Your government in action

So for years, law enforcement turned a blind eye to neighborhood video poker machines, and now the state is pumping money to local police agencies to crack down on bars with machines that pay out. Funny, this get-tough approach is happening just as state-licensed casinos are opening across the state.

Tavern owners have a good point -- if county officials didn't think that poker machines were paying out, then why do they charge more to license the machines than they do to license pool tables and video games? (I'm a little mystified as to why video games and pool tables have to be licensed. If there an official reason, or is it just a naked attempt to squeeze more revenue out of business owners? That's a rhetorical question.)

Meanwhile, the state plans to sink $25 million into a soccer stadium in Delaware County. I hope that everyone in Pittsburgh who cheered when the state agreed to ante up for the new Penguins' arena can make it out to Chester for a soccer game. You paid for it; you might as well enjoy it.

What's eight inches among friends?

I decided I'm cool with taxpayers picking up the tab for a new hockey arena after all. After all, what else are we going to spend that money on?

The jig is up

A rather unlikely source is claiming the sports teams contribute little to cities' economies:

If the Sonics leave Seattle, the city's economy won't suffer and most people won't care.

That's not the tirade of some anti-arena activist; it's the Sonics' latest legal argument to try to get out of its KeyArena lease.

And it's exactly the opposite of what the Sonics have claimed when asking for taxpayer help to build a new arena.

The team made the argument in papers filed in U.S. District Court this week, seeking mediation or a speedy trial to allow the team to abandon city-owned KeyArena before 2010. In the documents, Sonics' attorneys dispute the city's contention that the team's departure would have a broad and hard-to-quantify impact.

"The financial issue is simple, and the city's analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle's many other sports and entertainment options. Seattleites will not reduce their entertainment budget simply because the Sonics leave," the Sonics said in the court brief.

The Sonics also said they would produce a survey showing that 66 percent of Seattleites say the team's exit would make "no difference" in their lives, while only 12 percent said they'd be "much worse off."

Well, well, well. (Hat tip to The Sports Economist.)

Not that it matters anymore, but...

The boys at the Sports Economist continue to poke holes in the arguments in favor of throwing tax dollars at pro teams:

Sports economists agree: sports stadiums are not the boon of economic development that they are often portrayed to be and, thankfully, public money has not been as easy to come by in many instances. That's why some recent public financing packages include plans to have ballpark villages developed as a part of an agreement for public financing. Otherwise the secondary development is not likely to happen.

The development is unlikely to occur because the returns for the development do not justify private investment. Otherwise we'd see a lot more "spontaneous" economic development surrounding stadiums. In other words, the people who frequent stadiums don't really care all that much about shopping/bars/restaurants/condos etc. around ballparks. They want to go to the event, do what they do there (get their private benefits), get in their cars, and go home. So politicians are seemingly more resistant, thankfully, to giving subsidies just for stadiums by themselves. But package in some secondary development (which, if it draws any extra economic activity to the site, will probably draw it from elsewhere in the region) with the subsidy request and see if you can get the necessary votes.

But if private financing isn't forthcoming for the housing and business development, is it really that good of an investment for the government? In other words, what are the public goods associated with the ballpark villages?

The song remains the same

The Sports Economist points yet again to the failure of taxpayer-financed stadiums to spur economic development, despite the promises of local officials and team owners:

The crazy thing about the AT&T Center is that the Spurs are claiming it is obsolete just five years after a significant renovation, and are demanding a new, publicly financed arena to replace it. (link)

Strictly business

The Post-Gazette sounds sincerely disappointed to discover that the Pirates ownership feels no obligation to pay back the public that bankrolled, through their taxes, the ballpark that was supposed to produce a winning team:

While the public dug deep to build America's finest ballpark, the Pirate's owners have failed to match the people's investment. Compared to the rest of Major League Baseball, they spend little and pretend it will produce a lot. The fantasy of that is laid bare, woeful season after woeful season.

Yes, the fans should send a message -- and send it however they choose. Heaven knows they've done their part. Bob Nutting & Co. have not. (link)

The editorial is in reference to the planned walk-out by fans at tonight's game. Mind you, these fans will have already paid for their tickets. Sure, it may give the Nuttings some embarrassing public relations, but given all the bad press they've endured lately, I wonder how much they truly care. (Their effort to impose a media blackout on the protest not withstanding.)

And yet, I'm guessing that many of the people at tonight's game, like the Post-Gazette editorial board, not only favored public funding for PNC Park, but for the new hockey arena as well. Sure, Mario Lemieux may be more commited to winning than the Nuttings, but the principle is the same: Professionals sports teams are businesses. They have no more obligation to the public than any other business. And the public, including the government, has no special obligation to them, either.