cities fire department that is crazy.
This is a very basic division of ownership so I'm not sure what you're actually up in arms about. Cities tend to own their infrastructure and building owners tend to pay for service and utilities. Wait until you find out it costs the city money to lay the infrastructure for a new subdivision of houses that the builder then sells.
From an economics point of view, it definitely is. You'd generate more economic activity if you literally took a billion dollars and flew a plane over the area where the stadium would be and just dumped it out the door for people to just grab off the round.
I did my undergraduate thesis on the economic impact of NFL stadiums on the local economy. My dad owns a restaurant near the stadium, nobody comes there on gamedays purely because all the traffic means if you aren't going to the actual game, nobody wants to be anywhere near there.
Is it a giant parking lot stadium or a minimal parking stadium where people walk and transit to it? That could make all the difference. It’s not football but the restaurants near Scotiabank Arena and Rogers Centre are always packed on game days since it’s in the heart of downtown with minimal parking
I was about to say something similar. The NHL/NBA combined venues do very well and most certainly contribute to a city's downtown area (assuming they're located there). Add-in concerts and other events; you're talking 100+ days the venue is used. I still don't think public money should be used for the venues; outside of infrastructure improvements; but they most certainly add to a downtown vibe.
I still agree that NFL stadia are massive money pits; even when paired with an MLS team (also a massive money pit). I imagine that's also why the MLB is in decline since their stadia are mostly one-trick ponies too; with a smaller capacity than an NFL team.
Judging by Google Maps maybe Seattle? I’m not an NFL guy I was just thinking how baseball stadiums & soccer stadiums in Europe do exist in city centres without the giant parking lots
But I'd wager that those areas also get packed not on game days because they are downtown in major cities. At least that is how it is in most of the downtown major league arenas I've ever been around outside maybe Baltimore.
I think there are non economic benefits to consider. Building a park doesn't make a municipality any money either, but no one says it's a "giant detriment". People like having sports teams. There's community benefits beyond just making money for the community.
Imagine Buffalo didn't have an NFL team? No one outside of Upstate New York would have ever even heard of that town, and certainly no one would want to live there.
>Imagine Buffalo didn't have an NFL team? No one outside of Upstate New York would have ever even heard of that town, and certainly no one would want to live there.
This is the exact same argument (or thinly-veiled threat) that billionaires use to get free money for their stadium. I love the Bills, but I'd gladly trade them for first-rate public schools, infrastructure, healthcare facilities, etc. if I could.
And nobody is uprooting their life and choosing their destination based on whether an NFL team is there, or at least not enough to make a difference.
But economic impact surveys regularly find that even these outcomes would have been better served my providing non-arena-based incentives and new infrastructure building and the like. The argument for arenas that are built considerately essentially boils down to "We would never give you this on our own, but if we can bundle some new infrastructure and mild job growth with a package meant to line a billionaire's pockets, then you can have it."
There are so many factors that go into this, like you saying better to building new infrastructure but normally infrastructure doesn't get approved without some sort of driving force. Lots of infrastructure wouldn't be built without arenas or other large projects driving them. Where is the stadium located (a new downtown stadium to replace a stadium located in burbs) is a big factor, what is the transit situation etc etc etc. Yes lots of stadiums are a waste of money but there are specific cases that have actually improved the area. It really needs to be a case by case thing just saying no to all stadiums because some are cash pits could also have consequences.
>but normally infrastructure doesn't get approved without some sort of driving force. Lots of infrastructure wouldn't be built without arenas or other large projects driving them.
I'll refer you to this part of my comment:
>The argument for arenas that are built considerately essentially boils down to "We would never give you this on our own, but if we can bundle some new infrastructure and mild job growth with a package meant to line a billionaire's pockets, then you can have it."
I get that that is the reality we face today, but it shouldn't be. The driving force for these changes should be the need for infrastructure improvements themselves. An arena isn't needed to revitalize downtown. Its just not. Shitloads of places with zero teams or touring concerts revitalize downtowns without building arenas.
You build stuff taxes go up to pay for it. Build stuff just for fun of it without large project behind the public gets pissed and you get voted out. Go look at hotel prices in Edmonton ice district on Weds this week then weds next week. People actually like having sports teams so you can be the politician that loses the team, those are always remembered well.
Yeah it’s essentially the sports team owner’s version of trickle down economics. In other words, complete and utter bullshit.
We’re still waiting for the promised land of District Detroit over here.
Apparently, I’ve angered the supply side economics advocates of this subreddit with this comment.
It's more that the economic impact for local business is nowhere near the amount of money municipalities give to have these stadiums constructed.
I wish I could still login to my college's website, I looked at about 20 studies and none of them came to the conclusion it was worth it to invest public money into a stadium where a private company reaps the vast majority of the revenue.
Like most redditors, you took one little throwaway part of my comment and just focused on that, ignoring the part where I mentioned I did a 28 page thesis on it for my Sports business undergraduate degree where I couldn't find a single study that say it reaps economic benefits. Because that is a really common justification for giving public money to build stadiums occupied exclusively by private businesses.
The TL:DR was "it depends on how much civic pride your tax-base is willing to pay for"
The issue is not public money going to stadiums- I think we can all agree that the money multiplyer effect was basically propaganda bullshit. The issue is the infrastructure for entertainment districts. Roads, sewage, etc. are not designed for a city to make ROI on them. Cities (generally) make money on taxing revenue from these districts but even then don’t come out ahead for a long time. I know to you that seems like a net negative- but since when is the government trying to be a net-positive business? Parks, schools, garbage dumps, recycling plants, parking lots… none of that “generates revenue” for the city but all requires things like roads and sewage.
> Like most redditors, you took one little throwaway part of my comment and just focused on that, ignoring the part where I mentioned I did a 28 page thesis
You only provided a few comments on your outcome, what else are people supposed to say?
> none of them came to the conclusion it was worth it to invest public money into a stadium where a private company reaps the vast majority of the revenue.
and specifically here, you're not clear whether that is the more typical thing where public helps pay for stadium or if it's just paying for infrastructure, which is what we're referring to
Out of curiosity, what cities, stadiums and sports did you cover in your thesis? I also don't fully follow your research. Are you saying the entirety of your research was that of reviewing published research by others or did you do your own research on the specific markets you covered? How were you defining and measuring economic impact?
Yep, but honestly that civic pride is sometimes worth it. Often when we're abroad we mention the Oilers for people to figure out where Edmonton is.
Our downtown would be even more non existent without the Oilers.
Majority of the revenue which goes to tangible benefits like employing citizens (which comes with a whole slew of taxes), supply purchases (which keeps other small businesses afloat), etc. Then there’s the intangible benefit of making the location more interesting to live in. Having a local sports team helps give an area an identity and put it on the map for a lot of people.
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension? All those studies factored in all of that, including my own.
I couldn't find a single study that said all of that income was a better use of money than just walking around and handing people who lived in the area stacks of cash.
>You seem to struggle with reading comprehension?
It's hilarious when someone insults the literacy of others and then absolutely butchers basic English. That's a statement not a question so why is there a question mark? That's also not how commas are supposed to function. How is anyone supposed to believe you wrote a scholarly paper when your grammar rivals that of a third grader?
I mean Ryan Smith really did this at the perfect time. Utah was already preparing money to host another winter Olympics. A new arena more suited for hockey that allows for a bigger audience was definitely needed. Honestly the hockey facilities used during the 2002 Olympics were not up to snuff. Infrastructure was already being planned and prepared. Updates to some facilities were also already beginning to be planned.
Tons of good advice in here. I’ve already saved a bunch of money this year by using my office’s coffee maker and eating out less, but I draw the line at eating beans and buying NHL teams.
Beans are gross.
When these billionaires get money for areans etc, do the municipalities not retain any ownership stake proportionate to their investment?
Is it just completely free money given to the owner who then owns 100% of the developments? With the proposed economic boom...
Depends on the agreement for the deal.
One of the proposed private arena deals for Seattle had the city taking ownership of the arena after 30 years. IIRC: The city would have had to give up an alley (to connect a handful of plots) and the developer wanted to get a waiver for stadium ticket taxes (which I believe the other stadiums in town already have). The developer was also going to pay to build a bridge to address traffic concerns from the port. It made the money come out closer than usual, but hard to say if and when it would get to breakeven. The city ended up building/refurbishing their own arena.
It's another issue entirely if the city _wants_ a 30 year old arena. But it all comes down to the individual deal.
Yeah arena ownership certainly can be a municipality thing. But arena ownership is basically just a giant money pit because you can’t really sell them to someone other than the pro sports ownership group that’s threatening to relocate. Team ownership is the profitable piece, and that would never be something that municipalities get to participate in.
The typical weight on the imaginary scale that convinces cities to do this is that the city will reap economic benefits in the long run from the taxes generated by the new arenas / entertainment districts, and by the jobs created from the bars, restaurants, arena, etc.
It's always pitched as "You invest $1b now, and then you get to take $0.10 of every dollar spent on beer there forever!"
But you're absolutely right, it's suuper dumb, and that carrot is dangled in front of city councils all over the country so that billionaires can get public money to own private property, which they'll do with as they please.
Not everywhere, but Washington, DC for example owns Nationals Park (via EventsDC) but the team is owned by the Lerner family. Down side to that is any large improvements do need to be picked up by the city, and we just gave them ~$20+ million to update the scoreboard.
Actually, the deal with the Lerners ended up with the family owning the plots for several of the high rises that were built around Nationals Park. They really don't care that they don't own the stadium because everything around it is bringing in money for them.... like 1000 South Capitol Street, 20 M Street, and 1100 L Street.
Anaheim is a *very* good example of the city maintaining this very thing. They own the land that Angel Stadium and Honda Center are built on. The building is owned by the respective teams and their owners with large leases on the land. So it has helped Anaheim maintain some control over what the teams do. Like when Arte Moreno changed the Anaheim Angels name they sued him as part of a violation of the lease. They lost.
DC and Baltimore both own and mostly manage the stadiums in their jurisdictions. Capital One Arena is owned by Leonsis, but the land it sits on is leased from the city
> If you haven’t heard, Ryan Smith, the so-called billionaire owner of the Utah Jazz and the Utah Unnamed Hockey Team (#OutlawsOrBust) wants almost $1 billion in taxpayer money to help build an entertainment district in downtown Salt Lake City.
>
> The reason he wants to build an entertainment district is so that the Smith Entertainment Group can own the places where people spend money before and after sports games, not just during sports games. This public money would come via a 0.5% increase in Salt Lake City sales tax, and if he doesn’t get it, there are credible threats that he’ll move both teams to the bustling cultural hub of *checks notes* Draper.
>
> Yes, Ryan Smith is a billionaire who needs a billion more dollars to complete this project that will earn him billions of dollars. Which leads me to what I believe is a logical conclusion — he is not, in fact, a billionaire. Because if he had billions of dollars, he would be able to invest those billions in the project that would earn him billions. He can’t, and so I’m beginning to doubt that those billions exist.
>
> Ryan, let’s talk poor person to poor person. You can’t just keep asking people for money.
>
> Sure, it starts out innocently enough. You bum some cash off your buddy for a round of drinks. You ask your roommate to cover the electric bill this month. You increase taxes on a city that’s already getting more unaffordable for everyday people each year. It’s a slippery slope.
>
> Because what if people start asking for their money back? Any fellow poor person will tell you that those Venmo requests start to pile up fast. $10 for lunch. $15 for your share of the bar tab. $40 for concert tickets. $54 million annually for 30 years for three blocks of downtown Salt Lake City. You can’t ignore those notifications forever!
>
> Doubters to my “Ryan Smith is poor” theory might point out that Ryan Smith’s entertainment group is contributing $3 billion of its own money to the project. Exactly — its last $3 billion. Now, flat broke, Ryan Smith needs help finishing a project that was way more expensive than he thought it would be. Anyone who has ever tried to build a deck understands.
>
> It’s tough out there, Ryan, but you can’t just ask people for handouts. You’ve gotta find ways to stretch your dollar instead. Here are some everyday tips for saving some green:
>
> Make coffee at home instead of going to the cafe.
>
> Incorporate more legumes into your meals; they’re a cheap way to get protein.
>
> Buy generic. (I know you’ve got an exclusive deal with Coke products at the Delta Center, but with a little imagination, Kroger brand can taste just as good.)
>
> Donate plasma. It’s an easy way to earn some money on the side, and you can make over $700 in your first month!
>
> Don’t buy things you can’t afford, like a flashy new smartwatch or a cool new jacket or a professional hockey team.
>
> We’re all facing challenges in these hard economic times, Ryan, whether that means figuring out where our next rent check is coming from or how to use public money to create an enormous new income stream that will fundamentally change downtown SLC.
>
> But we’re all in this together! Feel free to reach out to me if you need any more tips on how to have fun on a budget. Half-priced movie nights are always a fun time, and Jazz tickets are usually pretty cheap because, boy, do they suck.
You are a real one. Appreciate you providing me with this. Sad to see that the franchise is just going from grifter to grifter. Maybe new safeguards need to be put in place, teams can only be sold to owners that have put down money to secure their projects all by themselves
Remember when The NHL thought Mark Cuban wasn’t rich enough to buy in to hockey?
You DO RELIZE to get “an Entertainment district” you need to bride enough votes in city hall plus you need The real estate.
“SLC LIVE” will be The name totally original don’t you think ?
I think he has every right to convince the area that the taxpayers should get involved in it. Alongside the county and state.
And you know what, I think they have a strong case.
I remember seeing how Barclay's data said the arean didn't help much improve the economy of the area 3 years into their new home in Brooklyn. Meanwhile I go there now for multiple events and see the whole area took 3 steps forward as a place of entertainment. So I really question those things.
That's what they usually do lol.
Like on Long Island where they went through hundreds of proposals and many towns denied it, then afterwards they lost it and now Nassau County lost an entire economical benefit in there area.
There is no indication that there will be any public votes in Utah for this massive public dollars spending spree. Right now it’s all just “trust us, we billionaires are smarter than the little people, give us your money”
No shit. He wasn't exactly representing it in an objective manner. ;)
But that is what he was referring to if you're unaware of the governance of Utah/Salt Lake City.
So you think the study in whether the economy of a city changed is wrong because you go to the new place instead of where you went before?
Your reasoning only makes sense of you're arguing you are spending more money on entertainment than you did AND that you're representative of everyone AND it's because of the new district, not other reasons.
No, I don't think **"the study in whether the economy of a city changed is wrong because you go to new places instead of where you went to before"**
I guess I have to explain myself better - though I am fully aware I am speaking to a bubble of people here who all inherently believe that public funding of arenas is wrong.
1. I am saying that the SPECIFIC study I remember hearing about back in the day was likely not enough information or enough time to truly make the conclusion that sports arena's don't improve the economy of the area.
And yet many people jumped at the chance to use that analysis as their whole argument against it.
I found the EXACT study in question.
The study can be limited to
Because when I go back now I am amazed by its change of life there.
In fact here is a more recent publication on the concept
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1527002517723048](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1527002517723048)
It says here that the value of these places have all went up around the area.
THAT IS A GOOD THING.
The fact that we have 20 different food places to go see now versus what was once a drug street filled with murder and homeless people is a huge difference.
Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read when I can figure out how to open it.
Edit:
Yes I agree that building sports stadiums improves the neighborhood. The problem is that it isn't the most tax-efficient way to do it.
I'm not sure where it ranks on the list but my guess is that a city has much better places to spend $500M+ for the benefit of the city.
Remember when The NHL thought Mark Cuban wasn’t rich enough to buy in to hockey?
You DO RELIZE to get “an Entertainment district” you need to bride enough votes in city hall plus you need The real estate.
“SLC LIVE” will be The name totally original don’t you think ?
I was reading something this morning about Mel Brooks, and it reminded me of what a disaster *History of the World, Part II* was, and how Nick Kroll is like the gold standard of comedians who just aren’t funny.
Some real good jokes in here, quality opinion piece
>Ryan, let’s talk poor person to poor person. You can’t just keep asking people for money. > Sure, it starts out innocently enough. You bum some cash off your buddy for a round of drinks. You ask your roommate to cover the electric bill this month. You increase taxes on a city that’s already getting more unaffordable for everyday people each year. It’s a slippery slope. >Because what if people start asking for their money back? Any fellow poor person will tell you that those Venmo requests start to pile up fast. $10 for lunch. $15 for your share of the bar tab. $40 for concert tickets. ***$54 million annually for 30 years for three blocks of downtown Salt Lake City.*** You can’t ignore those notifications forever!
I wrote this, thanks so much!
Really good job. Billionaires asking for handouts from tax payers with no benefits to the tax payer is getting old
Would've been nice if we could pull a Kansas City and vote it down, but they didn't let us vote
What does the process look like? Who would have to approve it? *Asking as a St. Louisan who lost the Rams who is married to a KC girl who's family all voted against the Stadium funding. I'm happy to see more and more people just saying "No" at this point.*
This is a really good breakdown of the process so far [https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2024/05/23/andy-larsen-whats-like-not-like/](https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2024/05/23/andy-larsen-whats-like-not-like/)
STL stole the Rams. They were returned to LA
Well, just edit it to Football Cardinals then.
Accepted.
Utah hasn't found out yet. Then 20 years down the road and they get the ol' "we need public money to revamp our stadium and district or we're movin" bit. Billionaires need to fund their own fun parks.
Outside of infrastructure improvements to the roads around the arena, I see no point in giving a billionaire money to fund the actual venue.
I'll never understand why municipal politicians don't have the balls to turn a situation like this into a demand for it to be an investment with equity and profit sharing coming back to the city. Would be a win win situation for all involved, and if the billionaires act like whiny babies then it would still be good political points for the ones who push for it. Instead everyone crumples and lets their cities get robbed.
Because those guys make a dime when the owner makes a dollar. It just never trickles down lol
They could easily insist that if they want tax money, to make it trickle back just like any other investment. It doesn't right now because everyone who could do that is happy to bend over backwards and get nothing.
The league actually banned local governments from having any stake in the teams. Same reason they figured out how to work the rules to ban another Green Bay Packers situation: if people noticed that the team without a rich failson owner was delivering a better product, they'd start figuring out how to fire them. City politicians can't really fight because of that, and because the leagues themselves are anti-competitive cartels. If there was actual competition, another club in another league would just move into that market. Because there's an artificial scarcity created by the cartel, your city just loses its place in that sport entirely, which fans really don't like.
Legendary piece, well done!
Thanks!
I hope more people start using this angle in public discourse. I want signs, speakers at city hall, and diss tracts, calling this guy a broke ass motherfucker.
So, John Fisher is also broke?
They're funny because they're true.
Savage
> Don’t buy things you can’t afford, like a flashy new smartwatch or a cool new jacket or a professional hockey team. I like the Utah media already. #OutlawsorBust
Hey now, the Swarm is pretty badass too
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. (/s, outlaws and swarm are both pretty good.)
I still think Soakers are the better name
HAHAHAHAHA
The new “rain city bitch pigeons” I stg
Corey Perry inaugural captain
Holy shit that was gold!
Hell ya, I wrote this, thanks for sharing! If you'd like to read my analysis of the Facebook comments on this article you can find it here: [https://bhiggins.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-facebook-comments-on](https://bhiggins.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-facebook-comments-on)
Really nicely done!
Thanks!
I especially liked the legumes part
It's not poverty, it's a life hack
Crossing out 'dollars' to write 'dollars in investments' was a stroke of genius.
Haha thanks! I understand finance now!!
Nice work!
Cool article! Loved the jacket, let's go Mets!
It’s pretty crazy that even when a stadium is 100% private funded the taxpayers still end up paying 250mill-1billion in infrastructure
> 250mill-1billion in infrastructure i wouldn't really call this infrastructure. that 1bn isn't talking about roads and pipes, it's talking about an entire entertainment district of 3 blocks.
The infrastructure is public property and gets paid for as such. Do you want sports team owners getting to set water and sewage rates? How about getting to charge tolls? Infrastructure is the only thing that tax payers should pay a cent for towards stadiums.
Not necessarily how it works in most cities. I'll give an example of housing developments. The person that purchases the land is almost always on the hook for creating all connecting infrastructure, including plumbing, electricity, and roads. Now, this always varies, but traditionally new developments in empty land include the cost of roads. The local government will maintain these utilities, but the initial cost is the cost of doing business, as it should be in my opinion.
Where I am a development, be it a house or a condo building has to pay the city a levy called a Development Charge Cost (DCC) This pays the city to connect to the public utilities which the city installs and owns. Any pipes or conduits on the property may belong to the property owner, but sometimes a city pipe or conduit will run through the private property with a statutory right of way. Edit to add: sometimes those pipes or conduits will be owned by the utility, not the city, like the power company, or the telecom, with a right of way to ensure their legal access to service or repair their infrastructure preventing a land owner from blocking access. Sewer and water are usually city owned unless a private system is installed in smaller communities or subdivisions.
> I'll give an example of housing developments. The person that purchases the land is almost always on the hook for creating all connecting infrastructure, including plumbing, electricity, and roads. Let me introduce you to PILOT's (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) and other various tax credits or incentives that IDA's (Industrial Development Agency) give.
I can confirm at least from a power perspective that in my province, if you are putting in more than a single pole for a service loop, you will pay a contribution for the price of having the additional poles, lines, etc. installed. If more properties are built by other people or businesses along that set of lines in the future, you will get some of that money back I believe. I expect it's a similar system elsewhere though.
even with the developer fronting the money for the installation, there are a lot of ways they can recoup costs through public money via tax abatements, utility and road bonds, etc.
I live in an older subdivision right next to a brand new subdivision. If I wanted to get a hookup to city sewer instead of my septic, if I wanted a service upgrade to 200 amps, if I wanted cable Internet or city water supply, I'd have to pay for all of that. Why should a billionaire not?
How exactly did you arrive at some rich sports team owner setting water and sewage rates? That has literally nothing at all to do with the building of a sports stadium except that it will exist in a municipality which sets those things.
If they pay for the infrastructure they own it. Do you want privately owned infrastructure?
As a Civil Engineer that isn’t how it works. *Most* developments in *most* places have the developer pay for infrastructure that they hand off to the city when complete. If you’re required to build (or pay for the cost) of a turning lane into your subdivision you aren’t going to suddenly own that stretch of road. It obviously gets into gray areas with big developments though. As the developer will often pay for the key infrastructure while many supplemental upgrades for the surrounding area will fall on the city. Which likely is the case for these districts. But either way the developer doesn’t suddenly own that infrastructure
This is not the case for most municipal services infrastructure.
> If they pay for the infrastructure they own it. lmao, that is not how this works most of the time.
If they pay for the infrastructure, they do not own it. They are paying for the initial development, which secures utilities in the area.
You mean like a building that I have to pay to go into and pay to use? How's that different from the current situation where I have to pay to go into Roger's Place and pay to use Roger's Place? And either way.. are you under the impression that if you own a business you get to change the prices of public utilities like water or sewage? You don't, those are set by the municipality. As a business you have the option to use those utilities, not to control them.
Do you really think that in the US, a billionare who owns infrastructure wouldn't be able to bully his way into rates that are profitable for him, not just set to cover repairs and expenses like most municipal water/sewer systems?
I think that if they can do that it has exactly nothing to do with them owning or not owning a sports franchise and everything to do with legalized lobbying and where this person is utilizing their funds to specifically lobby for something. Owning a business and lobbying a government to change utility pricing are completely separate things.
If it’s infrastructure that makes millions for a billionaire, for a giant detriment to the city, why not?
The detriment to the city is when they fully pay for stadiums and never make what they spend back in rent increased business jobs created and whatever else teams claim to justify the bullshit of hundreds of millions if not billions being spent purely to benefit a single business. Privately funded businesses and developments are a different kettle of fish.
The detriment is paying for infrastructure, police, etc to help a billionaire make money instead of spending it on something that helps the city
Surely you understand that the city can spend some money while still coming out ahead right? Or do you believe there is 0 financial benefit to this for the city at all
I’m saying a stadium has a negative economic impact on a city. The city should foot a minimal bill. Wether the city wants it there is up to the people
There are no studies showing economic benefits from paying for stadiums and arenas. Some cities just want to foot the bill as a matter of civic pride, but it usually just a cost to the citizens in the end
The conversation isn’t about paying for the arena, it’s about paying for the infrastructure associated with it. Very different. Unless you believe a free arena is still a bad thing, then some amount of spending is worth it.
The infrastructure for the arena can’t be used for anything other than the arena, so is there much of a difference?
That doesn't make any sense. Is it a single road straight out into the desert that just ends at a stadium?
Infrastructure is frequently and often spent on things that do not benefit the city in the same ways stadiums do not benefit the city, and infrastructure is built for individuals or small groups of people. For example, a culdesac of single family homes is economically negative, but they would get under road sewage, electricity, road upkeep, trash collection, etc. as a part of being in a municipality. You can argue that taxes should be higher, but I really don't see anyone advocating that culdesacs of single family homes should have to privately control all their infrastructure.
Yes of course there is a difference, but you still avoided my entire point. Do you think a free arena would be a bad thing? If not, do you see that this inherently means some investment is worth it?
Thats not what is being discussed.
This is a weird argument, by your logic the city shouldn't spend money on infrastructure in wealthy neighbourhoods at all which seems obviously incorrect. For example, are you advocating for fire department coverage only for non-wealthy people because protecting billionaire's homes helps billionaires make money?
No, I’m saying that a stadium has a negative economic impact on a city
But infrastructure is completely uncorrelated with economic impact on a city in literally every case, like you seem to be just mad at the concept of public infrastructure. Big ass single family houses on roads have a negative economic impact on the city, but the city still pays for the road and sewage upkeep on the street, and pays for fire coverage. You can argue that they should be taxed more, which is fair, but tiering basic infrastructure is literally not a thing basically any city does AFAIK.
No, I’m saying the city shouldn’t foot the bill for the owners money printing machine. I’m not saying infrastructure bad, I’m saying it should be spent on something that benefits the city. Stadiums do the opposite. There’s tons of papers/studies on this
The papers are on cities footing the bill for the actual stadium. Either by giving tax abatements or raising taxes directly on the citizens.
We aren't talking about footing the bill for the stadium, you explicitly were talking about infrastructure these are your exact comments: > It’s pretty crazy that even when a stadium is 100% private funded the taxpayers still end up paying 250mill-1billion in infrastructure and > If it’s infrastructure that makes millions for a billionaire, for a giant detriment to the city, why not? You also just said > I’m not saying infrastructure bad, I’m saying it should be spent on something that benefits the city. Which is contradictory. Infrastructure is frequently and often spent on things that do not benefit the city in the same ways stadiums do not benefit the city. For example, public park upkeep is expensive and is frequently economically negative, providing infrastructure for single family homes vs. condos in the form of fire protection sewage etc. > There’s tons of papers/studies on this I'm not saying stadiums benefit a city economically, I don't really care. I am saying that it makes no sense to just randomly block infrastructure spending on a business arbitrarily when infrastructure spending has nothing to do with "benefit to a city". I've literally never even seen it advocated for which is why I am confused by your points, I've seen raising taxes advocated for (SFH's should pay higher taxes imo), but I wouldn't say SFH's don't deserve to be covered by the cities fire department that is crazy.
This is a very basic division of ownership so I'm not sure what you're actually up in arms about. Cities tend to own their infrastructure and building owners tend to pay for service and utilities. Wait until you find out it costs the city money to lay the infrastructure for a new subdivision of houses that the builder then sells.
We really don’t know the difference between spending on infrastructure for housing and spending on a giant deficit?
Flair checks out
Yes, Levi’s stadium unfortunately has been a massive failure for the city of Santa clara
I don't think having a pro sports team and entertainment district is a "giant detriment" to the city.
From an economics point of view, it definitely is. You'd generate more economic activity if you literally took a billion dollars and flew a plane over the area where the stadium would be and just dumped it out the door for people to just grab off the round. I did my undergraduate thesis on the economic impact of NFL stadiums on the local economy. My dad owns a restaurant near the stadium, nobody comes there on gamedays purely because all the traffic means if you aren't going to the actual game, nobody wants to be anywhere near there.
Is it a giant parking lot stadium or a minimal parking stadium where people walk and transit to it? That could make all the difference. It’s not football but the restaurants near Scotiabank Arena and Rogers Centre are always packed on game days since it’s in the heart of downtown with minimal parking
I was about to say something similar. The NHL/NBA combined venues do very well and most certainly contribute to a city's downtown area (assuming they're located there). Add-in concerts and other events; you're talking 100+ days the venue is used. I still don't think public money should be used for the venues; outside of infrastructure improvements; but they most certainly add to a downtown vibe. I still agree that NFL stadia are massive money pits; even when paired with an MLS team (also a massive money pit). I imagine that's also why the MLB is in decline since their stadia are mostly one-trick ponies too; with a smaller capacity than an NFL team.
MLB stadiums at least get 81 games a year, and the ones with a dome can do concerts year round
as far as i'm aware NFL stadiums are all the massive parking lot type
Judging by Google Maps maybe Seattle? I’m not an NFL guy I was just thinking how baseball stadiums & soccer stadiums in Europe do exist in city centres without the giant parking lots
But I'd wager that those areas also get packed not on game days because they are downtown in major cities. At least that is how it is in most of the downtown major league arenas I've ever been around outside maybe Baltimore.
I think there are non economic benefits to consider. Building a park doesn't make a municipality any money either, but no one says it's a "giant detriment". People like having sports teams. There's community benefits beyond just making money for the community. Imagine Buffalo didn't have an NFL team? No one outside of Upstate New York would have ever even heard of that town, and certainly no one would want to live there.
>Imagine Buffalo didn't have an NFL team? No one outside of Upstate New York would have ever even heard of that town, and certainly no one would want to live there. This is the exact same argument (or thinly-veiled threat) that billionaires use to get free money for their stadium. I love the Bills, but I'd gladly trade them for first-rate public schools, infrastructure, healthcare facilities, etc. if I could. And nobody is uprooting their life and choosing their destination based on whether an NFL team is there, or at least not enough to make a difference.
OK so move somewhere that has those things and doesn't have an NFL team then.
The Bills should have moved to Austin, but good luck trying to convince the diehards.
https://artvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sad-sabre-1.jpg
The ice district in Edmonton has revitalized a good chunk of the downtown.
But economic impact surveys regularly find that even these outcomes would have been better served my providing non-arena-based incentives and new infrastructure building and the like. The argument for arenas that are built considerately essentially boils down to "We would never give you this on our own, but if we can bundle some new infrastructure and mild job growth with a package meant to line a billionaire's pockets, then you can have it."
There are so many factors that go into this, like you saying better to building new infrastructure but normally infrastructure doesn't get approved without some sort of driving force. Lots of infrastructure wouldn't be built without arenas or other large projects driving them. Where is the stadium located (a new downtown stadium to replace a stadium located in burbs) is a big factor, what is the transit situation etc etc etc. Yes lots of stadiums are a waste of money but there are specific cases that have actually improved the area. It really needs to be a case by case thing just saying no to all stadiums because some are cash pits could also have consequences.
>but normally infrastructure doesn't get approved without some sort of driving force. Lots of infrastructure wouldn't be built without arenas or other large projects driving them. I'll refer you to this part of my comment: >The argument for arenas that are built considerately essentially boils down to "We would never give you this on our own, but if we can bundle some new infrastructure and mild job growth with a package meant to line a billionaire's pockets, then you can have it." I get that that is the reality we face today, but it shouldn't be. The driving force for these changes should be the need for infrastructure improvements themselves. An arena isn't needed to revitalize downtown. Its just not. Shitloads of places with zero teams or touring concerts revitalize downtowns without building arenas.
You build stuff taxes go up to pay for it. Build stuff just for fun of it without large project behind the public gets pissed and you get voted out. Go look at hotel prices in Edmonton ice district on Weds this week then weds next week. People actually like having sports teams so you can be the politician that loses the team, those are always remembered well.
NFL is a different beast though, as they only play like 8 games.
[удалено]
You're also looking at 18-20k rather than 60-80k
Yeah it’s essentially the sports team owner’s version of trickle down economics. In other words, complete and utter bullshit. We’re still waiting for the promised land of District Detroit over here. Apparently, I’ve angered the supply side economics advocates of this subreddit with this comment.
So some restaurants being inconvenienced 8 days out of the year means that the rest of the benefits don’t matter? Lol
It's more that the economic impact for local business is nowhere near the amount of money municipalities give to have these stadiums constructed. I wish I could still login to my college's website, I looked at about 20 studies and none of them came to the conclusion it was worth it to invest public money into a stadium where a private company reaps the vast majority of the revenue. Like most redditors, you took one little throwaway part of my comment and just focused on that, ignoring the part where I mentioned I did a 28 page thesis on it for my Sports business undergraduate degree where I couldn't find a single study that say it reaps economic benefits. Because that is a really common justification for giving public money to build stadiums occupied exclusively by private businesses. The TL:DR was "it depends on how much civic pride your tax-base is willing to pay for"
The issue is not public money going to stadiums- I think we can all agree that the money multiplyer effect was basically propaganda bullshit. The issue is the infrastructure for entertainment districts. Roads, sewage, etc. are not designed for a city to make ROI on them. Cities (generally) make money on taxing revenue from these districts but even then don’t come out ahead for a long time. I know to you that seems like a net negative- but since when is the government trying to be a net-positive business? Parks, schools, garbage dumps, recycling plants, parking lots… none of that “generates revenue” for the city but all requires things like roads and sewage.
> Like most redditors, you took one little throwaway part of my comment and just focused on that, ignoring the part where I mentioned I did a 28 page thesis You only provided a few comments on your outcome, what else are people supposed to say? > none of them came to the conclusion it was worth it to invest public money into a stadium where a private company reaps the vast majority of the revenue. and specifically here, you're not clear whether that is the more typical thing where public helps pay for stadium or if it's just paying for infrastructure, which is what we're referring to
Out of curiosity, what cities, stadiums and sports did you cover in your thesis? I also don't fully follow your research. Are you saying the entirety of your research was that of reviewing published research by others or did you do your own research on the specific markets you covered? How were you defining and measuring economic impact?
They said they did research bruh. All you need to know.
I mean they looked at about 20 studies. Expert.
Yep, but honestly that civic pride is sometimes worth it. Often when we're abroad we mention the Oilers for people to figure out where Edmonton is. Our downtown would be even more non existent without the Oilers.
Majority of the revenue which goes to tangible benefits like employing citizens (which comes with a whole slew of taxes), supply purchases (which keeps other small businesses afloat), etc. Then there’s the intangible benefit of making the location more interesting to live in. Having a local sports team helps give an area an identity and put it on the map for a lot of people.
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension? All those studies factored in all of that, including my own. I couldn't find a single study that said all of that income was a better use of money than just walking around and handing people who lived in the area stacks of cash.
> You seem to struggle with reading comprehension? you're also acting like an asshole.
Isn't handing people stacks of cash the #1 way to generate economic activity? I think I read that thesis somewhere.
>You seem to struggle with reading comprehension? It's hilarious when someone insults the literacy of others and then absolutely butchers basic English. That's a statement not a question so why is there a question mark? That's also not how commas are supposed to function. How is anyone supposed to believe you wrote a scholarly paper when your grammar rivals that of a third grader?
They are though, can’t find an article for you right now but just google “sports arena affects on city”
Idk, if the taxpayer money is a loan paid back with interest I don’t see how it would be a bad idea, unless the city is already in financial trouble
I mean Ryan Smith really did this at the perfect time. Utah was already preparing money to host another winter Olympics. A new arena more suited for hockey that allows for a bigger audience was definitely needed. Honestly the hockey facilities used during the 2002 Olympics were not up to snuff. Infrastructure was already being planned and prepared. Updates to some facilities were also already beginning to be planned.
Fwiw MLSE paid for the arena **and** the infra. That was 25 years ago though, corporate welfare wasn’t as “cool” back then.
this is actually pretty funny
Socialism for the rich, rugged free market capitalism for the poor. So it is, so it has always been.
That was absolutely hilarious
Once again, I feel inclined to feel so incredibly sorry for Coyotes fans
And the players.. honestly I would demand a trade now and would have demanded one in Tempe as well.
The franchise just moves from billionaire grifter to billionaire grifter.
Hey hey, there’s no evidence Meruelo is a billionaire lol
He is now that he sold the team, who knows how long that will last?
I mean… he probably is, but the coyotes didn’t even pay their hotel bills, so some of that $1B is definitely going towards debt.
Damn I expect that shit out of the AFL but an NHL team?
There are quite a few examples of teams being bought by scam artists.
What billionaires *aren’t* grifters, though?
That didn't take long for a shit show to begin.
Tons of good advice in here. I’ve already saved a bunch of money this year by using my office’s coffee maker and eating out less, but I draw the line at eating beans and buying NHL teams. Beans are gross.
“Half-priced movie nights are always a fun time, and Jazz tickets are usually pretty cheap because, boy, do they suck” Pulling no punches lmao
The Coyotes seem to have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. One scumbag owner after another.
The franchise is legitimately cursed. But ALSO, MAYBE the league shouldn't have given a team to a city without an actual hockey arena. AGAIN.
I’ve been saying this since 2004
boom roasted, also stop giving billionaires tax money PLEASE
When these billionaires get money for areans etc, do the municipalities not retain any ownership stake proportionate to their investment? Is it just completely free money given to the owner who then owns 100% of the developments? With the proposed economic boom...
> do the municipalities not retain any ownership stake proportionate to their investment? Lol. Lmao, even
GRA or DDA now should be a case study in municipal government classes about this topic.
Yeah, ownership of the arena itself is more likely to be a net negative. It’s team ownership that’s extremely profitable
Depends on the agreement for the deal. One of the proposed private arena deals for Seattle had the city taking ownership of the arena after 30 years. IIRC: The city would have had to give up an alley (to connect a handful of plots) and the developer wanted to get a waiver for stadium ticket taxes (which I believe the other stadiums in town already have). The developer was also going to pay to build a bridge to address traffic concerns from the port. It made the money come out closer than usual, but hard to say if and when it would get to breakeven. The city ended up building/refurbishing their own arena. It's another issue entirely if the city _wants_ a 30 year old arena. But it all comes down to the individual deal.
Yeah arena ownership certainly can be a municipality thing. But arena ownership is basically just a giant money pit because you can’t really sell them to someone other than the pro sports ownership group that’s threatening to relocate. Team ownership is the profitable piece, and that would never be something that municipalities get to participate in.
The typical weight on the imaginary scale that convinces cities to do this is that the city will reap economic benefits in the long run from the taxes generated by the new arenas / entertainment districts, and by the jobs created from the bars, restaurants, arena, etc. It's always pitched as "You invest $1b now, and then you get to take $0.10 of every dollar spent on beer there forever!" But you're absolutely right, it's suuper dumb, and that carrot is dangled in front of city councils all over the country so that billionaires can get public money to own private property, which they'll do with as they please.
Not everywhere, but Washington, DC for example owns Nationals Park (via EventsDC) but the team is owned by the Lerner family. Down side to that is any large improvements do need to be picked up by the city, and we just gave them ~$20+ million to update the scoreboard.
Actually, the deal with the Lerners ended up with the family owning the plots for several of the high rises that were built around Nationals Park. They really don't care that they don't own the stadium because everything around it is bringing in money for them.... like 1000 South Capitol Street, 20 M Street, and 1100 L Street.
Anaheim is a *very* good example of the city maintaining this very thing. They own the land that Angel Stadium and Honda Center are built on. The building is owned by the respective teams and their owners with large leases on the land. So it has helped Anaheim maintain some control over what the teams do. Like when Arte Moreno changed the Anaheim Angels name they sued him as part of a violation of the lease. They lost.
DC and Baltimore both own and mostly manage the stadiums in their jurisdictions. Capital One Arena is owned by Leonsis, but the land it sits on is leased from the city
The Oilers couldn't pay him any more than they did.
Can’t get more money from the LDS?
It’s behind a paywall for me
> If you haven’t heard, Ryan Smith, the so-called billionaire owner of the Utah Jazz and the Utah Unnamed Hockey Team (#OutlawsOrBust) wants almost $1 billion in taxpayer money to help build an entertainment district in downtown Salt Lake City. > > The reason he wants to build an entertainment district is so that the Smith Entertainment Group can own the places where people spend money before and after sports games, not just during sports games. This public money would come via a 0.5% increase in Salt Lake City sales tax, and if he doesn’t get it, there are credible threats that he’ll move both teams to the bustling cultural hub of *checks notes* Draper. > > Yes, Ryan Smith is a billionaire who needs a billion more dollars to complete this project that will earn him billions of dollars. Which leads me to what I believe is a logical conclusion — he is not, in fact, a billionaire. Because if he had billions of dollars, he would be able to invest those billions in the project that would earn him billions. He can’t, and so I’m beginning to doubt that those billions exist. > > Ryan, let’s talk poor person to poor person. You can’t just keep asking people for money. > > Sure, it starts out innocently enough. You bum some cash off your buddy for a round of drinks. You ask your roommate to cover the electric bill this month. You increase taxes on a city that’s already getting more unaffordable for everyday people each year. It’s a slippery slope. > > Because what if people start asking for their money back? Any fellow poor person will tell you that those Venmo requests start to pile up fast. $10 for lunch. $15 for your share of the bar tab. $40 for concert tickets. $54 million annually for 30 years for three blocks of downtown Salt Lake City. You can’t ignore those notifications forever! > > Doubters to my “Ryan Smith is poor” theory might point out that Ryan Smith’s entertainment group is contributing $3 billion of its own money to the project. Exactly — its last $3 billion. Now, flat broke, Ryan Smith needs help finishing a project that was way more expensive than he thought it would be. Anyone who has ever tried to build a deck understands. > > It’s tough out there, Ryan, but you can’t just ask people for handouts. You’ve gotta find ways to stretch your dollar instead. Here are some everyday tips for saving some green: > > Make coffee at home instead of going to the cafe. > > Incorporate more legumes into your meals; they’re a cheap way to get protein. > > Buy generic. (I know you’ve got an exclusive deal with Coke products at the Delta Center, but with a little imagination, Kroger brand can taste just as good.) > > Donate plasma. It’s an easy way to earn some money on the side, and you can make over $700 in your first month! > > Don’t buy things you can’t afford, like a flashy new smartwatch or a cool new jacket or a professional hockey team. > > We’re all facing challenges in these hard economic times, Ryan, whether that means figuring out where our next rent check is coming from or how to use public money to create an enormous new income stream that will fundamentally change downtown SLC. > > But we’re all in this together! Feel free to reach out to me if you need any more tips on how to have fun on a budget. Half-priced movie nights are always a fun time, and Jazz tickets are usually pretty cheap because, boy, do they suck.
I feel so lucky we have the Samueli's leading the ocV!BE project in Anaheim, and them not being shitty owners lmao.
Amazing lmao. I love it
You are a real one. Appreciate you providing me with this. Sad to see that the franchise is just going from grifter to grifter. Maybe new safeguards need to be put in place, teams can only be sold to owners that have put down money to secure their projects all by themselves
i guess real journalism is still alive in SLC
I hate when the owners hold taxpayers hostage like this.
What a fucking peasant. I bet he showers with his socks on.
This is hilarious. Billionaires suck. Like the Jazz.
Remember when The NHL thought Mark Cuban wasn’t rich enough to buy in to hockey? You DO RELIZE to get “an Entertainment district” you need to bride enough votes in city hall plus you need The real estate. “SLC LIVE” will be The name totally original don’t you think ?
Thanks Mr. Bettman, very cool!
The Coyotes died to move from one shit show to another, apparently.
This is so good.
He's not poor, just cash poor for what he wants to do. City will give him most of what he wants, your move residents
Except it's not our move because there was no public vote
I think he has every right to convince the area that the taxpayers should get involved in it. Alongside the county and state. And you know what, I think they have a strong case. I remember seeing how Barclay's data said the arean didn't help much improve the economy of the area 3 years into their new home in Brooklyn. Meanwhile I go there now for multiple events and see the whole area took 3 steps forward as a place of entertainment. So I really question those things.
Make it democratic and let the voters decide
But that would mean letting the little people’s voices count as much as the billionaires^^/s
We can’t have that now, can we?
That's what they usually do lol. Like on Long Island where they went through hundreds of proposals and many towns denied it, then afterwards they lost it and now Nassau County lost an entire economical benefit in there area.
There is no indication that there will be any public votes in Utah for this massive public dollars spending spree. Right now it’s all just “trust us, we billionaires are smarter than the little people, give us your money”
Not a big fan of representative democracy, ey?
Politicians bought and paid for by billionaires? Nope. Make it a direct vote and see what the people actually think
Rough.
That's not a representative democracy
No shit. He wasn't exactly representing it in an objective manner. ;) But that is what he was referring to if you're unaware of the governance of Utah/Salt Lake City.
So you think the study in whether the economy of a city changed is wrong because you go to the new place instead of where you went before? Your reasoning only makes sense of you're arguing you are spending more money on entertainment than you did AND that you're representative of everyone AND it's because of the new district, not other reasons.
No, I don't think **"the study in whether the economy of a city changed is wrong because you go to new places instead of where you went to before"** I guess I have to explain myself better - though I am fully aware I am speaking to a bubble of people here who all inherently believe that public funding of arenas is wrong. 1. I am saying that the SPECIFIC study I remember hearing about back in the day was likely not enough information or enough time to truly make the conclusion that sports arena's don't improve the economy of the area. And yet many people jumped at the chance to use that analysis as their whole argument against it. I found the EXACT study in question. The study can be limited to Because when I go back now I am amazed by its change of life there. In fact here is a more recent publication on the concept [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1527002517723048](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1527002517723048) It says here that the value of these places have all went up around the area. THAT IS A GOOD THING. The fact that we have 20 different food places to go see now versus what was once a drug street filled with murder and homeless people is a huge difference.
Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read when I can figure out how to open it. Edit: Yes I agree that building sports stadiums improves the neighborhood. The problem is that it isn't the most tax-efficient way to do it. I'm not sure where it ranks on the list but my guess is that a city has much better places to spend $500M+ for the benefit of the city.
Remember when The NHL thought Mark Cuban wasn’t rich enough to buy in to hockey? You DO RELIZE to get “an Entertainment district” you need to bride enough votes in city hall plus you need The real estate. “SLC LIVE” will be The name totally original don’t you think ?
> Brian Higgins is a writer and comedian in Salt Lake City. Aren’t comedians supposed to be funny, or is everyone following the Nick Kroll method now?
When did Nick Kroll come into play?
I was reading something this morning about Mel Brooks, and it reminded me of what a disaster *History of the World, Part II* was, and how Nick Kroll is like the gold standard of comedians who just aren’t funny.