john oliver doesn't think we should spend money on stadiums

[RidonKs]

good bit at the end too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs


"this one economist said to me, rather than spend a billion dollars on a stadium, you're actually better off flying a plane over a city and dumping the money onto the populace so they can pick it up and spend it"



when you use public money to pay for an expensive stadium, you might find yourself unable to afford something you badly need. hamilton county in ohio was estimated to spend 50 million last year on debts and other costs for the bengels and the reds stadiums. event hough, since building them they have had to sell a public hospital, cut 1700 jobs, and delay payments to schools because of budget gaps.

and it might not even end there. because there is a clause in the contract that states if 14 other nfl stadiums have something, then tax payers must buy the bengels that thing. and here is how comprehensive that clause is.

tax payers are also on the hook for all kinds of future bells and whistles, some that haven't even been invented yet. at some point, tax payers have also agreed to pay for a holograph replay machine. some day.

the bengels have a deal whereby if some day somebody invents holographic instant replay in the future, the county has to buy it for them. and that's the kind of clause owners put into a deal in order to take it out during negotiations. which begs the question: what else was in there?


and you can almost sympathize. when politicians do try to stand up to teams, it can cost them. last month the city council of glendale arizona tried to get out of an awful deal with the coyotes, who's hockey arena was costing them more than $8 per year... a giant slab of ice in arizona



http://www.highfidelityreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/japan-loses-2022-world-cup-bid-no-holographic.jpg

what does ish think? are holographic instant replays going to revolutionize the nba?

[RidonKs]

darn i meant to put this in the main forum. oh well.

[UK2K]

If the city doesn't want the stadium, they dont have to pay for it.

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.

[DukeDelonte13]

If the city doesn't want the stadium, they dont have to pay for it.

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.


:oldlol: really?

[Droid101]

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.
Uh, pretty much debunked by any study about this.

Billionaires need to buy their own stadiums, period. But they won't, because rubes like you don't care that they privatize their profits and set all the risk on the taxpayer.

[Akrazotile]

Uh, pretty much debunked by any study about this.

Billionaires need to buy their own stadiums, period. But they won't, because rubes like you don't care that they privatize their profits and set all the risk on the taxpayer.


I agree with this for the most part. I'm my opinion people SHOULDNT agree to go along with most of these stadium proposals that lean on taxpayers, however if residents in a give location are okay with the way a particular proposal is drawn up and they really want a team, thats their prerogative.

But the proposal should be voted on directly by residents - not by city council or some other group of politicians easily influenced by corprate interests.

[Jailblazers7]

The Warriors story is particularly ****ed up because they plan on not paying the old debt on Oracle Arena once they move out:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Warriors-planning-to-skip-out-on-Oracle-Arena-bill-5436777.php

Not sure if there have been any new developments tho.

[DeuceWallaces]

If the city doesn't want the stadium, they dont have to pay for it.

They also dont have to benefit from the millions upon millions per year the city gets off revenue from game days either.

I don't believe there's a single study that supports this claim.

[GimmeThat]

there are probably a few points of what it comes down to:

without pointing out some of the things I may find obvious to the general public.


1. this all have a lot to do with peoples ability to determine whether or not 'the new is 'good/better' and whether or not innovation plateaus. especially on the subject of dumping a billion dollar over the public and simply expect them to spend it to better the economy.

2. this really could come down to the electoral college system if you were to think about it. generally, Only a profitable franchise, would the locals want to keep the team, which means that those who are willing to spend that money already, are of course willing to spend that extra few dollars for the convenience. where as, for those who they don't care about it, due to their geographical location, their opinion might not matter on such basis. And if it isn't profitable to begin with, does the local speak to the commissioner in regards to ownership?

as for the whole money spent for the best of the economy issue.
if everyone did that, only the most intelligent profits. and really, the price point model known as favor, may as well be studied on the case of ebay.


or can we even ever say a one time auction, truly identifies the value of a being/anything

[knickballer]

The upkeep alone can be a bitch as well. I think I read that most venues need to host something like 50 games/events in a year to not even have a loss for the year. The worst are the stadiums that are built for the Olympics or World Cup and have no use after the games are over. In Brazil one of the newly built stadiums that cost a ton has been converted into a parking garage because the municipality couldn't afford the annual upkeep which could have been in the millions. I think one of the other stadiums used for last year's world cup has been abandoned and now is deteriorating because the city can't afford the upkeep. Then there's the classic Olympic venues that became obsolete the day after the games ended.


That's why I favor some of the new modern stadium projects that are happening in Europe. Some football stadiums are becoming these multi use venues where they actually incorporate a shopping mall in it, some business expos and some other creative infrastructure in it.

In America it seems that alot of these mega stadiums are being built in the middle of nowhere. Like Dallas new stadium or the new metlife stadium build absolutely nowhere. Not even good public transport to these mega stadiums. These teams just seem to think building mega stadiums is the solution like the Yankees building a 2.3 billion dollar stadium right next to the old stadium which was demolished and perfectly fine! Public had to pay for a significant part of the stadium but meanwhile the Yankees had no issue giving Alex Rodriguez a $300 million dollar contract and having an annual payroll of over $200 million.

[Akrazotile]

I don't believe there's a single study that supports this claim.

I haven't looked at any of the studies relating to this topic one way or another, but surely the city DOES at least pull in hefty tax revenue once the thing is built, no?

Property tax, sales tax on game day, and and then I would think the state also gets income tax from teams located within it, no?

I'm not saying it doesn't take a LONG time to break even against the upfront cost of financing the stadium or that taxpayers don't have every right to oppose it, but I would think the tax revenue and job creation is not negligible.

I mean, don't Democrats typically want to use tax payer money to create new jobs anyway? I'm surprised any Democrats would oppose something like this. Don't they typically want to fund public works with taxpayer dollars?

[DeuceWallaces]

Yeah it generates revenue, but it never exceeds the public's investment.

[Droid101]

I haven't looked at any of the studies relating to this topic one way or another, but surely the city DOES at least pull in hefty tax revenue once the thing is built, no?

Property tax, sales tax on game day, and and then I would think the state also gets income tax from teams located within it, no?

I'm not saying it doesn't take a LONG time to break even against the upfront cost of financing the stadium or that taxpayers don't have every right to oppose it, but I would think the tax revenue and job creation is not negligible.

I mean, don't Democrats typically want to use tax payer money to create new jobs anyway? I'm surprised any Democrats would oppose something like this. Don't they typically want to fund public works with taxpayer dollars?
They almost always produce net-negative based on the initial tax-money investment.

Example about the property tax one: the Yankees actually paid to build their own arena..... but only if they were exempted from any kind of property tax forever. Any similar build on the land would yield the city/state millions upon millions of dollars a year.

It's a racket, and until people start to care, the rich will continue to get richer at the taxpayer expense.


And you mentioned "Public works" to create jobs. This isn't public. It's not owned by the public, it's private. Private profits, no accountability to create any kind of jobs.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah it generates revenue, but it never exceeds the public's investment.


Yeah, that's what I would assume. I guess the two factors owners would push to offset that are job creation and the civic pride of having a team. Which are legitimate arguments, if not strong ones.

I personally think most of these deals are bogus, and people don't really pay that close attention to how squeezed they're getting on behalf of owners. I think cities that want teams should have to be a PART of the financial obligation, but not to the degree most currently get taken in for. But then again, some people REALLY love having a team. For me it's nice, but not critical.

[rufuspaul]

Yeah it generates revenue, but it never exceeds the public's investment.

No but it enhances the community and business looking to re-locate are attracted to cities with major league sports.

If a community doesn't build these arenas the teams will leave. Believe me. I watched my beloved Hornets leave for New Orleans. I then spent 2 years in a city with no NBA team. There was no joy in Muddville. Building a new arena and getting a team totally revitalized a section of downtown that was an urban desert before. Has the city recouped their investment? It depends on how you measure it.

[DeuceWallaces]

No but it enhances the community and business looking to re-locate are attracted to cities with major league sports.

If a community doesn't build these arenas the teams will leave. Believe me. I watched my beloved Hornets leave for New Orleans. I then spent 2 years in a city with no NBA team. There was no joy in Muddville. Building a new arena and getting a team totally revitalized a section of downtown that was an urban desert before. Has the city recouped their investment? It depends on how you measure it.

Most studies go well beyond just taxes and the basics. The businesses that may have come in, the jobs created (shitty ones), the local construction contracts...when you account for everything it never comes close. Even if you add the bonus of "excitement" it doesn't amount to shit.

To top it off, many of these are left abandoned 25-35 years down the road and turn the neighborhoods into shit-holes. I guarantee we're not going to have much fun in Pontiac this weekend, or Auburn Hills in 5-10 years when the Pistons move.

Should a whole city take on a massive investment, that will undoubtedly become a loss so 20% of it's population can enjoy basketball or hockey? Moreover, it's totally unnecessary, the owners make a shit ton of cash and can just build it out of their own pocket while easily making all their money back and a shit ton more. Bill Davidson built the Palace on his own dime, a state of the art sports and concert facility. He made a ton of money and Detroit didn't have to pony up 500 mil in the process, and when it came down to selling the Pistons their value was increased because you got the building and Palace Sports entertainment.

If the city wants to invest they should get a minority ownership so that they are guaranteed to make their money back.

[rufuspaul]

Most studies go well beyond just taxes and the basics. The businesses that may have come in, the jobs created (shitty ones), the local construction contracts...when you account for everything it never comes close. Even if you add the bonus of "excitement" it doesn't amount to shit.

To top it off, many of these are left abandoned 25-35 years down the road and turn the neighborhoods into shit-holes. I guarantee we're not going to have much fun in Pontiac this weekend, or Auburn Hills in 5-10 years when the Pistons move.

Should a whole city take on a massive investment, that will undoubtedly become a loss so 20% of it's population can enjoy basketball or hockey? Moreover, it's totally unnecessary, the owners make a shit ton of cash and can just build it out of their own pocket while easily making all their money back and a shit ton more. Bill Davidson built the Palace on his own dime, a state of the art sports and concert facility. He made a ton of money and Detroit didn't have to pony up 500 mil in the process, and when it came down to selling the Pistons their value was increased because you got the building and Palace Sports entertainment.

If the city wants to invest they should get a minority ownership so that they are guaranteed to make their money back.


Good points. Still, losing a team sucks. The owners have people by the balls.

[DeuceWallaces]

Yeah, it's real easy for me to say **** them, but I'd die if the Pistons, Tigers, or Wings left. Thankfully we have decent owners.

Even Illitch's new place that was a focus of the hit piece, at least the contract demands like 80% of the construction contracts have to be awarded to detroit area companies filled with resident workers, etc. There were a lot of stipulations in there that made me feel not so dirty for supporting the team.

Gotta support the team.

http://i.imgur.com/k7dfTX0.jpg

[triangleoffense]

redistribution of the wealth at it's finest from the public to private sectors (poor to rich)

John Oliver knows his stuff when it comes to economics and politics.

Think about this for a second... you are paying a tax so a billionaire can subsidize and build an arena on the cheap and then pay tickets for said arena so you can see your team play.. all at your expense and for the profit of the owners

[bluechox2]

his main point was indirectly stating is that all that money should be put to better use like funding and building better hospitals, schools, trasportation for the people..and that the owners have the money to build a stadium on their own merrit without having to take away from the others...cause in the end of the day half a billion goes to the stadium, then which the state and city starts cutting from other areas like hospitals and schools just to break even on the budget

[rufuspaul]

redistribution of the wealth at it's finest from the public to private sectors (poor to rich)

John Oliver knows his stuff when it comes to economics and politics.

Think about this for a second... you are paying a tax so a billionaire can subsidize and build an arena on the cheap and then pay tickets for said arena so you can see your team play.. all at your expense and for the profit of the owners


When Jerry Richardson built the Carolina Panthers stadium he sold PSLs (private seat licenses). I own 2 of them that I paid $1,000 a piece for. Everyone praised him at the time for not using public money, even though the city gave him the land for free. By "owning" PSLs I am obligated to buy season tickets and playoff tickets or else the PSLs go back to Richardson to sell again. So he got the land and the stadium for free and has guaranteed ticket sales from the 60,000 PSL owners. He also gets all the profits from concessions at the games. The city pays for traffic control, security on game days. Richardson also got both the city and the state to pay for stadium upgrades last year.

Jerry doesn't get off scott free though. He pays rent to the city for the land. $1/year. :wtf:

[Jailblazers7]

No but it enhances the community and business looking to re-locate are attracted to cities with major league sports.

If a community doesn't build these arenas the teams will leave. Believe me. I watched my beloved Hornets leave for New Orleans. I then spent 2 years in a city with no NBA team. There was no joy in Muddville. Building a new arena and getting a team totally revitalized a section of downtown that was an urban desert before. Has the city recouped their investment? It depends on how you measure it.

Neighborhood effects like that aren't always positive either. When Mellon Arena was built (old Pens stadium) there was a huge issue because it dislocated a ton of black residents and cut off uptown from downtown. Uptown used to be a well-developed area for black residents but since Mellon was build it's been known as the shittiest part of the city.

Plus, a lot of the revenue generated from game day events doesn't stay in the area. Hotel revenue, restaurant chains, retail sales, etc mostly go to corporations where the profit goes to HQ instead of owners and workers who live in the area.

[Akrazotile]

When Jerry Richardson built the Carolina Panthers stadium he sold PSLs (private seat licenses). I own 2 of them that I paid $1,000 a piece for. Everyone praised him at the time for not using public money, even though the city gave him the land for free. By "owning" PSLs I am obligated to buy season tickets and playoff tickets or else the PSLs go back to Richardson to sell again. So he got the land and the stadium for free and has guaranteed ticket sales from the 60,000 PSL owners. He also gets all the profits from concessions at the games. The city pays for traffic control, security on game days. Richardson also got both the city and the state to pay for stadium upgrades last year.

Jerry doesn't get off scott free though. He pays rent to the city for the land. $1/year. :wtf:


So, you like to support arts and entertainment, do ya Rufus?

https://tstoaddicts.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/tsto-gil-gunderson.jpg

Boy have I got just the project for you! Smokestackwriting.com is a freshly minted site with a unique vision in the world of online entertainment. Fusing culture, comedy, education and social dialogue, it's the newest provider of tantalizing, provocative, stimulating substance on the net. In fact, Insidehoops Magazine ranked it among "2015's ten hottest new websites!"

It's a great thing to be a part of right now, a really great thing to be a part of. You like being a part of great things, don't you Rufus?

[rufuspaul]

So, you like to support arts and entertainment, do ya Rufus?

https://tstoaddicts.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/tsto-gil-gunderson.jpg

Boy have I got just the project for you! Smokestackwriting.com is a freshly minted site with a unique vision in the world of online entertainment. Fusing culture, comedy, education and social dialogue, it's the newest provider of tantalizing, provocative, stimulating substance on the net. In fact, Insidehoops Magazine ranked it among "2015's ten hottest new websites!"

It's a great thing to be a part of right now, a really great thing to be a part of. You like being a part of great things, don't you Rufus?


Only if it involves helping billionaires make more profit.

[triangleoffense]

When Jerry Richardson built the Carolina Panthers stadium he sold PSLs (private seat licenses). I own 2 of them that I paid $1,000 a piece for. Everyone praised him at the time for not using public money, even though the city gave him the land for free. By "owning" PSLs I am obligated to buy season tickets and playoff tickets or else the PSLs go back to Richardson to sell again. So he got the land and the stadium for free and has guaranteed ticket sales from the 60,000 PSL owners. He also gets all the profits from concessions at the games. The city pays for traffic control, security on game days. Richardson also got both the city and the state to pay for stadium upgrades last year.

Jerry doesn't get off scott free though. He pays rent to the city for the land. $1/year. :wtf:
Land of the rich for the rich by the rich

God bless our wonderful nation.. my god do i love America

[Akrazotile]

Only if it involves helping billionaires make more profit.


Well I sure hear ya on that one :oldlol:

But say, Ru, what if I told you - Can I call you Ru? You mind if I call you Ru for short? - Ru what if I told you, that your support could add a compelling new angle to the world of online entertainment and information. Let's just say there was someone who was willing to go out and do things, really go out on some limbs, take risks, put himself out there, and document how these unusual ventures play out in a fun, but also an insightful way for you and countless people worldwide to experience and enjoy through an online medium?

Thats the kind of richly rewarding endeavor a man like you values in this topsy-turvy ol world you and I are living in, isnt it Ru? Guys like us, we know value when we see it. We know a little thing called "quality" when it knocks on our door and then starts a tickle-fight with us when we open that ol door, you know what I'm sayin Ru?

[rezznor]

When Jerry Richardson built the Carolina Panthers stadium he sold PSLs (private seat licenses). I own 2 of them that I paid $1,000 a piece for. Everyone praised him at the time for not using public money, even though the city gave him the land for free. By "owning" PSLs I am obligated to buy season tickets and playoff tickets or else the PSLs go back to Richardson to sell again. So he got the land and the stadium for free and has guaranteed ticket sales from the 60,000 PSL owners. He also gets all the profits from concessions at the games. The city pays for traffic control, security on game days. Richardson also got both the city and the state to pay for stadium upgrades last year.

Jerry doesn't get off scott free though. He pays rent to the city for the land. $1/year. :wtf:

you can easily make that 2k a year back though by selling the seats when you don't go to a game. i would never give them up.

[mlh1981]

I live in St. Petersburg, about 5 minutes from Tropicana Field, so this is a constant issue. There's always that Montreal "boogeyman" that is breathing down everyone's neck, but with that said, I ultimately don't think the Rays leave the Tampa bay Area. The Mayor of St. Pete is pushing the Rays to look all over the Tampa Bay Area for a future stadium cite, but city council hasn't budged. The team is locked into it's current lease until 2027.

and for the record, there's really nothing wrong with Tropicana Field whatsoever. It's not PNC Park, but you can't play baseball outside down here.

[GimmeThat]

It would be odd then if these owners would have to pay federal taxes, only for local governments to be eligible for subsidies. profit sharing model.

As for the moral issue of it all.

We may say that domestic events are stress relievers, where as international events are encouragements


You know, I'm not sure if people have ever heard of the event little 500. But you would be amazed by the amount of people who are/were interested in organizing something like that.

[NumberSix]

Meh. You want a stadium? Buy it with your own money.

[rufuspaul]

you can easily make that 2k a year back though by selling the seats when you don't go to a game. i would never give them up.


Oh I'm not giving them up. I enjoy the games and I do sell the ones I can't make. It's just a very, very good deal for the owner.

[UK2K]

Uh, pretty much debunked by any study about this.

Billionaires need to buy their own stadiums, period. But they won't, because rubes like you don't care that they privatize their profits and set all the risk on the taxpayer.


I don't believe there's a single study that supports this claim.


http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/07/09/not-just-a-game-the-impact-of-sports-on-u-s-economy/

How do you debunk the fact that sports are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs, directly? Not to mention the indirect impact on jobs (hotels, restaurants, cab services, parking, security, construction, janitorial services, etc.). Then you can get specific, alcohol sales (the ones who work at the beer production facilities), merchandise sales (the ones who produce and sale gear), advertising, I can go on and on.

There are some instances where teams and arenas cost cities money (look at the Yum Center, the University of Louisville's new stadium and the rotten deal the tax payers of the city got). But no city would want a project where they just lose money on it.


The sports industry as a whole brings roughly $14.3 billion in earnings a year — and that’s not even counting the Niagara of indirect economic activity generated by Super Bowl Sunday (well-known for being the second foodiest day in the country, behind Thanksgiving). The industry also contributes 456,000 jobs with an average salary of $39,000 per job.

[Droid101]

Your article is talking about the entire sports industry vanishing.

Has nothing to do with taxpayer money funding billionaire's stadiums. Nice try though.

[UK2K]

Your article is talking about the entire sports industry vanishing.

Has nothing to do with taxpayer money funding billionaire's stadiums. Nice try though.

But it has to do with the positive economic impact of the cities the organizations reside in, which is what I said.

Which is what you said was debunked.

So....

You act like the cities get nothing out of it. I am showing you, you are wrong.

[DeuceWallaces]

http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/07/09/not-just-a-game-the-impact-of-sports-on-u-s-economy/

How do you debunk the fact that sports are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs, directly? Not to mention the indirect impact on jobs (hotels, restaurants, cab services, parking, security, construction, janitorial services, etc.). Then you can get specific, alcohol sales (the ones who work at the beer production facilities), merchandise sales (the ones who produce and sale gear), advertising, I can go on and on.

There are some instances where teams and arenas cost cities money (look at the Yum Center, the University of Louisville's new stadium and the rotten deal the tax payers of the city got). But no city would want a project where they just lose money on it.

That's not a real study. And all your points have already been addressed. In depth scientific studies can in fact, address all your points and many exhaustive peer reviewed studies have already taken those factors into account and shown that tax payer funded stadiums are a terrible idea brought about mainly by the fear from the next political cycle.

[DeuceWallaces]

But it has to do with the positive economic impact of the cities the organizations reside in, which is what I said.

Which is what you said was debunked.

So....

You act like the cities get nothing out of it. I am showing you, you are wrong.

We're showing you that you're wrong. They get something, but it's not nearly what they put it in.

If I give you a 100 dollars and you give me 10 back in 20 years we both got something but it's clear there was a winner and loser.

[UK2K]

We're showing you that you're wrong. They get something, but it's not nearly what they put it in.

If I give you a 100 dollars and you give me 10 back in 20 years we both got something but it's clear there was a winner and loser.

Well no shit, the Colts dont write a check addressed to the city of Indianapolis every year, but the city makes money off of the Colts, and the jobs they create.

If you gave me $100, and I gave you $1000 worth of food, thats a good deal.

Minus the nearly half a million direct jobs sports provides, are the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs sports provide. Not to mention tax revenue goes up, property values near the stadium will increase.

And as I said, if cities dont like them, let them go somewhere else, cause for some reason other cities are tripping over themselves to land a pro team.

Really odd.

[LJJ]

At the end of the day it should be pretty simple. Businesses that generate considerable revenue and are able to give out $100 million dollar contracts to single employees should be able to finance their own facilities.

My aunts ice cream store that provides citizens with delicious, reasonably priced gelato has a positive impact on the city too, but the government isn't subsidizing the rent because it's a for profit enterprise.

[BasedTom]

marlinsparklol.

it's actually pretty nice, minus this tacky home run shit.

http://i.imgur.com/USClzcn.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

Well no shit, the Colts dont write a check addressed to the city of Indianapolis every year, but the city makes money off of the Colts, and the jobs they create.

If you gave me $100, and I gave you $1000 worth of food, thats a good deal.

Minus the nearly half a million direct jobs sports provides, are the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs sports provide. Not to mention tax revenue goes up, property values near the stadium will increase.

And as I said, if cities dont like them, let them go somewhere else, cause for some reason other cities are tripping over themselves to land a pro team.

Really odd.

Yes, they can obviously go somewhere else. The point is you don't seem to understand the economics of stadiums and the municipalities that support them.

[BasedTom]

Yeah it's disgraceful that american teams threaten (and do) move as often that they do. You're ****ed either way...Nobody wants to be Seattle'd.

Good luck changing the system though, the owners have a ton of power and in some cases are pretty much the bosses of the commissioner.

[GimmeThat]

At the end of the day it should be pretty simple. Businesses that generate considerable revenue and are able to give out $100 million dollar contracts to single employees should be able to finance their own facilities.

My aunts ice cream store that provides citizens with delicious, reasonably priced gelato has a positive impact on the city too, but the government isn't subsidizing the rent because it's a for profit enterprise.

But somehow, if someone stole your aunts recipe, and sold them under what the law would also consider to be in a direct competitive environment, you could sue them.

#

[RedBlackAttack]

Unfortunately, the loss of the original Browns to Baltimore was brought about by Art Modell's failed lobbying to replace the old Browns' Municipal Stadium. So, yeah... it sucks. There's no reason that these incredibly profitable organizations should be leaning on taxpayers for the building that houses them. But, if your city doesn't pay for it, some other city will. We learned that the hard way.

If the entire country stood up in unison and refused to fund the stadiums, we might see some change. But that isn't happening any time soon.

[GimmeThat]

Yes, they can obviously go somewhere else. The point is you don't seem to understand the economics of stadiums and the municipalities that support them.

I would say that there are differences between the profit model and the economics of it. And we truly may as well say that maintenance costs have a lot more to do with whether or not there comes a time to build a new one.

I can't say it is safe to say that stadiums bring jobs. But I can certainly say even things like dress codes are apparently factored into it all.

[GimmeThat]

Unfortunately, the loss of the original Browns to Baltimore was brought about by Art Modell's failed lobbying to replace the old Browns' Municipal Stadium. So, yeah... it sucks. There's no reason that these incredibly prrofitable organizations should be leaning on taxpayers for the building that houses them. But, if your city doesn't pay for it, some other city will. We learned that the hard way.

If the entire country stood up in unison and refused to fund the stadiums, we might see some change. But that isn't happening any time soon.

Just in the case the owner wanted to sell the team, less hassle for the owner, and less hassle for the city.

Teams are however liable for their practice facilities, aren't they? Be tough to say it isn't the fan that makes the stadium, instead of the team.

I suppose it does come down to how a sports team owner may value broadcasting rights, over physical property revenue stream, or maybe both.

Good business doesn't sell jerseys.
Good story does.

[ALBballer]

Unfortunately, the loss of the original Browns to Baltimore was brought about by Art Modell's failed lobbying to replace the old Browns' Municipal Stadium. So, yeah... it sucks. There's no reason that these incredibly profitable organizations should be leaning on taxpayers for the building that houses them. But, if your city doesn't pay for it, some other city will. We learned that the hard way.

If the entire country stood up in unison and refused to fund the stadiums, we might see some change. But that isn't happening any time soon.

In the end, sports is a children's game played by adults and consumed by adults and children alike. Not everyone is a sports fan and citizens should not be subsidizing billionaires period. Adults need to grow up and put things into perspective.... if a team want to leave so be it. Life will go on and there are more important issues where money can be spent than a child's game.

What is more ludicrous is big market teams that get cities and states to fall for their tricks. Where would the New York yankees relocate to Jersey? San Fran Giants gonna move to Oakland? **** em and let them relocate wherever they want.

PS:

Same can be said for most incentives not just sports. Take Hollywood for examples, some states and cities are giving millions and some states allocate in the hundred of millions of their budgets for movies and shows to move their shoots to their respective cities and states. Then these same movies companies employ their accounting tricks and end up showing little to no profit. Same old privatizing profits and socializing the risks.

[RedBlackAttack]

Not everyone is a sports fan and private citizens should not be subsidizing billionaires period.
Well, obviously I agree that these ridiculous stadiums should not be a burden on the taxpayer, but at the same time, the people get a chance to vote it up or down on the ballot. I don't think it should get that far, but when it does and the voting populace says "yes, I will subsidize these billionaires" ...

In this case, the people get what they asked for, at the end of the day.

[ALBballer]

Well, obviously I agree that these ridiculous stadiums should not be a burden on the taxpayer, but at the same time, the people get a chance to vote it up or down on the ballot. I don't think it should get that far, but when it does and the voting populace says "yes, I will subsidize these billionaires" ...

In this case, the people get what they asked for, at the end of the day.

Fair enough, I was not aware most of these deals are placed on a direct vote. If citizens voted for these stadiums then they are at fault. Although I'm sure these billionaire owners will spend substantial amount of advertising money in to persuade the fans the stadium is best for the city.

[Droid101]

Fair enough, I was not aware most of these deals are placed on a direct vote. If citizens voted for these stadiums then they are at fault. Although I'm sure these billionaire owners will spend substantial amount of advertising money in to persuade the fans the stadium is best for the city.
Most of them absolutely are NOT up for a direct vote. Usually city councils and whatnot decide, the members of whom get nice big wink wink kickbacks and other special treatment for them and their family's businesses.

It's shady from the ground up.

[DeuceWallaces]

Well, obviously I agree that these ridiculous stadiums should not be a burden on the taxpayer, but at the same time, the people get a chance to vote it up or down on the ballot. I don't think it should get that far, but when it does and the voting populace says "yes, I will subsidize these billionaires" ...

In this case, the people get what they asked for, at the end of the day.

That almost never happens.

[RedBlackAttack]

It obviously depends on the city and the situation, but it isn't unusual for stadium upgrades or new housing to be on the ballot for taxpayers. Take the Chargers situation, which Oliver touched on in his piece...


San Diego officials announced Monday that a citywide vote on a possible new Chargers stadium could happen as early as Dec. 15, a few weeks before the January 2016 window the NFL has tentatively set for teams to apply for relocation to the Los Angeles area.

Officials said an election could be held that quickly if ongoing negotiations with the Chargers about a stadium financing plan are accelerated.

A deal would have to be reached and the City Council would have to approve the ballot measure by Sept. 18, because state law requires at least 88 days to elapse between a city placing something on the ballot and a public vote taking place.

“San Diegans deserve a vote on a new stadium and today we discussed a framework that allows for a vote this year,” said Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who was flanked by county officials and a team of stadium experts recently hired by the city.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jun/08/chargers-county-stadium-partnership-december-vote/


The Cleveland Browns' stadium is also partially financed through a 'sin tax' which was voted on by the taxpayers some years back.

[navy]

The solution is simple. The public should pay for stadiums but get their money back in dollars not economic assumptions.

[highwhey]

The solution is simple. The public should pay for stadiums but get their money back in dollars not economic assumptions.
Greed. It's the blood of this country.

[navy]

Greed. It's the blood of this country.
God blessed greed.

[DeuceWallaces]

It obviously depends on the city and the situation, but it isn't unusual for stadium upgrades or new housing to be on the ballot for taxpayers. Take the Chargers situation, which Oliver touched on in his piece...



http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jun/08/chargers-county-stadium-partnership-december-vote/


The Cleveland Browns' stadium is also partially financed through a 'sin tax' which was voted on by the taxpayers some years back.

Still almost never happens, and the San Diego one hasn't yet. Sounds like there are some hoops in the city vs. county regulations. Guess I shouldn't be surprised the Mistake on the Lake would put up 1 billion to sports stadiums over education and infrastructure.

[Dresta]

In the end, sports is a children's game played by adults and consumed by adults and children alike. Not everyone is a sports fan and citizens should not be subsidizing billionaires period. Adults need to grow up and put things into perspective.... if a team want to leave so be it. Life will go on and there are more important issues where money can be spent than a child's game.

What is more ludicrous is big market teams that get cities and states to fall for their tricks. Where would the New York yankees relocate to Jersey? San Fran Giants gonna move to Oakland? **** em and let them relocate wherever they want.

PS:

Same can be said for most incentives not just sports. Take Hollywood for examples, some states and cities are giving millions and some states allocate in the hundred of millions of their budgets for movies and shows to move their shoots to their respective cities and states. Then these same movies companies employ their accounting tricks and end up showing little to no profit. Same old privatizing profits and socializing the risks.

Agreed with all of this. If it were worth the money an individual or conglomerate would invest without the need for subsidy (and it's not like there aren't additional perks and plenty of the super-rich willing to piss money away in sports nowadays).


Well, obviously I agree that these ridiculous stadiums should not be a burden on the taxpayer, but at the same time, the people get a chance to vote it up or down on the ballot. I don't think it should get that far, but when it does and the voting populace says "yes, I will subsidize these billionaires" ...

In this case, the people get what they asked for, at the end of the day.
I really don't get why people are so willing to agree to 51% of the population forcing the other 49% to pay for something they don't want and probably won't get any benefit from.

[RidonKs]

i really wanna segue this conversation into one about the left wing comedy of jon stewart and now john oliver, who has unquestionably reached further into the political sphere. his program, 20 minutes on the same subject, as opposed to the other satirical programming out there including late night talk shows that make three jokes about social issues during the opening monologue, which fail to gain the attention of the viewer on the same subject over a long period of time.

there are weird arguments over the role of the stewart/colbert/cc role in the political conversation. one side says they're partisan left, the other says they're entertainers first and foremost. oliver is clearly pushing the right wing boundary for his 'camp' and the effects are worth paying attention to. i think his show is funny and informative so i guess i'm just a biased hipster kaloofa wearing or w/e nick young was obsessed with back when bitch with a hard on for helping others jesus call the cops


edit: alb with the strong comeback

[Dresta]

It's a big problem imo when individuals are getting the majority of their political information from pat-yourself-on-the-back satirical news shows - it doesn't really encourage open-mindedness, more just 'i so clever, other people so dumb - let us laugh at them together' - Bill Maher's audiences, for example, are beyond obnoxious, and also rather stupid. It tends to reinforce whatever opinion one already has.

[KingBeasley08]

I love Jon Stewart and Colbert but mostly for entertainment and only occasionally to learn shit. I like the Stewart crew (him, Colbert, Oliver etc) but anyone who watches their stuff for news is doing themselves a disservice. It's much better to get the news from other sources and then watch a comedic presentation of it

Also, Colbert's character is just :lol :lol :lol

Too bad he's dropping it when he takes over the Late Show

[BasedTom]

It's a big problem imo when individuals are getting the majority of their political information from pat-yourself-on-the-back satirical news shows - it doesn't really encourage open-mindedness, more just 'i so clever, other people so dumb - let us laugh at them together' - Bill Maher's audiences, for example, are beyond obnoxious, and also rather stupid. It tends to reinforce whatever opinion one already has.
remove the word satirical and your statement is still just as true. And it's been that way for years. Can you recall a time when a radio talkshow host, or a big name political pundit said "Well hang on here, I've never thought of it that way. I might have to reconsider my position."

It's not in the business of informing you about what is happening, but rather what you want to hear. It's why they all but fellate their followers and demonize the opposition beyond reason. Bill O'Reilly's "pinheads and patriots" and the left's "REPUBLICANS LMAAOOOO" style comedy are two sides of the same coin.

[Akrazotile]

remove the word satirical and your statement is still just as true. And it's been that way for years. Can you recall a time when a radio talkshow host, or a big name political pundit said "Well hang on here, I've never thought of it that way. I might have to reconsider my position."

It's not in the business of informing you about what is happening, but rather what you want to hear. It's why they all but fellate their followers and demonize the opposition beyond reason. Bill O'Reilly's "pinheads and patriots" and the left's "REPUBLICANS LMAAOOOO" style comedy are two sides of the same coin.


Damn, I been missin out not followin one of these sides :biggums:

[RidonKs]

It's a big problem imo when individuals are getting the majority of their political information from pat-yourself-on-the-back satirical news shows - it doesn't really encourage open-mindedness, more just 'i so clever, other people so dumb - let us laugh at them together' - Bill Maher's audiences, for example, are beyond obnoxious, and also rather stupid. It tends to reinforce whatever opinion one already has.
maher is the worst. my problem with him is that he is a bad comedian. oliver is okay. stewart and colbert are gold.

comparisons between stewart and maddow, or chris hayes (hes got a good interview with zach lowe), or some of the mediocre-->piss poor comedy/left wing commentary podcasts (see citizen radio for a prime example, or plenty of others), moving to the opposite end with the light night guys, then moving all the way into hollywood. obviously i've spread myself a bit thin with this array of examples whereby entertainment and politics intersect.

the difference is the vehicle for information delivery. it's a problem when comedy is required to keep a viewer's attention on issues of importance, because it is simultaneously a distraction. but if it's all you've got........ do you believe a viewership could respond to the right combination of comedy with your own personal views? that seems like an interesting question to ask oneself.

[Akrazotile]

maher is the worst. my problem with him is that he is a bad comedian. oliver is okay. stewart and colbert are gold.

comparisons between stewart and maddow, or chris hayes (hes got a good interview with zach lowe), or some of the mediocre-->piss poor comedy/left wing commentary podcasts (see citizen radio for a prime example, or plenty of others), moving to the opposite end with the light night guys, then moving all the way into hollywood. obviously i've spread myself a bit thin with this array of examples whereby entertainment and politics intersect.

the difference is the vehicle for information delivery. it's a problem when comedy is required to keep a viewer's attention on issues of importance, because it is simultaneously a distraction. but if it's all you've got........ do you believe a viewership could respond to the right combination of comedy with your own personal views? that seems like an interesting question to ask oneself.


Buckle up, cause we're GONNA FIND OUT!!! :cheers:

[RidonKs]

Buckle up, cause we're GONNA FIND OUT!!! :cheers:
beyond the horizen, a messiah rises to righteously lead his kinfolk out of their misery

[DeuceWallaces]

Every Oliver hit piece I've watched has been thorough and cites only primary sources. There's nothing wrong with that.

[navy]

Every Oliver hit piece I've watched has been thorough and cites only primary sources. There's nothing wrong with that.
His online harassment video is the only one with real critics from what ive seen .

[highwhey]

Every Oliver hit piece I've watched has been thorough and cites only primary sources. There's nothing wrong with that.
This. Plus, he has a week lead for his staff to fact check their material.

I'd much rather have John Oliver steer the heard than Fox News.

[DeuceWallaces]

His online harassment video is the only one with real critics from what ive seen .

I don't want to hear from critics, I want to see quotes from primary documents.

And I don't even know what you mean by critics. The interviews in that piece, assuming we're talking about the same ones, were a lawyer and clips of interviews from victims.

It mainly focused on documented laws which provide no protection for those who are threatened online.

[rufuspaul]

Unfortunately, the loss of the original Browns to Baltimore was brought about by Art Modell's failed lobbying to replace the old Browns' Municipal Stadium. So, yeah... it sucks. There's no reason that these incredibly profitable organizations should be leaning on taxpayers for the building that houses them. But, if your city doesn't pay for it, some other city will. We learned that the hard way.

If the entire country stood up in unison and refused to fund the stadiums, we might see some change. But that isn't happening any time soon.


This. After the Hornets debacle Charlotte leaders consented to every stadium request. We don't want to go through that again.

The Panthers got everything they wanted because of a veiled threat to move the team to L.A.. These owners hold all the cards.

[DeuceWallaces]

I wouldn't mind a little federal legislation to keep these billionaires from holding municipalities hostage and unnecessarily putting them into debt without adequate return on the investment.

[GimmeThat]

If you opened up his book on how he spends his own money, I wonder what that would entail.

"You couldn't just shop at Wal-Mart.?".

[rufuspaul]

I wouldn't mind a little federal legislation to keep these billionaires from holding municipalities hostage and unnecessarily putting them into debt without adequate return on the investment.

:applause:

[NumberSix]

I wouldn't mind a little federal legislation to keep these billionaires from holding municipalities hostage and unnecessarily putting them into debt without adequate return on the investment.
Sports is a private business. There is no reason why any tax dollars should pay for somebodies private business. If you can't afford to build your own stadium, maybe you're not rich enough to own your own team. Or, do like a normal private business does. Take out a loan from a bank and pay it back.

[Droid101]

Sports is a private business. There is no reason why any tax dollars should pay for somebodies private business. If you can't afford to build your own stadium, maybe you're not rich enough to own your own team. Or, do like a normal private business does. Take out a loan from a bank and pay it back.
Well, unfortunately, most of these big sports leagues have deals with the federal government regarding monopoly status and whatnot, so they definitely blur the line.

I do agree that tax dollars should never be spent without guarantees on return on investment.

[daily]

Most cities view having a professional sports team in town a partnership.
As long as the tax base gets a vote on if it should help fund a venue there's nothing wrong with the city being co owner of the site

[DeuceWallaces]

Sports is a private business. There is no reason why any tax dollars should pay for somebodies private business. If you can't afford to build your own stadium, maybe you're not rich enough to own your own team. Or, do like a normal private business does. Take out a loan from a bank and pay it back.

That will never happen without a little federal regulation. They have it to good. Government already gives them tax-exempt and monopoly status; needs to be some stipulations that go along with that.

[ALBballer]

This. After the Hornets debacle Charlotte leaders consented to every stadium request. We don't want to go through that again.

The Panthers got everything they wanted because of a veiled threat to move the team to L.A.. These owners hold all the cards.

Again its just a sport team let them move. We fans are being held hostages by billionaire owners and millionaire athletes. We pay hundreds (in your case thousands) of dollars to see games, we buy their merchandise, watch the games on tv allowing them to access advertising money, buy their $10 shitty domestic beer at the game, pay their ridiculous parking fees, most of the leagues are treated as non-profits and aren't taxed and the individual team use their ridiculous accounting tricks to show little to no profit (ie taking depreciation on players) and on top of it all they want tax subsidies?

We're all adults here and we should be able to prioritize our needs in life. A child's game is a want. If your city is big enough and from the financial POV if the team can make a substantial profit the threat is empty. Not every team can move to Los Angeles and there are only so many teams a big market city can host.

[NumberSix]

That will never happen without a little federal regulation. They have it to good. Government already gives them tax-exempt and monopoly status; needs to be some stipulations that go along with that.
This is a case where I would definitely support government regulation that prevents taxpayers taking a loss on these stadiums.

My preference would be, if you can't afford to build your own stadium, fcuk you buddy! Sell the team to someone who can. Or gather up some private investors.

It just doesn't sit right with me. It's like the government paying to build a McDonald's or a Wal-Mart.

[DeuceWallaces]

There's a list a mile long of large corporations getting tax payers money to acquire land, build headquarters, etc.

[Thorpesaurous]

These stories are all over the place lately. Real Sports did one on the Marlins' deal that looks horrible for the city. Oliver's bit was good. And Adam Silver addressed it last night in regards to Milwaukee, who's having a vote today I believe on redoing that stadium, that could result in that team moving if it doesn't go well. In fact there was some talk of Vegas as a landing spot, which is part of why it was so well covered in his Press Conference last night, which was in Vegas.

[ALBballer]

This is a case where I would definitely support government regulation that prevents taxpayers taking a loss on these stadiums.

My preference would be, if you can't afford to build your own stadium, fcuk you buddy! Sell the team to someone who can. Or gather up some private investors.

It just doesn't sit right with me. It's like the government paying to build a McDonald's or a Wal-Mart.

The issue doesn't even stop at tax subsidies for stadiums.

California (the birthplace of hollywood and modern showbusiness) has allotted over $300 million in film subsidies for the next 5 years. Most states have some form of film credits.

Tesla received a huge subsidy from Nevada to build their new plant. Republicnuts always complain about regulations and high taxes being a deterrent for businesses but Nevada is a state with no corporate and income taxes, and that wasn't enough to lure Tesla. Nevada had to dish out over $1 billion in incentives.

There are even times when the stipulations of the incentives are not met yet these businesses still receive the subsidy.

Most of these incentives are counterproductive and the government shouldn't be in the game of picking winners and losers. Politicians only care about getting elected/reelected and are not worried about the long term effects of the subsidies.

[DukeDelonte13]

Unfortunately, the loss of the original Browns to Baltimore was brought about by Art Modell's failed lobbying to replace the old Browns' Municipal Stadium. So, yeah... it sucks. There's no reason that these incredibly profitable organizations should be leaning on taxpayers for the building that houses them. But, if your city doesn't pay for it, some other city will. We learned that the hard way.

If the entire country stood up in unison and refused to fund the stadiums, we might see some change. But that isn't happening any time soon.


A new stadium deal was there. Art just f*cked us and claimed we weren't going to build one.

EDIT:

When Cleveland built the gund arena and the jake, they approached art modell and told him they wanted to build a new browns stadium, but the catch was the Cleveland would own it and not him. Art wanted to own the stadium as well. Even after that, Cleveland offered to renew a sin tax to give art a crap ton of money (more than what it cost to build the Gund, to renovate the old stadium)

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/1/22/1254095/why-modell-moved-the-browns

[BRabbiT]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Warriors-planning-to-skip-out-on-Oracle-Arena-bill-5436777.php





damn. that's messed up:facepalm

[navy]

Sports is a private business. There is no reason why any tax dollars should pay for somebodies private business. If you can't afford to build your own stadium, maybe you're not rich enough to own your own team. Or, do like a normal private business does. Take out a loan from a bank and pay it back.

The reality is that we pay for many business one way or another. Some make more sense than others. Banks, weapons, etc (no surprise those are the most corrupt) vs movies and stadiums.

I think there is an easy middle ground here. Pay the taxpayers back on the stadium cost. if the public puts in enough money they should own the damn team as with any other equity.

Seriously which city wouldnt agree to these terms?

The economic cost being taken into account is silly. That should only be factored in things that cant be payed for by private entities. Schools, bridges, roads, police stations etc. Sports teams? No.

[RidonKs]

the sports community can make an easy and compelling argument that physical activity aka exercise is just as worthwhile to promote as any artistic type; film, literature, music, etc. healthy lifestyle, healthy mindset, healthy living, etc

whether public funding for sports should be used to finance branded stadiums or to pay for gym memberships is another story i suppose.

[Jailblazers7]

the sports community can make an easy and compelling argument that physical activity aka exercise is just as worthwhile to promote as any artistic type; film, literature, music, etc. healthy lifestyle, healthy mindset, healthy living, etc

whether public funding for sports should be used to finance branded stadiums or to pay for gym memberships is another story i suppose.

I doubt there is much of an argument that the aspirational benefit of pro sports is a local benefit tho. There are kids all over the country who might increase their physical activity because of pro athletes and it has nothing to do with Cleveland subsidizing a basketball stadium that LeBron plays in.

I do wonder how bonds for sports stadiums are allowed to maintain their tax-exempt status tho. Municipal bonds are supposed to be tax-exempt only if they are being used to fund things that municipalities are supposed to be funding. Infrastructure, schools, etc. For example, if Pittsburgh took out a loan to subsidize the building of a giant Walmart, I don't think it would be tax-exempt. I'm sure their is some legal loophole that allows bonds to remain tax exempt because of some "civic/economic benefit" but it doesn't seem to pass the eye test.

[navy]

the sports community can make an easy and compelling argument that physical activity aka exercise is just as worthwhile to promote as any artistic type; film, literature, music, etc. healthy lifestyle, healthy mindset, healthy living, etc

whether public funding for sports should be used to finance branded stadiums or to pay for gym memberships is another story i suppose.
That's why we fund school sports and athletics. Not billion dollar corporations.

[RidonKs]

I doubt there is much of an argument that the aspirational benefit of pro sports is a local benefit tho. There are kids all over the country who might increase their physical activity because of pro athletes and it has nothing to do with Cleveland subsidizing a basketball stadium that LeBron plays in.

I do wonder how bonds for sports stadiums are allowed to maintain their tax-exempt status tho. Municipal bonds are supposed to be tax-exempt only if they are being used to fund things that municipalities are supposed to be funding. Infrastructure, schools, etc. For example, if Pittsburgh took out a loan to subsidize the building of a giant Walmart, I don't think it would be tax-exempt. I'm sure their is some legal loophole that allows bonds to remain tax exempt because of some "civic/economic benefit" but it doesn't seem to pass the eye test.
i mean easy to repeat and compelling to sports fans. but yeah, it's nonsense even if phil jackson is spouting it.

municipal bonds eh. i didn't even know those existed. well its a long term investment in a fiscally broken institution. i think we're beyond the point of requiring municipalities to finance "stuff for the good of people" or whatever. they are strained beyond capacity and are going to abide their constituents regardless. at least in canada, the municipality's mandate is too much for its funding, because it got left all the wishy washy city maintenance work that grows with people's expectations.

so correct any of this if its wrong, or just add on. they provide tax exemption as an attraction because returns are low and they take too long when there are better options available. doesn't seem like something a middle class family with an adviser running their portfolio. some of the banks in canada have apparently taken advantage for a few hundred million dollars. now what the **** reason does a big five canadian bank need tax exemption for?

[RidonKs]

here's a bunch of stuff

[QUOTE]What are the impacts to a municipality that issues bonds?
Benefits:

[NumberSix]

The issue doesn't even stop at tax subsidies for stadiums.

California (the birthplace of hollywood and modern showbusiness) has allotted over $300 million in film subsidies for the next 5 years. Most states have some form of film credits.

Tesla received a huge subsidy from Nevada to build their new plant. Republicnuts always complain about regulations and high taxes being a deterrent for businesses but Nevada is a state with no corporate and income taxes, and that wasn't enough to lure Tesla. Nevada had to dish out over $1 billion in incentives.

There are even times when the stipulations of the incentives are not met yet these businesses still receive the subsidy.

Most of these incentives are counterproductive and the government shouldn't be in the game of picking winners and losers. Politicians only care about getting elected/reelected and are not worried about the long term effects of the subsidies.
This is the exact critical point.

[Jailblazers7]

i mean easy to repeat and compelling to sports fans. but yeah, it's nonsense even if phil jackson is spouting it.

municipal bonds eh. i didn't even know those existed. well its a long term investment in a fiscally broken institution. i think we're beyond the point of requiring municipalities to finance "stuff for the good of people" or whatever. they are strained beyond capacity and are going to abide their constituents regardless. at least in canada, the municipality's mandate is too much for its funding, because it got left all the wishy washy city maintenance work that grows with people's expectations.

so correct any of this if its wrong, or just add on. they provide tax exemption as an attraction because returns are low and they take too long when there are better options available. doesn't seem like something a middle class family with an adviser running their portfolio. some of the banks in canada have apparently taken advantage for a few hundred million dollars. now what the **** reason does a big five canadian bank need tax exemption for?

Tax-exemption exists so that small institution can have access to capital markets at a reasonable rate. For example, it'd be damn near impossible for a small school district to sell bonds at an affordable rate because 1) investors don't have time to parse between the thousands of small institution and 2) they are always going to be riskier with smaller rev streams than a state or something similar. Tax-exemption gives wealthy investors and large funds incentive to purchase these bonds because they won't be taxed on the interest income, which drives down the interest rate that investors will require. Not sure how municipalities here compare to Canada but they are definitely a valuable tool in our financial system.