FL Senate bill wants to throw more taxpayer money at pro stadiums

[JFman00]

New attempt to provide state money for EverBank Field

Sen. Jack Latvala amended an economic development bill he sponsors to include tax incentives for the Jaguars' stadium, which would share an undetermined pot of state dollars with the other three stadiums.

...

Rep. Richard Corcoran, who oversees the House budget, cast doubt on sports team funding getting approval while the Legislature remains at a budget impasse over Medicaid expansion and hospital funding.

"I seriously doubt the House has any interest in taking up a several hundred million tax break for billionaire sports franchise stadiums while we're dealing with a serious health care issue," the Land O' Lakes Republican said. "Me personally, I am a, 'Hell no.' "

Economists agree on few things, but one thing they do overwhelmingly agree on is that subsidizing professional sports facilities is almost always a waste.

The theory goes that the subsidies ought to be highest in cities where there is only one major league team because it contributes most to civic pride in making the city "major league" and bringing national respect and attention. But the data doesn't back that up. "[In Jacksonville, surveying the Jaguars] it was something like 75 percent of respondents said 'yes, this makes us a major league city, it makes us proud to live here,'" Johnson said. "But way less than half the people were willing to pay anything in the way of higher taxes to keep the Jaguars in town ... it comes out to be on the order of between $20 to 30 million." Jacksonville subsidized EverBank Field to the tune of $260 million in 2010 dollars by Judith Grant Long's calculations, with another $50 million for a new scoreboard on the way.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Economists agree on few things, but one thing they do overwhelmingly agree on is that subsidizing professional sports facilities is almost always a waste.

So then this statement would also be just as true?

Economists agree on few things, but one thing they do overwhelmingly agree on is that subsidizing professional sports facilities is sometimes never a waste.

And don't get me wrong, this isn't just trolling.  Both of those statements mean the exact same thing, it just depends on your personal take on the matter and how you prefer to comprehend it.

[JFman00]

When was the last time you heard an economist not qualify a statement like that? Who was the President that said "bring me an economist with just two hands"? If there's even theoretically a single case where public money for stadiums is worth it, then I can't accurately say it's always bad.

The follow on quote/comment was supporting evidence that the Jags stadium is not an exception.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Lol, It was Truman.  And I believe he was asking for an economist with only one hand.

I dislike these types of debates because there is no right answer.  The time, money and energy spent trying to debunk or to prove whichever side you're on should probably be used a bit more constructively. 

As a fan of the Jags, and not even someone who will personally use the new seating, I approve it because  believe it will indirectly benefit me through a better gameday experience and strengthening the longevity of the team in town.

I can see how someone indifferent of the Jags sees the money as a waste, and no matter what numbers or figures or charts used, they're probably not going to be swayed to the other side.

Personally, I feel the Jags presence in town only makes us better and is probably the strongest 'source' of civic pride that I carry around.  To some it's the river; to some it's the beaches; and to others it's the southern, community lifestyle.  And each of all 4 groups mentioned would probably have a better use for the tax money than the other.

The long and short of it is, I don't see how economists' opinions telling us how things should be, maybe are either relevant or to be taken seriously.

[JFman00]

The data is definitive that taxpayer expenditures on professional sports do not reap commensurate benefits, let alone promised benefits. This is not an opinion. The opinion is that given failure after failure of public funding not providing expected return in investment, we should stop doing the same thing and expecting different results.

The long linked excerpt above demonstrates that in Jax, our current spending is not in the public interest relative to the willingness of taxpayers to pony up.

[hiddentrack]

It wasn't mentioned in that article, so I thought I'd point out that the original proposal from the Jaguars was that the money from the state would be coming over 15 years as reimbursement for money the team itself would spending on the proposed renovations to EverBank Field.

There's an issue with the statement that "way less than half the people were willing to pay anything in the way of higher taxes to keep the Jaguars in town." Setting aside the fact they don't define what "way less than half" is, EverBank Field is a city-owned stadium, and while the Jaguars are the primary tenant, the stadium is not used exclusively by the Jaguars. It extends beyond the Jaguars and the NFL to the Florida-Georgia game, to the Gator Bowl, Florida Country Superfest, Monster Truck Jam, etc. There are a number of events that require maintaining the stadium.

Now if there's a sizable portion of the city that no longer wishes to have money collected by the city spent on city-owned properties, fair enough. I suppose the city could explore selling the stadium to a private entity, and make it clear in the process that no more money would be coming from city coffers.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The theory goes that the subsidies ought to be highest in cities where there is only one major league team because it contributes most to civic pride in making the city "major league" and bringing national respect and attention. But the data doesn't back that up. "[In Jacksonville, surveying the Jaguars] it was something like 75 percent of respondents said 'yes, this makes us a major league city, it makes us proud to live here,'" Johnson said. "But way less than half the people were willing to pay anything in the way of higher taxes to keep the Jaguars in town ... it comes out to be on the order of between $20 to 30 million." Jacksonville subsidized EverBank Field to the tune of $260 million in 2010 dollars by Judith Grant Long's calculations, with another $50 million for a new scoreboard on the way.

hiddentrack got to this before I did, but c'mon... 

I can't take anyone seriously when they're using such generalities....  Something like?  If you've got the survey information, why not use it?  Is something like closer to 83% or 72%?

Way less than...  so is that 10%  < 50% or 2% < 50%?  Is that less than the # of people responding to the survey or is that less than the # of people who said,  'yes, this makes us a major league city, it makes us proud to live here,'"?

That entire paragraph was absolute garbage and doesn't refute or support a damn thing.

[JFman00]

The survey in question was used for this paper: http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/6400.pdf

Will contact the author and ask for the raw survey results.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The survey in question was used for this paper: http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/6400.pdf

Will contact the author and ask for the raw survey results.

Thanks, but no need.

Jacksonville
The Jacksonville metropolitan statistical area (MSA) consists of Duval and three
other counties. The city of Jacksonville and Duval County share a merged government.
In 2000, Duval County contained 72.8% of the MSA's 1,100,491 residents.
Jacksonville in the 2000 census was the 46th-largest MSA in the United States
and, except for Green Bay, Wisconsin, the smallest market with a team in the NFL,
NBA, or Major League Baseball.

Method
In April 2002, CVM surveys were mailed to a random sample of 1,200 households
in Duval County. The post office returned 69 surveys as undeliverable, or 5.75% of
the total. Of the other 1,131 surveys, 421 produced responses, for a response rate
of 37.2%. Because some people did not answer all the questions, only 367 surveys
are used in this analysis.

The surveys used represent 0.0333% of the 72.8% figured in the entire MSA of Jacksonville (based off of census info in 2000).

Nice size sample I'd say!  (Although I'd say it in a really sarcastic tone) 

[JFman00]

And major polling organizations use mere thousands, and often much less than that to be representative of America. So long as the sample is sufficiently representative of the population (race, gender, income etc.) the data can be surprisingly accurate.

From Pew, a gold standard in the polling world: "on a typical telephone survey of 1,500 members of the U.S. adult population, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.9 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence."

[mtraininjax]

Isn't the NFL still a not for profit? The average NFL team is worth 1.4 billion so 32 teams make up about 45 billion in equity. About the same as Starbucks. And they are not for profit.

How many 45 billion not for profits would love to have state funding.......too?