Over the past ten years, Pennsylvania taxpayers have spent $1 billion to build stadiums for privately-owned sports franchises. Governor Rendell boasts that the state gets a 20-1 return on its investment while a dubious Commonwealth Court Judge Doris Smith dismisses this as "speculative."At last night's Lehigh County budget hearing, the wisdom of this type of public financing, as it applies to Coca Cola Park, was debated as a result of concerns raised by a tea party member (I'm sorry, but I never got her name).
Coca Cola Park cost $50.25 million to build. The state kicked in a third, and the rest of the money came from Lehigh County, which floated a bond. The debt service on this bond is paid by an annual $1.29 million rent payment from the ballpark, as well as hotel taxes and apparently, casino money. During yesterday's budget hearing, General Services Director Glenn Solt told Commissioners that the County would be spending $100,000 for maintenance at the stadium next year, and those costs are only going to go up.
Tea Baguette: "So we actually get a profit?"Solt: "No."
Tea Baguette: "Does anybody make any profit?"
Solt: "We hope that the operators receive a ..."
Tea Baguette: "Because we're responsible for capital maintenance."
Solt: "That's correct."
Tea Baguette: "Is there any way to change that?"
Solt: "No. It's a lease. It's the same as if you or I signed a lease to rent a property."
Tea Baguette: "How long is the lease?"
Solt: "29 years. 29 seasons."
Percy Dougherty: "I think also we should remind everyone that the money we're talking about for the ballfield is not property tax money. That is coming from the lease on the stadium and from other sources, so none of the money is property tax money."
Glenn Eckhart: "Yeah, we're using gambling money."
Dougherty: "The hotel tax is down significantly."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of legalizing gambling was to provide property tax relief, not to finance sports stadiums. What happens when there isn't enough hotel tax and gambling revenue to pay the debt service on the ballpark bond as well as the rising maintenance costs? There is little doubt that Coca Cola Park is, at least in my mind, the Lehigh Valley's most beautiful attraction. But aren't we really just making rich people richer?
Bernie, the local share portion and host fees of the gaming funds was never intended to lower property taxes.
ReplyDeleteI would expect you to know that. It is an unfair criticism of local governments when people make that argument.
This has been a long time BIG beef of mine. If there's one thing worse then pissing money away on welfare for the poor.. it's pissing our earned income on welfare to the rich! Not only taking our money, but our businesses and land to do it!
ReplyDeleteI know right now a lot of people feel empathy for those rich guys if their tax breaks expire. Too bad the rich don't care if they use the government to screw you!
Look at Yankee Stadium. I was astonished that according to the The NY Times (Nov. 2008)- the price tag of $2.3 billion, including $1.2 billion in taxpayer subsidies. The New York State provided $70 million in subsidies for a $320 million parking garage. An estimated $480 million in city, state and federal tax breaks to both teams. Neither team has to pay rent or property taxes, though both are playing on city-owned land.
In addition, Yankee Stadium was built on what were once two popular public parks; the city has agreed to replace them, as well as a soccer field, baseball diamonds, basketball courts and a track. The estimated cost of replacing those parks and fields.. $177 million,
NYC spent about $35 million for roadwork and sewer connections for the stadium. $30 million more on design and planning. Then theres the rails-- The Metro-North Railroad built a $91 million station, with $39 million coming from the NYC budget. Bloomberg's administartion provides them a 3 year ($5 million-a-year) rent to cover the team’s planning costs. The rebate has also been extended to the Mets.
NYC was also responsible for the tens of millions of dollars it cost to demolish the old Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium. The city gave both teams tax breaks. The Independent Budget Office estimated a public-sector loss of $313.4 million in revenues from the Yankees project and $166.4 million from the Mets project. Those benefits include tax-exempt bonds for stadium construction, which allows the teams to save tens of millions of dollars in financing costs.
There was another good piece on this matter that I found HERE (reason.com)- called " The Stadium Welfare Rip-Off ". It was just posted on Sept. 8th. It concerns the Jersey nets and using eminent domain to steal Freddy's bar.
As if it isn't it outragous enough to give welfare to rich.. it really pisses ya off when our own government (obviusy now run by the rich and not the people) steal property & businesses from taxpaying citizens to give it to them!
Anonymous (6:54 AM) said... "Bernie, the local share portion and host fees of the gaming funds was never intended to lower property taxes. I would expect you to know that. It is an unfair criticism of local governments when people make that argument."
ReplyDeleteThere was an interesting report put out from the Pa. Auditor's Department in February that was critical of the state's own hype on this called "Homeowners Need More Help, Less Hype."
While you are correct in stating that "local host fees" were never promised. The people were misled by the state into believing we'd get a goodly chunk out of all the gambling revenue if we approved gambling in Pa.
The state (being the tricky little devils they are) then added the table games with no intention of sharing those unless they rainy day funds runnith over ($750 M)-- Page 5. WHICH I"D BE QUITE CERTAIN THEY NEVER INTEND TO LET HAPPEN!
Page 9- The homepage on the state's web site "Pa. Property Tax Relief" (Feb. 22, 2010.. "By signing this bill, we guarantee EVERY Pa. homeowner's property tax bill will be reduced" -- The governor June 2006 (there's more on Pages #10-11)
I can easily see how homeowners are confused and feel duped.
"I would expect you to know that. It is an unfair criticism of local governments when people make that argument."
ReplyDeletePart of the sales pitch was property tax relief. Where the hell is it? Northampton County Council has directed its host fee money to go directly to offset property taxes. Lamont McClure, who supprted the casino and spoke on its behalf, said that his support was predicated on that relief. So I think the criticism is very fair.
Pretty interesting that this info comes out at the same time Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties are suing each other of the SWB Yankees. They are arguing over dispersal of $13 million from sale of the franchise. If they don't get it resolved by Friday, Things could unravel. Rendell is promising tens of million for stdium renovation possible replacement.
ReplyDeleteKind of like Robin Hood in reverse, milking the poor to further enable the rich.
Anonymous (6:54 AM) said... "Bernie, the local share portion and host fees of the gaming funds was never intended to lower property taxes. I would expect you to know that. It is an unfair criticism of local governments when people make that argument."
ReplyDeleteThere was an interesting report put out from the Pa. Auditor's Department in February that was critical of the state's own hype on this called "Homeowners Need More Help, Less Hype."
The state (being the tricky little devils they are) then added the table games with no intention of sharing those unless they rainy day funds runnith over ($750 M)-- Page 5. WHICH I"D BE QUITE CERTAIN THEY NEVER INTEND TO LET HAPPEN!
Page 9- The homepage on the state's web site "Pa. Property Tax Relief" (Feb. 22, 2010.. "By signing this bill, we guarantee EVERY Pa. homeowner's property tax bill will be reduced" -- The governor June 2006 (there's more on Pages #10-11)
I can easily see how homeowners are confused and feel duped.
Must you use the term "Tea Baggette" to identify this person? Surely you know the "Tea Bagger" appellation so widley used by the left is meant to be derogatory towards those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Ironically enough though, given that it derives from a certain act popularized by male couples, no one ever calls those who use the term, homophobic...wonder why?
ReplyDeleteRead what I wrote. I referred to her as a baguette, not a bagette. In other words, French bread. I thought that was relatively innocuous and harmless, much unlike teabagger.
ReplyDeleteinnocuous? really? you called her a Tea Party member in the post..you could not have used "Tea Partier"?
ReplyDeleteinstead your defense is you called her a piece of bread? I think you're better than that.
Look, If you're offended by something as silly as that, I can't help you. I agree completely w/ those who are offened by the "tea bagger" name, as that carries certain implications. But my term could only be construed as a light jab. If that bothers you, there is not much I can do.
ReplyDeleteI can't thank thank enough for our local representative and I mean all them; since all of them supported this project - showing business in this country can't flourish on it's own. That it much rob the tax payer when ever it can! Yea!
ReplyDeleteJust wait -
ReplyDeletePat Browne and Ed Pawlowski want to soak the taxpayers for a hockey arena.