The stadium swindle: The $500M heist from taxpayers to give a handout to a billionaire
The Arizona State Legislature is considering a bill that would further subsidize the 27-year-old Chase Field, which taxpayers provided more than $250 million to help build in 1998, in order to support the Arizona Diamondbacks. But why should taxpayers be asked to foot the bill once again for a venue that is public in name only?
Forbes estimates the Diamondbacks to be worth $1.6 billion — after being purchased for only $238 million in 2004 — and co-owner Ken Kendrick supposedly has a net worth of more than $1 billion. Now, the team wants $500 million from taxpayers to renovate the aging stadium.
The idea that the stadium is a 'public asset' that deserves taxpayer dollars is ludicrous. The stadium supports a private business, which largely caters to a wealthy class of patrons. There is no economic justification for subsidizing the profits of a billionaire owner and his upper-crust clientele.
This is a wealth transfer from general taxpayers, many of whom can't afford to go to a game, to the most well-to-do members of the community. Democrats and Republicans should be joining hands in opposition to this indefensible subsidy rather than making bipartisan toasts over cocktails in the owner's suite.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Five decades of economic studies have yet to identify a stadium that justifies subsidization.
Researchers have found that stadiums are simply not economic-development catalysts, because they largely just reallocate how local residents spend their money. If citizens weren't spending it at the ballpark, they would be spending it at other local businesses.
Estimates of non-fiscal social benefits also show that community members tend to place a low value on having a local sports team. Nothing comes close to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the bill's advocates are seeking. This research evidence is robust, with theoretical and empirical support, which is why it is the consensus view among scholars that stadiums are inadvisable public investments.
The public doesn't like stadiums, either. A 2022 poll from researchers at Arizona State University found that the public is largely opposed to venue subsidies, with 56% opposing taxes to subsidize professional sports venues, and only 26% supporting higher taxes for this purpose.
If legislators really think a renovated ballpark is something that the public values, then the proposal should be put directly to voters at the ballot box. The reason it is being pushed through the Legislature is because its chief advocates know that the public does not support it.
And if they go forward with the plan, they should be aware that there will likely be electoral consequences. See former Wisconsin state Sen. George Petak and the late Cobb County Commissioner Tim Lee in Georgia, who both ended their political careers after supporting unpopular ballpark subsidies for the Milwaukee Brewers and Atlanta Braves, respectively.
The funding mechanism being proposed to benefit the Diamondbacks relies upon what public finance economists call 'fiscal illusion.' The tax mechanism was selected to understate the public cost. By drawing funds from the district around the stadium, it gives the appearance of a use tax, being paid for only by customers.
This is not correct. What it is doing is taking tax dollars that are scheduled to be allocated to other public purposes and instead redirecting them to underwrite this special-interest project. Even though the hundreds-of-millions of dollars figures being discussed would be collected from the geographic area, the revenue has the opportunity cost of funding other public projects or simply cutting taxes to put the money back in taxpayers' pockets.
If the government is devoting public dollars to a stadium project, then the public must be out that same amount of money. You cannot pull this money out of thin air; otherwise, we would fund all public projects like this. It's important to remember: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE STADIUM.
I urge the Arizona Legislature to give thoughtful consideration to this policy issue.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arizona Diamondbacks Expected to Slash Payroll in 2026, Examining Impact on Offseason
The Arizona Diamondbacks entered the regular season with aspirations of being one of the best teams in the National League, led by a deep roster that featured the likes of Eugenio Suarez, Josh Naylor, and Merrill Kelly. Instead, all three players were dealt at the MLB trade deadline, and even more changes are coming. Diamondbacks CEO Derrick Hall told Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic that the club would likely need to slash payroll from what it was coming into the season. Related: 'Do I think we need to have the payroll number where it was this year? Probably not. But I think we can have just as good a team as we constructed by reinvesting the money that we have (saved) and then some.' Derrick Hall on the Arizona Diamondbacks payroll in 2026 Arizona came into the season with its payroll at approximately $187 million. While the club lost first baseman Christian Walker (three years, $60 million) to the Houston Astros, it added perennial All-Star pitcher Corbin Burnes on a six-year, $210 million contract. Unfortunately for Arizona, its historic splurge in MLB free agency backfired quickly. Burnes underwent Tommy John surgery in June, a procedure that is expected to sideline him for a majority of the 2026 MLB season. To make matters worse, for a team that fell out of contention during the summer, many of its top players (Naylor, Suarez, Kelly, and Zac Gallen) were all on expiring contracts. Read More: In total, about $17 million was taken off the Diamondbacks' payroll at the MLB trade deadline this year. Hall noted that the money will be 'reinvested' in the club, but it was also made clear that Arizona won't approach the $180-plus million payroll it had coming into the year. According to Spotrac, the projected Diamondbacks payroll in 2026 is $112.508 million. However, that doesn't include raises in arbitration for players like Ryne Nelson, Gabriel Moreno, Alek Thomas, Jake McCarthy, Pavin Smith, and pre-arbitration raises for younger players. So, while some of the money might be invested into next season's roster, it is unlikely that Gallen is re-signed or that either Suarez or Naylor returns to the club via free agency. With last winter's big free-agent addition also expected to miss most of next season, ownership will likely be even more cautious with spending on top free agents this winter. Related Headlines Latest Patriots 53-Man Roster Projection Is Bad News For Two Wide Receivers Promising Patriots Rookie Placed On Injured Reserve Following Preseason Opener Patriots' rookie continues to stand above the rest after impressive preseason debut NFL Teams Prepping for Tyreek Hill Trade in Near Future
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Maher Slams High-Profile Democrats For Being Too 'Afraid' To Appear On His Show
Bill Maher on Friday's 'Real Time' commended past Republican guests for coming on his show — and slammed numerous high-profile Democrats he said were too 'afraid' to do the same. Maher made an exception for Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), who appeared as recently as March. Maher named several Democrats in his monologue, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He first poked fun at Newsom, however, for his 'perfect hair.' Related: 'Hey, at least Gavin comes here,' said Maher. 'People ask me all the time, 'Why haven't you ever had Hillary or Bill Clinton on? Why didn't you have Kamala on during the last campaign?' You think we don't ask? We ask these people every week. They say no.' Maher noted that it took eight years 'and a petition' to get Obama on his show in 2016. 'And these are people, all people, I voted for,' the 'Real Time' host continued. 'Think about that: they're afraid to come on the show of a guy who voted for them. The Republicans? They show up, and when they do, they take their beating like a man.' Related: Maher went on to play a montage of him sparring with past Republican guests, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Trump's former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Trump aide Steve Bannon. He then reiterated that he 'would love' to have more notable Democrats on the show, specifically naming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani. 'But I can't subpoena the guests,' joked Maher. 'And I can't fix that what the Democrats are scared of, more than anything else… is being primaried from the far-left, even though most Democrats are not far-left. They're mild-mannered and moderate, at least in my bathhouse.' Warren has notably appeared on the show six times between 2009 and 2017. Other notable members of the Democratic Party who have sat down with Maher include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Maher appeared to suggest on Friday that Democrats might win more elections if they came on his show. He cited former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who urged her party in April to shed their 'weak and woke' reputation and 'fucking retake the flag.' Related: 'She's right,' said Maher. 'People vote on instinct. They can smell fear a swing state away.' Related... Gavin Newsom Says California Will Redraw Its 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS' In Hilarious All-Caps Post Mocking Trump Trump Reacts To Hillary Clinton's Surprising Nobel Peace Prize Endorsement Trump Goes After 'Nutjob' Senator Elizabeth Warren: 'She's Got To Take A Drug Test'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PARKER: Companies on the move to escape California blues
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is upset with Texas. There's a reason he should be upset. California companies are pulling up in droves and moving to the Lone Star State and elsewhere. But that isn't what's bothering him. Newsom cares about politics and power, not markets and business. He's upset that the Texas state legislature is moving to redistricting, which could add up to five Republican seats in 2026. So, Newsom wants to redistrict, which could add another five Democratic seats in California. California's congressional districts are already gerrymandered to death to favour Democrats — 17% of the State's 52 congressional seats are held by Republicans in a state in which Donald Trump garnered 38% of the popular vote in 2024. In ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2010, Californians amended the state constitution to establish an independent redistricting commission, with five representatives from each party and four unaffiliated, to take rote politics out of the process. But removing rote politics for Gavin Newsom is like asking the L.A. Dodgers to show up for a game without bats, balls and gloves. Newsom wants to circumvent the commission by putting new district maps for 2026 before voters in a special ballot initiative this November. It is too bad that Newsom's obsession is with accumulating power rather than improving his state. Just listen to Orange County resident and much-followed economist and blogger Scott Grannis. From Grannis' latest post, which he calls California Leavin': 'Between 2020 and 2025, approximately 500 companies have moved their headquarters out of California or shifted significant operations elsewhere, with a notable spike in relocations since 2019. From 2018 to 2021 alone, the Hoover Institution reported 352 companies relocating their headquarters out of the state.' Grannis continues: 'Government has become increasingly lazy and dysfunctional; the roads are a mess, traffic is the bane of everyday existence, taxes and regulations are oppressive, and modest cottages start at $1 million.' U-Haul annually reports its U-Haul Growth Index. This ranks the 50 states according to 'each state's net gain (or loss) of customers utilizing one-way U-Haul equipment in a calendar year.' Which state was first in one-way departures out of the state for the last five years? Yes, you're right. California Leavin'. And what state was number two in the nation in arrivals into the state in 2024? Yes, Texas, the Lone Star State. Texas has ranked first or second every year since 2016. According to of the top five cities in the U.S. with new corporate headquarters openings from 2018 to 2024, three are in Texas — Dallas, Austin and Houston. The other two are in Nashville and Phoenix. All five are in red states in 2024. In the top five cities for corporate headquarters closures from 2018 to 2024, three of the five are in California. San Diego, Greater Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. The other two are Chicago and New York City. All five are in blue states in 2024. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies documents which states had the largest migration gains from 2014 to 2024 and which states had the largest losses. Of the top 10 that gained over this period, seven of the 10 were red states in 2024. Of the top 10 losers over this period, seven of the 10 were blue states in 2024. Needless to say, Texas is in the top 10 gainers. It is a state that is booming because it provides a tax and regulatory environment conducive to those who want to work and grow. It makes all the sense in the world, with the huge influx of businesses and people, that the Texas population landscape has changed dramatically since the last census. There is a rationale for the redistricting initiative in Texas. But in California, Newsom just wants to institutionalize failure. Let's hope, in the interest of Californians, that he doesn't manage to get this misguided initiative on the ballot. And if he does, that it fails.
