1 Part of the reason the team was sold was to diversify ownership in the league.  The MLS has been working toward having a one-owner, one-team setup for a while. 

The Wiz has been renting Arrowhead Stadium and CommunityAmerica Ballpark, which is seriously cutting into their profits, turning it into a loss rather than a profit situation.  The stadium is actually a $130 million stadium, not a $275 million stadium.  The remaining moneys, plus some (it's over a period of several years, and I'm not sure where they're getting that money, but I've heard the total private and public investment in the area is something along the lines of $1 billion) is revitalization of the area around it - they're building something like a dozen tourney-quality fields around it, and a bunch of new retail and office space.  The area where the stadium and the surrounding redevelopment will be built is currently VERY high-crime - there was a large mall there that closed a couple of years ago, and the entire area has been in decline for years, right smack in the middle of a very dense population area.  From what I understand, it's got pretty good infrastructure and location - the area's about a mile off of I-35 and other highways are nearby.   So the hopes are that the stadium and the resulting development around it will turn the area around.  The developer handling it is very committed to the project and has already started providing funding for neighborhood community projects.

Plus if they hadn't gotten a decent deal, it was likely that the team was going to move.  Which looks really really bad for a city.  A city whose pro teams start leaving is seen as a city in decline.  (with possibly the exception of Seattle, who lost their NBA team because the new owners decided they wanted a team in Oklahoma City, and I'm not sure much could have been done to change their minds)

2 Similar to what Alice is pointing out, public funds is only about 29% (don't quote me, but I know it's close to that) of the whole redevelopment, which the $130M stadium is only a small part of. Take a look at it for yourself. http://www.thetrailskc.com/thetrails/
And do some research next time.

3

I still fail to see how even fifty bucks should be given by tax payers to their stadium.  Do they have to pay it back?  They should. 

I guess I'll explain my position in this way:  My opposition to the bailout has nothing to do with its scale but is based in principal.  The government has no business attempting to "stimulate the economy" in any capacity but if it were decided they should try, the ONLY method they should even be allowed to attempt is tax relief. 

So, in the event that billionaires want a new stadium, I fail to see how it benefits people when study after study by both conservative and liberal economists show NO BENEFIT to local enonomies.

I guess I just don't understand the bulk of what the government steals my money to fund.  I could understand building the stadium if you then charged the going rate for stadium rental until it was paid for but that CAN'T be what is happening because stadium purchases almost invariably come with a generic tax hike. 

4 The tax revenues generated from a stadium are huge.  18,000 tix, at an average ticket price of probably $15 a ticket, plus food and beverage sales, times 15 home games a year, plus playoff games, plus friendlies, plus concerts and other events that will be held there.  I know when we go to soccer games here, we probably spend $10 a seat on food, and we don't buy booze there (most of the new stadiums have a higher-end cantina and a full bar, in addition to beer).  I rarely see someone who doesn't buy something to eat at the game, and then you've got souvenirs too.  So you're probably looking at a bare minimum $50K in tax revenue *per game*, and that's not counting the job creation for the stadium and the surrounding area, turning slums into office space and nice residences, and raising the property values of the surrounding area, which means more property taxes.  The area around the stadium desperately needed revitalization, but no one was going to be the first to put their business there.

This is not that different from plopping a big factory in the area - a stadium manufactures entertainment rather than widgets.  It's more expensive to build a stadium than it is to build a factory, and you can't really start off having the players kick a ball around in your garage while you slowly build up your fan base.  Plus a stadium and the surrounding development is more aesthetically pleasing within the boundaries of a city.

MJ, don't blame MP for not having done research - one of the things that we love about him is that he goes on rants without bothering to research what he's ranting about

5

Yeah MJ, what is important to note is that I asked someone to explain this to me and it wasn't (and never is) just a rhetorical flourish.  If someone could, I wanted to hear it. 

Now. 

Tax revenue.  If the tax revenue increase is so large, why do they need to increase sales taxes to fund the stadium?  Why do these tax increases never go away?  In fact, shouldn't that money be returned to the taxpayers after the stadium is built and paid for?

AND, All those theoretical (and I'm sure in many cases, actual) economic benfits are surely less than would have been accomplished without the confiscation of private money for that purpose. 

Now, here is where you'd expect an alternative plan to the public funding of stadiums that would still keep the team in the city and well, wait.  I have to rant-think.  These things take time.

6 The tax increases not going away after the stadium starts generating tax revenue is a separate issue from stadium financing - you might as well ask why some states build toll roads that where the tolls are supposed to pay for the roads, but don't remove the tolls after the road is paid for.  There's a bigger issue that has to be addressed there.

I'd rather see something like this going in than some wimpy committee getting grant money to do neighborhood revitalization - this puts an established sports franchise in a permanent location where it will do the entire area good. 

Plus, as you pointed out in another post, sports are good for the human condition.  And if what I've seen from the Rapids is an example, pro soccer players are more involved in doing community work than any other pro sport.  They do a ton of free and inexpensive clinics, and quite a bit of fundraising for various youth organizations. 

7 I have to say, I loved how Cleveland solved the problem of getting rid of blighted areas downtown.  Jacobs Fields (do not give me any shit about what it's named now, it's Jacobs Field) was plopped right down on top of it.  Hey presto!  No more slum!

8

The tax increases not going away after the stadium starts generating tax revenue is a separate issue from stadium financing - you might as well ask why some states build toll roads that where the tolls are supposed to pay for the roads, but don't remove the tolls after the road is paid for. There's a bigger issue that has to be addressed there.

It's only a separate issue because there's no sunset provision built into these tax increases, i.e. it shouldn't be a separate issue but an integral part of any and all bills of this nature. Hell, there should be constitutional amendments (in every state as well as the big daddy) that state, flat-out, that all tax increases must be regularly renewed so that politicians are forced to justify these actions time and time again, rather than relying on the stupidty (yes, stupidity) of the average voter to simply let these matters slide onward into infinity.

Of course, expecting sunset provisions on tax increases (tax cuts, however, are always temporary, even if there isn't a sunset provision written into the bill) is like holding out hope that the GOP, en masse, will develop proto-spines.

9 For those curious, here it is straight from the (one of the) horse's mouth. Skip to about 6:15.  Lasts about 4 minutes.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player.php?s=26&c=375&f=21642