Potential $1.2B Panthers stadium renovation discussion

[d-dave]

Since I'm no longer a Charlotte resident, I can't really weigh in on their local politics.  Cabarrus county is it's own stupid animal!

While I'm not in favor of giving money to Tepper or any billionaire for a private business, I understand the pressure to do it anyway.  There are only 32 NFL teams, and each team is a very valuable asset.  Does it create enough economic activity?  I don't know.  But I do know there is a certain "pull" to having an NFL team.

Your city is shown in wide shots on game day.  At night, your city becomes a star of the game.  For a while, it was the mark your city "made" it.  Was that a good one?  No, but it's all fluff, right?  The games can create a sense of community, give your city something to rally around when politics are so dumb.  Game Day is infectious.  I remember going to Panther games and feeling this sense of excitement throughout downtown.  I loved that.  If I could do that again, I'd love to.

Will it be the end of Charlotte if our local sports team leaves?  No.  Will $600m be better spent in other areas the budget allows?  I don't know enough about all of that to have an opinion.

[CRA]

15 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

 

BOA is a decent stadium. Not sure why you think it sucks. But this renovation is going to give the stadium a more modern look and feel.

A more modern stadium look and feel has never made me want to attend or not attend a game.  Some of the best places to go watch a game are pieces of poo in reality.   Something that spans over all sports. 

if someone didn’t go to a game last year….it wasn’t because of the stadium.  It’s was the Panthers team being a joke and the ticket being too expensive to justify watching them. 

maybe I can get some of the absurdity for a city that wants to host things bigger than their NFL teams games but I don’t see us in the mix.  

and Teppers renovation is on the very high side based on the numbers.

[Score Board]

It will happen the stadium is in one of the best locations in all of the NFL. When shown on t.v. it puts the spotlight on Charlotte’s skyline. 

[blackcat]

Honestly, 1.2 isn't bad, especially if CLT is only on the hook for$600m.  Wonder how long it'll take to complete the renovations and where in NC they'll play while they're doing said reno's......

[jayboogieman]

1 hour ago, d-dave said:

Will it be the end of Charlotte if our local sports team leaves?  No.  Will $600m be better spent in other areas the budget allows?  I don't know enough about all of that to have an opinion.

Yes, there's lots of better uses for the tax money such as making sure the children of Mecklenburg county have enough to eat.

[d-dave]

5 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Yes, there's lots of better uses for the tax money such as making sure the children of Mecklenburg county have enough to eat.

Where the budget allows.  The $600m is from the travel and leisure budget.

Now do we need to make sure all children have a warm bed, enough to eat, and a place for their families?  Yes!  Is that far more important than a sports team?  Yes!  But I'm not in the city council or county commission so what I think is pretty moot.

Are there plenty of schools that need help with their roofing?  With plumbing?  With a litany of other issues?  YES!!!  Lord knows I taught at several schools that needed work that never got budgeted.  It's just how elected officials play games with the tax money.

[jayboogieman]

Quote

The reasoning behind public financing of stadiums is predicated upon a belief that new stadiums will create a significant impact on the local community through increased jobs in the short-run and increased spending through tourism over the long-run. The short-run impact can be significant, as seen with the Los Angeles Rams, whose new stadium in Inglewood is expected to “provide more than 3,500 on-site construction jobs in Inglewood and more than 10,000 jobs by the time it is completed.” However, many advocates of publicly-funded stadiums are banking on a “multiplier effect,” in which increased local income created through these construction jobs could lead to further spending, investment, and job creation, thereby creating a long-term benefit for the local economy. Another important reason why so many teams succeed in receiving public funding for stadiums is the threat of leaving and the corresponding dissatisfaction that residents have with the city after a team moves. For example, when Seattle refused to pay for a basketball stadium in the city, owner Clay Bennett decided to move the team to Oklahoma City, renaming his team from the Seattle Supersonics to the Oklahoma City Thunder. On that account, the idea of public financing is nuanced, but it is rooted on questionable economic ideals and intimidation of local residents.

Unfortunately, the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. The average stadium generates $145 million per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community. As such, the prevalent idea among team owners of “socializing the costs and privatizing the profits” is harmful and unfair to people who are forced to pay for a stadium that will not help them.

 

Quote

Further, a study by Noll and Zimbalist on newly constructed subsidized stadiums shows that they have a very limited and possibly even negative local impact. This is because of the opportunity cost that goes into allocating a significant amount of money into a service like a stadium, rather than infrastructure or other community projects that would benefit locals. Spending $700 million in areas like education or housing could have long-term positive consequences with the potential for long-term increases in the standard of living and economic growth.

Additionally, it is important to consider that public financing is largely helping billionaires pay less for a service that they can afford. This dangerous precedent is an unnecessary privilege rather than a necessity. These sports teams are supported by successful owners who are capable of funding stadiums themselves. The owners will be compensated handsomely through the profits received through ticket sales, corporate advertising, and concessions over the next several decades. Public subsidies are an unfortunate power play used by these influential teams on local communities that are emotionally attached to sports teams, and a shift to making these projects private is going to be important moving forward.

More from this 2019 paper.

From an Atlantic article:

Quote

The Coliseum, for instance, lured the Raiders back to Oakland in 1994 in part by promising to renovate. When that bill is finally paid off in 2025, it will have cost Alameda County and Oakland $350 million. It seems worth pointing out that the Raiders’ value has skyrocketed from $351 million in 2001 to $2.38 billion in 2017—an almost fivefold increase after adjusting for inflation. During roughly the same span, the value of the A’s grew fourfold, to $1.05 billion, and the Golden State Warriors’ worth swelled by a factor of 12, to $3.1 billion. Meanwhile, Oakland’s roads are some of the worst in the country, the Oakland Unified School District is cutting up to 340 jobs for the 2019–20 school year, and the city has to rely on outside spending to cover the mostly inadequate shelter it provides its homeless population.

Pro sports teams are bad business deals for cities, and yet, cities continue to fall for them. But municipalities can support local sports without selling out their citizens in the process.

 

Quote

Hosting a professional sports franchise has legitimate public benefits. Strangers at a bar can commiserate about a loss, and a championship run can bring a city together. “It can give people with disparate political beliefs and backgrounds a common rallying point,” says Michael Leeds, a professor of economics at Temple University. But these benefits are intangible, so city leaders often look to positive economic impact to justify local sports instead.

Their most repeated refrain is that a team or stadium will “create jobs.” But what does that mean? Construction on the stadium might be performed by local workers, but it might not. And either way, it’s likely to be paid for off the books, without protections for workers. Even if the construction workers are local, their gigs last only a few years. Afterward, all that remains are the jobs inside the stadium—ticket sellers, vendors, janitorial staff—which are low-paid, seasonal, and few. “The number of jobs created is smaller than [the number of employees of] a midsize department store,” Leeds explains.

Here's a third article if the previous two aren't enough.

Quote

Though it might seem strange for the public to prop up for-profit private businesses owned by billionaires, using tax dollars to fund stadiums is a common practice across the county. In my own research, I’ve found that adjusting for inflation, governments have committed nearly $38 billion to construct stadiums for major sports league teams since 1960 – $27 billion of that since 1990. Though the public share of stadium construction costs has declined over time, total public funding has increased as facilities have grown more expensive. Stadiums have evolved from utilitarian concrete-and-steel bleachers into extravagant entertainment palaces featuring retro-themed architecture and luxury amenities such as private suites, club seating, in-stadium restaurants, and boutique concessions.

 

Quote

The median public contribution of $500 million per sports stadium project suggests that the public cost of replacing the 40 remaining venues may approach $20 billion. Though not all the venues will be retired, renovations often come at a similarly steep price. For example, the Cleveland Guardians are getting a $435 million refurbishment of Progressive Field, which opened in 1994. Two-thirds of the cost will be covered by taxpayers.

 

[jayboogieman]

6 minutes ago, d-dave said:

The $600m is from the travel and leisure budget.

Which a large chuck of comes from State taxes that we all pay.

[Purrnicious]

12 hours ago, pantherdad said:

I’m all for a retractable roof! Open it up on those gorgeous Sunday afternoons and close it in the winter time when the weather is miserable or when it’s raining. Plus, a dome opens up more chances for hosting a Super Bowl.

retractable roof stadiums are just domes in practice. Oh you wanna open it up when it's nice outside? What's the point? It's nice inside too, all you're getting is a little extra vitamin D. 

Unless they open it up during a rain storm when new orleans comes to town I want absolutely no part of even a retractable roof. If you're scared of a little rain/heat/or cold then watch on TV, I want to be out in the elements yelling and screaming like a madman. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Purrnicious

[joemac]

13 hours ago, pantherdad said:

I’m all for a retractable roof! Open it up on those gorgeous Sunday afternoons and close it in the winter time when the weather is miserable or when it’s raining. Plus, a dome opens up more chances for hosting a Super Bowl.

The Charlotte area would need about double the number of hotel rooms it currently has to be eligible to host a SB.

[joemac]

41 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

 

More from this 2019 paper.

From an Atlantic article:

 

Here's a third article if the previous two aren't enough.

 

 

Pretty crazy that every pro sports team Oakland had, just a few years ago, has either left the city, or is in the process.  The Warriors play in San Francisco now, the Raiders hauled ass the Vegas, and the A's are not far behind them.  Sucks for Oakland sports fans.

[jayboogieman]

8 minutes ago, joemac said:

Sucks for Oakland sports fans

Yep, even more so since they'll have to keep paying money for the renovations for a couple more years.

[LinvilleGorge]

5 hours ago, d-dave said:

Since I'm no longer a Charlotte resident, I can't really weigh in on their local politics.  Cabarrus county is it's own stupid animal!

While I'm not in favor of giving money to Tepper or any billionaire for a private business, I understand the pressure to do it anyway.  There are only 32 NFL teams, and each team is a very valuable asset.  Does it create enough economic activity?  I don't know.  But I do know there is a certain "pull" to having an NFL team.

Your city is shown in wide shots on game day.  At night, your city becomes a star of the game.  For a while, it was the mark your city "made" it.  Was that a good one?  No, but it's all fluff, right?  The games can create a sense of community, give your city something to rally around when politics are so dumb.  Game Day is infectious.  I remember going to Panther games and feeling this sense of excitement throughout downtown.  I loved that.  If I could do that again, I'd love to.

Will it be the end of Charlotte if our local sports team leaves?  No.  Will $600m be better spent in other areas the budget allows?  I don't know enough about all of that to have an opinion.

What is this "pull" though? I mean, let's be honest. Charlotte isn't a tourism destination. It's just not. It's not like someone is going to see a shot of the Charlotte skyline while watching a Panthers game and say, oh wow! What an amazing city! Let's go there for our next vacation.

Funny thing that this "pull" isn't show in any actual economic studies. The most likely conclusion is that it simply doesn't exist.

[LinvilleGorge]

5 hours ago, Score Board said:

It will happen the stadium is in one of the best locations in all of the NFL. When shown on t.v. it puts the spotlight on Charlotte’s skyline. 

Which causes Charlotte residents to beam with pride for a moment and contributes literally nothing else. Seems like a shitty investment of $600M if you ask me.