Summary: Take Me Out To The Ball Game

Case Study Three

Introduction

Take Me Out to the Ball Game and You Buy the Ticket THE CASE FOR PUBLIC STADIUM FINANCING

The sphere of sovereignty that this situation involving privately owned sports franchises seek public financing from state and local spheres of government to maximize the sport teams bottom line. Many organizations in many localities have been involved in using public money to benefit themselves financially. For example, the Yankees and the Mets in New York, the Milwaukee Brewers, Seattle Washington’s sport teams, and Pennsylvania. “Of the thirty-one plans that have been put to the voters, a vast majority (84 percent) were eventually approved. The remaining five (or 16 percent) that did not receive voter support were eventually

approved with a combination of public-private financing” (Shafritz and Borick 2011).

Facts
Publically funding private businesses positively benefits the businesses that are being funded and negatively affects the citizens in the jurisdiction that this form of legal plunder takes place. By taking money from the citizens who do not have a voice in the matter to benefit another person and their private business the government in those localities are stealing from the citizens.
Political authorities, for example, leaders and state officials, try to keep establishments in their urban communities at the most reduced expense to their constituents.
The sports franchise and the economy of the locality in which the stadium is built have the most to gain through the building of these new stadiums.

The sports franchise gains by reducing the amount of capital that it has to spend in building the new stadium. They receive a new stadium with more seats and therefore they receive more profit. The local businesses gain financially as well with increased traffic of fans who come to the games. More fans means more meals, rooms, and souvenirs sold. In addition, as least at the beginning of the project more construction jobs are created in order to build the new stadium and possibly new jobs are created at the stadium itself. The elected officials is motivated by receiving a good track record of successful referendums, by trying to sell the stadium to the public as something they should really want in their communities. The people who are losing through the outcomes of the new stadiums are those who do not want one in their community. Perhaps people who do not like sports and will never attend a game or people who do not appreciate the added traffic on the roads on game days. These people are forced into paying for something they will never use as well as something they may despise and the added traffic they have to deal with is a nuisance to

them.
The sports industry is a 23 billion dollar industry and effects many other industries that benefit from it. For example, advertising agencies, cable networks, celebrity and sport agents, licensed sports apparel stores, and fast food Restaurants just to name a few.
The securing of public funds for the development of professional sports facilities can be accomplished through two extensively characterized methodologies. The principal is open approbation and the second is nonelectoral transaction. As a rule, last approbation through arrangements came without people in general regularly getting an opportunity to vote on the utilization of public funds. A statement from Arizona’s mayor Tibshraeny proves that no matter what the public will is the sports franchise will get what it wants he stated “I believe the citizens should have a say in this issue. If the voters pass this, we’ll move forward. If the voters don’t pass this, we’ll move forward” (Shafritz and Borick 2011). In 40 percent of the stadium development ventures including open finances, the public has been asked to weigh in on the matter by voting at the polls. This is just a ruse to work in the benefit for the politician like Tibshraeny said they will move forward regardless. However, the politician hopes the public will be on board with the project for his own political gain of a good reputation. Clearly a definitive situation for a chose authority would be a dynamic games establishment in his or her city with general society paying none of the expense for the venue, however the notoriety and monetary imperativeness that the games establishment speaks to exceeds the dangers for the government official more often than not.
Of the thirty-one plans that have been put to the voters, a lion's share were in the long run affirmed, demonstrating that more often than not when general society gets the opportunity to say something regarding the matter the establishment and the government official advantages. However, in some cases the sports franchise losses out on the public welfare but they don’t lose out completely they either move to a different city where they receive welfare there or they negotiate and win public financing on a smaller scale as well as private financing through other investors.
Decisions
On account of stadium activities in Milwaukee, Seattle, and Pittsburgh, open referenda neglected to increase open approbation, with the undertakings in Milwaukee and Pittsburgh falling flat by about 2-to-1 edges and the proposition in Seattle coming up short by a slender 51.1 to 49.9 percent. By the by, considerable open subsidizing was secured for the possible development of these venues through measures passed by the state assemblies in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Washington. On account of Columbus, Ohio's, endeavor to manufacture a coliseum to house an expert hockey establishment, voters dismisses a proposition for stadium financing by 56-to-44 percent edge in 1997. Taking after the disappointment of this arrangement at the surveys, private financing by the Nationwide Insurance Company and other private speculators took into consideration the development of a stadium and the extension's formation Bluejackets establishment in the National Hockey League (Shafritz and Borick 2011). Many policies are in process regarding sport facilities, for example, NJ S741 which would Permit State Lottery Commission to authorize video lottery terminals at Meadowlands horse racetrack, subject to voter approval, and in case that doesn’t pass they created another one NJ A354 that asks for the basically the same thing. NJ A355 again asks for authorization for video lottery terminals at Meadowlands racetrack, upon voter approval; but will dedicate 1/3 net proceeds to the General Fund, 1/3 to State education aid, and 1/3 to the horse racing industry. Then in Oklahoma there is the OK SB170 regarding Sales tax; modifying certain exemption to include exemption for sales by certain clubs (Evelynn n.d.).
“From 2000 to 2008, 28 new major league stadiums were built costing over $9 billion dollars. More than half, over $5 billion, of the costs of the new stadiums were funded using public dollars.” (Wilhelm 2008).
The consequences of these actions are the legal plunder of the citizen’s money for the benefit of private businessmen and politicians.
This is obviously a positive outcome for the sports franchises and negative for the citizens. The outcome of these policy decisions is the preferential treatment of sports businessmen and the financial rape of the citizens who did not vote for or did not even get an opportunity to vote for the use of public funds to financially benefit people who are already millionaires.

Solution
These are top down arrangements that are distant with neighborhood connection and individual/otherworldly measurements. The guideline which has practiced the best impact upon governments, it that of sensitivity and hostility. Accordingly, an administration, totally involved with riches and business, looks upon a general public as a workshop, sees men just as gainful machines, and considerations little the amount it torments them, if it makes them rich. Different governments regard power and brilliance as the sole method for public good. Actually, we must allude to that standard every one of those plausible articles which governments seek after, without having the public good for a solitary and free point, for example, great ethics, equity, freedom, power, business, religion; objects respectable in themselves, and which should go into the lawmaker's perspectives; however which over and over again lead him off track, in light of the fact that he views them as ends, not as means. Numerous persons don't ask if a state be very much managed; if the laws secure property and persons; if the general population are upbeat.
The alternative to using public funds to dole out welfare to millionaires is to have them pay for their own businesses with their own capital and or to find private investors who are willing to invest in their projects.
Public funding should not be used to benefit private business of any industry. However, if public funds are to be considered in every case it should be brought to a public vote and the public will should be followed.
Conclusion
Extensive U.S. urban communities of the late twentieth and mid twenty-first century have generally connected with the construction of professional sports facilities to house proficient games establishments. The securing of public funds for the development of expert games offices can be accomplished through two comprehensively characterized methodologies: open endorsement or nonelectoral arrangements. Now and again, last approbation through arrangement came without the general population steadily getting an opportunity to vote on the utilization of public funds; in different cases, an arranged settlement in the middle of associations and government came after voters declined to bolster the utilization of public funds for venue development. Staying away from open votes on the subject of games venue financing can be seen as an appealing choice for games establishments, yet it can be a less positive alternative for policy makers. It may appear at first that the development of a stadium account choice from administrative chambers to the polling station would put the association's mission to secure public financing in risk, however the reputation exhibits that the appointive approach as a rule proves to be fruitful for an establishment. For elected officials, the vicinity of a noteworthy sports establishment in their city is an indication of glory and monetary imperativeness. For the sports franchise the circumstance is considerably less complex. With such clashing objectives present, it serves to consider the arrangement between the establishment and government authorities as a zero-sum game. The threat of moving gives the establishment a colossal point of interest in the transaction, however the quality of a chose authorities fancy not to utilize open trusts is likewise adjusted by the very vicinity of the poll question. The results are palatial extravagance boxes to host lucrative corporate patrons in luxury boxes with climate-controlled environments. Meanwhile, the soaring sticker price to these cutting edge stadiums has left numerous fans stuck outside the doors (Shafritz and Borick 2011).

There does not seem to be any benefit for the government or the private citizen in publically funding sports franchises. In all cases the money would have better served the community through funding education, roads, sanitation, police and firefighters instead of the sports franchise this is not a case of bureaucracy creep or agency survival but one more of precedent. It has been proven that the scheme does not benefit society and only benefits wealthy businessmen. This is a mismanagement of funding and spending tax payer dollars for the benefit of the wealthy sports franchises. There is no mutual accountability only preferential treatment at the expense of the citizens. Publically funding sports franchises is not even a rational decision. Elected officials, and citizens should just say no we will not fund your business if you want to increase your bottom line you better find a different way to do it because you are not getting our charity. Governments need to stop the legal plunder it is allowing the sports industry to do to its citizens.