Panthers Get Big Tax Break

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, TheMaulClaw said:

I'm in sales right. I sale a lot to Boeing employees. Any small incremental tax increase is worth it to me because I get access to a market that helps me make a living. While small business may create a lot of jobs...often they're worse jobs in terms of income and benefits unless it's like a small accounting firm, attorney, or Drs office.

Also a company like Boeing or Volvo isnt stifling any innovation or small business. It helps them. How many small business do you know of that manufacture planes or vehicles. It helps the roofers and maid companies of the world by bringing in viable clientele. 

What small business does the NFL stifle? Rec mens flag football?  It also helps small business owners. I guarantee you locally owned restaurants and dive bars dont want to see the Panthers leave.

My best friends is a great musician who also DJs. He DJs every Sunday during football season. The Panthers created that gig for him. That's not exactly hurting his small business.

I get what you're saying regarding let's say WalMart. But Boeing...Volvo...The Panthers....no way.

I'm in sales also. Again, please do your own research. When you assert that big business doesn't stifle innovation or small business, it helps them, your statement flies in the face of an entire field of experts who study and evaluate these things for a living, and unlike you, who, by your own words, sell to these big businesses, don't have a personal leaning based on a relationship with them. They are actually neutral.

You could assert that eating Doritos cures cancer too. When pretty much every oncologist and dietician in the world says no it doesn't,  who should a third party believe, you or them? Where we keep going around and around in circles in this discussion is that you continue to assert things not supported by actual factual data and the study of relevant fields. You use anecdotal evidence in the same way that teams do which when subjected to meaningful scrutiny do not hold up. 

No one has asserted that the Panthers don't stimulate any business, so providing a particular example of your DJ friend or local restaurants (which btw, having worked in that industry I can tell you for a fact that there is a distinct inverted effect you're not taking into account there. Sports bars and restaurants within a conveniant radius to the stadium on game day experience a boost, most other restaurants experience a negative effect to the degree that managers typically schedule fewer staff on game days since they know bussiness will be slower. I have worked in both types.) doesn't prove your point. 

To evaluate these things properly you have to consider the overall sum total impact. Regardless of your endless specific examples or vague assertions to the contrary, actual professionals have studied the total impact extensively and come to a consensus conclusion that tax breaks for big businesses merely for locating in a specific place (this is to differentiate from breaks for things like conducting research and development in specific fields that have more measurable benefits to society) are not to taxpayers advantage.

I know that you believe that the opposite is true. I believed the same way once, until I started educating myself on the issue, and what I found changed my mind. I urge you to research this for yourself with an open mind. What you find may surprise you.

[TheMaulClaw]

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'm in sales also. Again, please do your own research. When you assert that big business doesn't stifle innovation or small business, it helps them, your statement flies in the face of an entire field of experts who study and evaluate these things for a living, and unlike you, who, by your own words, sell to these big businesses, don't have a personal leaning based on a relationship with them. They are actually neutral.

You could assert that eating Doritos cures cancer too. When pretty much every oncologist and dietician in the world says no it doesn't,  who should a third party believe, you or them? Where we keep going around and around in circles in this discussion is that you continue to assert things not supported by actual factual data and the study of relevant fields. You use anecdotal evidence in the same way that teams do which when subjected to meaningful scrutiny do not hold up. 

No one has asserted that the Panthers don't stimulate any business, so providing a particular example of your DJ friend or local restaurants (which btw, having worked in that industry I can tell you for a fact that there is a distinct inverted effect you're not taking into account there. Sports bars and restaurants within a conveniant radius to the stadium on game day experience a boost, most other restaurants experience a negative effect to the degree that managers typically schedule fewer staff on game days since they know bussiness will be slower. I have worked in both types.) doesn't prove your point. 

To evaluate these things properly you have to consider the overall sum total impact. Regardless of your endless specific examples or vague assertions to the contrary, actual professionals have studied the total impact extensively and come to a consensus conclusion that tax breaks for big businesses merely for locating in a specific place (this is to differentiate from breaks for things like conducting research and development in specific fields that have more measurable benefits to society) are not to taxpayers advantage.

I know that you believe that the opposite is true. I believed the same way once, until I started educating myself on the issue, and what I found changed my mind. I urge you to research this for yourself with an open mind. What you find may surprise you.

Comparing science to subjective economics are two different things entirely. One is not nearly as concrete.

I want you to imagine this.

Let's say Charlotte has ZERO big businesses. Everything...literally everything was a small business.  Anyway a few of these small business grow to the point where they need to expand. Another city or state tells that business that it will give it a few incentives if it moves there, while Charlotte refuses to do anything. So that business leaves Charlotte. Now everytime a small business becomes bigger it leaves because other cities are incentivizing it where Charlotte isnt. Charlotte is left with mediocre small business. Everytime one grows because its innovative they leave for greener pastures. Is Charlotte better off in this world?

The reality is...people say big business like it's a four letter word. It isnt. Ideally there needs to be a balance between small and big business. Both imo are required for a growing sustainable economy.

I do agree that you cant just write a blank check to corporations to move in

 There needs to be some studies done so cities dont out kick their financial coverage...but ultimately some measures support is ok.

[1of10Charnatives]

24 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

Comparing science to subjective economics are two different things entirely. One is not nearly as concrete.

I want you to imagine this.

Let's say Charlotte has ZERO big businesses. Everything...literally everything was a small business.  Anyway a few of these small business grow to the point where they need to expand. Another city or state tells that business that it will give it a few incentives if it moves there, while Charlotte refuses to do anything. So that business leaves Charlotte. Now everytime a small business becomes bigger it leaves because other cities are incentivizing it where Charlotte isnt. Charlotte is left with mediocre small business. Everytime one grows because its innovative they leave for greener pastures. Is Charlotte better off in this world?

The reality is...people say big business like it's a four letter word. It isnt. Ideally there needs to be a balance between small and big business. Both imo are required for a growing sustainable economy.

I do agree that you cant just write a blank check to corporations to move in

 There needs to be some studies done so cities dont out kick their financial coverage...but ultimately some measures support is ok.

I'm all for measures that aren't giving public money or their equivalent to businesses. If cities and states compete on things that big businesses DO care about as well, like infrastructure, quality of schools, low crime rate, overall quality of life, then that's absolutely fine, because in competing on that basis will make things better for everyone, not benefit one party at the expense of others, that is the key.

I don't consider all big business inherently bad. I happen to work for a company that in the time I've been there has risen from middle of the pack to third fasting growing company in our industry and gone from family owned to legitimate mid cap corporation. Charlotte is a good example for the point you're making because I'm a native and I have watched as this city has been one of the fastest growing in the nation during my lifetime, owing in no small part to local banks that grew into national powerhouses and became those big businesses. The city has gained enormous benefits and advantages from their presence and growth, but there have been significant downsides as well that those in political and business circles like to ignore or downplay.

Growth is not inherently bad, but a political republic with a capitalistic economy requires as level a playing field as possible to produce the most benefit for everyone. One of the inherent problems we have to wrestle with here is that as any organization or individual acquires wealth it seeks to use that wealth to acquire power for itself, and then more wealth, in a never ending cycle. Especially when those organizations are publicly traded companies, who by law (fiduciary responsibility of corporate officers to shareholders) are required to place maximization of profit over all other considerations, we cannot and should not trust these organizations to behave in the overall best interest of the public. They will seek to warp the playing field to their advantage, and the issue of tax breaks for large businesses is just one of the many places they seek to do so.

I'm aware that economics is more subjective than say chemistry but I'm not willing to take a businesses unsupported claims over the opinion of an entire professional field. The business is not disinterested, economists are. If David Tepper produces something tommorrow that proves a net positive economic impact to the city and the community and is expressed in figures and not vague talking points and can withstand third party scrutiny,  you'd find me singing a different tune. NFL owners, sports owners in general and large corporations have had literally generations of time to find and put forth such solid fact based analysis, and Tepper in particular comes from a field where he routinely tells people under him "Never mind what you think, show me that the numbers work or don't bother me."

I think it only fair we apply the same standard to him and other businesses like him.

[TheMaulClaw]

39 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'm all for measures that aren't giving public money or their equivalent to businesses. If cities and states compete on things that big businesses DO care about as well, like infrastructure, quality of schools, low crime rate, overall quality of life, then that's absolutely fine, because in competing on that basis will make things better for everyone, not benefit one party at the expense of others, that is the key.

I don't consider all big business inherently bad. I happen to work for a company that in the time I've been there has risen from middle of the pack to third fasting growing company in our industry and gone from family owned to legitimate mid cap corporation. Charlotte is a good example for the point you're making because I'm a native and I have watched as this city has been one of the fastest growing in the nation during my lifetime, owing in no small part to local banks that grew into national powerhouses and became those big businesses. The city has gained enormous benefits and advantages from their presence and growth, but there have been significant downsides as well that those in political and business circles like to ignore or downplay.

Growth is not inherently bad, but a political republic with a capitalistic economy requires as level a playing field as possible to produce the most benefit for everyone. One of the inherent problems we have to wrestle with here is that as any organization or individual acquires wealth it seeks to use that wealth to acquire power for itself, and then more wealth, in a never ending cycle. Especially when those organizations are publicly traded companies, who by law (fiduciary responsibility of corporate officers to shareholders) are required to place maximization of profit over all other considerations, we cannot and should not trust these organizations to behave in the overall best interest of the public. They will seek to warp the playing field to their advantage, and the issue of tax breaks for large businesses is just one of the many places they seek to do so.

I'm aware that economics is more subjective than say chemistry but I'm not willing to take a businesses unsupported claims over the opinion of an entire professional field. The business is not disinterested, economists are. If David Tepper produces something tommorrow that proves a net positive economic impact to the city and the community and is expressed in figures and not vague talking points and can withstand third party scrutiny,  you'd find me singing a different tune. NFL owners, sports owners in general and large corporations have had literally generations of time to find and put forth such solid fact based analysis, and Tepper in particular comes from a field where he routinely tells people under him "Never mind what you think, show me that the numbers work or don't bother me."

I think it only fair we apply the same standard to him and other businesses like him.

In an ideological sense certainly it would be nice for cities to attract big companies to their area purely on merit. Unfortunately we dont live in a realm where idealistic harmony is the rule. Also a lot of the appeals of a city like workforce, quality of life, crime, cost of living are effected by preexisting economic indicators.

For instance tech schools adopt curriculum that reflect the job opportunities in the area. South Piedmont Community College adopted a CNC program because a company called Turbomecca came to Union county and they're a french company that manufactures helicopter parts. Trident tech in Charleston adopted an aero program because Boeing is here. For a lot of these companies a workforce is cultivated not pre existent.

In addition some of the skilled work force numbers and quality of life index figures are going to affect eachother along with the crime rates

An example, one could argue that you may see a slight reduction in crime after the Eastland Mall site has been redone. Specifically in that area.

My buddy owns a house off of Albemarle Rd close to Eastland. After Eastland Mall is redone...he could probably expect to see an increase in his property tax value which both means more wealth for him and more taxes for the county. Im sure there are several thousand that will benefit like he does. I'm not sure where that is quantified in these reports. Obviously a lot of these things are hard to quantify. It requires access to a lot of data that is not easy to get.

There are a lot of variable to consider regarding the economics. I dont have faith in reports from liberal economist that they've successfully applied a proper equation that can incorporate the hundreds of variables that exist. Sorry. I just dont.

Now when were talking about an NFL team. This is the sort of company that is immune to the typical factors that a traditional company would seemingly value.  The workforce for an NFL team is often made up of people made up of people from all over the country. Sure some of the less pertinent positions are filled by locals...but that's the extent.  Also a football team helps develop the quality of life a city is looking for to help attract other businesses.

Once again...supply chains, and access to higher learning for workforce, and demand in the market place, are all diminished factors for an NFL team. 

In most businesses these would be the primary mitigating factors in location selection with tax breaks being secondary. In the NFL it's sort of reversed.

[LinvilleGorge]

12 hours ago, TheMaulClaw said:

The renovations were a way to tether the team to the area for the post Richardson era.

We can blame Jerry Jones for a lot of this mega stadium bs.

In a way you could file some of this away as public works projects. They're using the MLS as an opportunity to revitalize the Eastland Mall area. I think that's great. A new stadium will provide plenty of opportunity. It will create jobs. There are benefits.

Teachers pay is a state thing not a city thing anyway...so regardless of what Charlotte contributed to the new stadium that would not be affected. Quite honestly teachers shouldnt make six figures anyway. 

How many good long-term jobs will it create that don't already exist in the current stadium? The majority of the jobs will be short-term construction related jobs and the construction firm probably won't even be local.

Spending public money on stadiums has been proven a terrible investment through actual economic studies.

[4Corners]

6 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

In an ideological sense certainly it would be nice for cities to attract big companies to their area purely on merit. Unfortunately we dont live in a realm where idealistic harmony is the rule. Also a lot of the appeals of a city like workforce, quality of life, crime, cost of living are effected by preexisting economic indicators.

For instance tech schools adopt curriculum that reflect the job opportunities in the area. South Piedmont Community College adopted a CNC program because a company called Turbomecca came to Union county and they're a french company that manufactures helicopter parts. Trident tech in Charleston adopted an aero program because Boeing is here. For a lot of these companies a workforce is cultivated not pre existent.

In addition some of the skilled work force numbers and quality of life index figures are going to affect eachother along with the crime rates

An example, one could argue that you may see a slight reduction in crime after the Eastland Mall site has been redone. Specifically in that area.

My buddy owns a house off of Albemarle Rd close to Eastland. After Eastland Mall is redone...he could probably expect to see an increase in his property tax value which both means more wealth for him and more taxes for the county. Im sure there are several thousand that will benefit like he does. I'm not sure where that is quantified in these reports. Obviously a lot of these things are hard to quantify. It requires access to a lot of data that is not easy to get.

There are a lot of variable to consider regarding the economics. I dont have faith in reports from liberal economist that they've successfully applied a proper equation that can incorporate the hundreds of variables that exist. Sorry. I just dont.

Now when were talking about an NFL team. This is the sort of company that is immune to the typical factors that a traditional company would seemingly value.  The workforce for an NFL team is often made up of people made up of people from all over the country. Sure some of the less pertinent positions are filled by locals...but that's the extent.  Also a football team helps develop the quality of life a city is looking for to help attract other businesses.

Once again...supply chains, and access to higher learning for workforce, and demand in the market place, are all diminished factors for an NFL team. 

In most businesses these would be the primary mitigating factors in location selection with tax breaks being secondary. In the NFL it's sort of reversed.

What exactly are they planning to do with Eastland? I’ve heard a ton of different thing from a film studio to a soccer academy for Manchester United. 
 

People who didn’t grow up in Charlotte have no idea how awesome Eastland was. The skating rink, the arcade they had there, etc. I remember my pops taking me to see Ninja Turtles at the movie theatre that was over there as well. 

[TheMaulClaw]

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

How many good long-term jobs will it create that don't already exist in the current stadium? The majority of the jobs will be short-term construction related jobs and the construction firm probably won't even be local.

Spending public money on stadiums has been proven a terrible investment through actual economic studies.

I thinks that's a valid point. You would be multiplying the staff by two. The city would have two stadiums. One for MLS and one for NFL.  I dont think the city should hand them over a blank check for a 2 billion stadium by any stretch...but not to offer any assistance I think is a mistake considering up to this point Charlotte has profited off of the Panthers.

[TheMaulClaw]

4 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

What exactly are they planning to do with Eastland? I’ve heard a ton of different thing from a film studio to a soccer academy for Manchester United. 
 

People who didn’t grow up in Charlotte have no idea how awesome Eastland was. The skating rink, the arcade they had there, etc. I remember my pops taking me to see Ninja Turtles at the movie theatre that was over there as well. 

From what I understand they're going to turn it into team headquarters for the new MLS team and also incorporate some soccer fields...and parks. They also have some office space and condos going up. In essence it's going to be a soccer village based around Charlotte MLS. Itll probably attract quite a few businesses and spark some infrastructure work.

[45catfan]

52 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

What exactly are they planning to do with Eastland? I’ve heard a ton of different thing from a film studio to a soccer academy for Manchester United. 
 

People who didn’t grow up in Charlotte have no idea how awesome Eastland was. The skating rink, the arcade they had there, etc. I remember my pops taking me to see Ninja Turtles at the movie theatre that was over there as well. 

It was awesome.  I practically grew up there and witnessed it's heyday before the area unfortunately became crime-ridden.  By the time I was old enough to be out on my own and was moving away from Charlotte, many of the main big-box retailers were moving out of Eastland.  I went back a few years later and nearly half the stores were closed. I'm not sure exactly how long it held on after that, but obviously it wasn't going to survive.

I have a buddy that still lives in the area (literally a mile away) and said the soccer complex is definite.  He's stoked because property values are already on the rise and he's thinking with the soccer complex it will really jack up the property values and plans to renovate his house, sell it and make a considerable amount of money while moving to the burbs.

[1of10Charnatives]

1 hour ago, TheMaulClaw said:

There are a lot of variable to consider regarding the economics. I dont have faith in reports from liberal economist that they've successfully applied a proper equation that can incorporate the hundreds of variables that exist. Sorry. I just dont.

I am so very tired of this argument right here. An entire professional field of people comes to a consensus, and those that don't agree with it whitewash that entire field as "liberal" for the sake of dismissing it. Do you know how absurd it is to claim that all economists are liberal and to imply that their work thus has some liberal bias even though it is peer reviewed just because you don't like their conclusions? The notion is absurd on it's face, economists come from all backgrounds and have all sorts of political views, assuming that in any case they can't put those views aside one way or the other in the conduct of their professional role is unfair and insulting to all of them, liberal or no.  You're just reaching for an easy, lazy, tired, overused argument so that you don't have to actually confront the facts on the other side or do any research or consider anything that does agree with your pre established view.

One of the articles I linked towards the beginning of this discussion was from a Forbes article. Forbes...not exactly some bastion of liberal journalism. This is not a left or right issue, and only lazy thinking that refuses to investigate for itself tries to frame it that way. I have now encouraged you half a dozen times to investigate the issue for yourself with an open mind to see what you find, but instead of actually doing that, what you keep doing is coming back over and over and over with arguments that have either been discredited or that their supporters have been unable to provide any meaningful substantial data to prove.

I think the Eastland Mall thing is likely to provide significant benefits to the community, and if it does, Tepper should be commended for it. I don't see things in black and white and for the most part my beef is not with Tepper specifically, but with the approach that large businesses of which he is now an owner have adopted. I agree that there is an interplay of many factors here, but even on that, who is better able to assess that interplay, you, the layman sitting at your keyboard refusing to even read a handful of articles on the subject prior to debate, or an entire field of professionals who study that interplay for a living?

At this point we have covered a lot of ground. What I'm seeing is that you're categorically unwilling to consider exposing yourself to information or viewpoints that do not agree with your starting point because rather than consider them or even evaluate them with a critical eye, its more comfortable and easier for you to throw out an arbitrary and obviously unwarranted and absurd label in order to dismiss them. Further discussion seems pointless and a waste of our time. There are some things we agree on but you are bent on dismissing rather than fairly evaluating the evidence. Enjoy your Super Bowl weekend.

[TheMaulClaw]

1 hour ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I am so very tired of this argument right here. An entire professional field of people comes to a consensus, and those that don't agree with it whitewash that entire field as "liberal" for the sake of dismissing it. Do you know how absurd it is to claim that all economists are liberal and to imply that their work thus has some liberal bias even though it is peer reviewed just because you don't like their conclusions? The notion is absurd on it's face, economists come from all backgrounds and have all sorts of political views, assuming that in any case they can't put those views aside one way or the other in the conduct of their professional role is unfair and insulting to all of them, liberal or no.  You're just reaching for an easy, lazy, tired, overused argument so that you don't have to actually confront the facts on the other side or do any research or consider anything that does agree with your pre established view.

One of the articles I linked towards the beginning of this discussion was from a Forbes article. Forbes...not exactly some bastion of liberal journalism. This is not a left or right issue, and only lazy thinking that refuses to investigate for itself tries to frame it that way. I have now encouraged you half a dozen times to investigate the issue for yourself with an open mind to see what you find, but instead of actually doing that, what you keep doing is coming back over and over and over with arguments that have either been discredited or that their supporters have been unable to provide any meaningful substantial data to prove.

I think the Eastland Mall thing is likely to provide significant benefits to the community, and if it does, Tepper should be commended for it. I don't see things in black and white and for the most part my beef is not with Tepper specifically, but with the approach that large businesses of which he is now an owner have adopted. I agree that there is an interplay of many factors here, but even on that, who is better able to assess that interplay, you, the layman sitting at your keyboard refusing to even read a handful of articles on the subject prior to debate, or an entire field of professionals who study that interplay for a living?

At this point we have covered a lot of ground. What I'm seeing is that you're categorically unwilling to consider exposing yourself to information or viewpoints that do not agree with your starting point because rather than consider them or even evaluate them with a critical eye, its more comfortable and easier for you to throw out an arbitrary and obviously unwarranted and absurd label in order to dismiss them. Further discussion seems pointless and a waste of our time. There are some things we agree on but you are bent on dismissing rather than fairly evaluating the evidence. Enjoy your Super Bowl weekend.

Ive enjoyed the conversation...and I have read multiple articles today. Certainly there are plenty of articles advocating against public funds for stadiums. I agree that in many situations it isnt prudent. Especially bigger cities such as NY, Chicago, LA. Most of what the economist are saying is that it's not bringing more money to the city it's just redistributing it to a different part of the city. Also most people have a relatively fixed entertainment budget....so they're not actually spending any more money in the economy. I understand that argument and think it has many applications where it's TRUE.

Once again though it's a tad different for the Panthers. Charlotte is a border city. The team represents more then just Charlotte. People travel from two states to watch them play. People from Raleigh to Charleston drive to Charlotte every home game to watch that team play...less if they really suck though.

Really same with the Hurricanes. Last May I took some vacation for my birthday. I could have went anywhere. Asheville., Florida, just stayed home. I bought to NHL playoff tickets and a hotel in Raleigh and spent my money there. A lot of people do that in this region. That's significantly different from let's say Florida where there are 3 nfl teams. No one in Tampa is driving to Miami and getting a hotel to catch a Dolphins game.

I'd also encourage you to check out the two recent stadiums built in Sacramento and Minneapolis and read about the positive impacts those stadiums have had. Happy weekend.

 

[JARROD]

On 2/1/2020 at 6:10 AM, pantherj said:

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

That has a name,

GOP

[Happy Panther]

1 hour ago, bull123 said:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article240037908.html

i though renovations had nothing to do with soccer?

The bunker suites don't. It is general stadium improvement. Bunker suites aren't a soccer thing.

But a midfield tunnel is a soccer thing if that is implemented which the article suggests will happen.

[1of10Charnatives]

4 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

The bunker suites don't. It is general stadium improvement. Bunker suites aren't a soccer thing.

But a midfield tunnel is a soccer thing if that is implemented which the article suggests will happen.

Why would tunnel locations matter?