• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

New Braves Stadium

PhDeac said:
Have the taxpayers gotten their dollars worth from that success?
Click to expand...

I would be interested in a study on that, but there is no doubt that during the season, literally millions of Virginia and Maryland residents that would otherwise not spend money in DC, come to Nats Park and spend money on parking, tickets and food. DC receives sales tax on every dollar spent. In addition, multiple high rise condos and office buildings have sprouted up in the area around Nats Park. Doubt that area would have experienced any of that development absent the park. Would be surprised if DC does not receive a return far greater than its investment in Nats Park.
 
Pilchard raises a good point about Sales Taxes. Interesting that the City of Atlanta would be so quick to cost themselves (MARTA 1% sales tax) and the city LOST or ELOST as well as Fulton County roughly $5-7mm in tax revenues because they think they can do better at drumming up economic growth in the form of local development when they haven't delivered on that at all in that economic oasis known as the Capitol Ave and Fulton St. block of shame since 1997. Mayor Reid, methinks you've probably already taxed your budget severely with the money you're paying Mt. Vernon Baptist Church to scram. Not to mention that sewer system that is still in grave disrepair and causing you to increase the city water usage bills by 33% each and every year.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
Pilchard raises a good point about Sales Taxes. Interesting that the City of Atlanta would be so quick to cost themselves (MARTA 1% sales tax) and the city LOST or ELOST as well as Fulton County roughly $5-7mm in tax revenues because they think they can do better at drumming up economic growth in the form of local development when they haven't delivered on that at all in that economic oasis known as the Capitol Ave and Fulton St. block of shame since 1997. Mayor Reid, methinks you've probably already taxed your budget severely with the money you're paying Mt. Vernon Baptist Church to scram. Not to mention that sewer system that is still in grave disrepair and causing you to increase the city water usage bills by 33% each and every year.
Click to expand...

You think the city should be spending $300MM to keep the team in town and generate roughly $5-7MM in tax revenues?
 
Pilchard said:
I would be interested in a study on that, but there is no doubt that during the season, literally millions of Virginia and Maryland residents that would otherwise not spend money in DC, come to Nats Park and spend money on parking, tickets and food. DC receives sales tax on every dollar spent. In addition, multiple high rise condos and office buildings have sprouted up in the area around Nats Park. Doubt that area would have experienced any of that development absent the park. Would be surprised if DC does not receive a return far greater than its investment in Nats Park.
Click to expand...

That argument assumes the options are either (1) finance the building of the ballpark (2) Nat leave town. If cities decided to stop competing for teams by giving them money, the teams would still build and refurbish their parks. They may not be as lavish if teams had to spend their own money, but they’d still have stadiums, and fans would still pay for parking, food, and tickets. So even if you completely disagree with my first point, you still have to break out just the increase in spending based on the new stadium, not the total spending.

DC spent an insane amount on Nats Park. More than double what Cumberland County is expected to pay.
 
It's not the current owners of the Braves or the current city government's fault that the Ted was built where it is located. Bill Campbell's organization wanted the parking revenue. The Ted should have either been next to the Dome or where Atlantic Station now sits. It would have had MARTA access and we wouldn't be having this discussion. This could of also been avoided if the Braves didn't enter into the worst TV contract in baseball. Liberty Media won't spend speculative money on payroll to try to increase attendance by wining, so the Braves need more money from the gate. They're like a hockey team trying to live on the gate, b/c their TV money is so bad. They will probably be able to draw 5k more on a weekday night by moving to Cobb and if the county is stupid enough to give them $300m (of tax revenue that's being "diverted"), then it's a no brainer for the Braves. That said, the corporate welfare payment to the Braves and their ownership is disgusting.
 
Coalition for Smarter Growth released this interesting note on the DC Stadium area:

"The Increase in Land Values in Certain Sections of DC is “Stunning”

Chris Leinberger dropped a staggering statistic regarding how much DC land values have increased in the past decade. On one particular site in Capitol Riverfront, he shared, the land value was probably at around $5 per square foot a decade ago. That same land was recently sold to Toll Brothers at a cost of $825 per square foot. “That increase is stunning,” he said."

Another report that's purely financial has the net present value of the stadium based on a 30 year life cycle at around $550 million versus the cost of $650 million. So after direct revenues from the team, not counting benefits around/outside the stadium, it's pretty close to worth it - assuming you believe having a team in your city is a good thing generally.
 
Do you have a link on that last one? I'm curious what assumptions they used. The results seem counter-intuitive for an asset that doesn't really have a sale value and isn't even currently generating enough revenue to pay the debt service.

I started doing a rough calc, but then found this, which is much more thorough:

Was Nationals Park worth it for DC?

That doesn't address the improvement to the area. And if cities think it is worth spending $$ to build up an area and make the city better, that doesn't bother me, but it's shady to sell the idea as an investment that will generate returns.

Edit: Though even if DC thinks it is worth the cost to build up the area, they could have made the Nats contribute more. It is insane that the city covered almost all of the cost.
 
Last edited:
avalon said:
You think the city should be spending $300MM to keep the team in town and generate roughly $5-7MM in tax revenues?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that at all. I hadn't really taken a position on that. I certainly don't want the city issuing gobs of debt or trying to raise taxes. My point is there may be more of a win-win there if the groups would come together. But at these astronomical costs, if the teams aren't willing to shell out the majority of the dough, it's usually a bad deal for a city. But it seems a bit short-sighted for the city of Atlanta to brush it off like it's no big deal and posture like they are going to "hit it out of the park" with their plan for urban development! Have you been to downtown Atlanta south of Alabama St? Not exactly a study in successful urban development.

Ideally the city and county would work together to devise tax breaks, credits or incentives that would engender such development, but instead, years of mismanagement, rotting infrastructure and corruption has eliminated a lot of flexibility that they might have had otherwise. I was just making the point that a city that is constantly stretched thin when it comes to money and resources shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth and brush off that revenue so cavalierly like Reed seems to be doing.
 
DC, increase in land values is fine and good but whose land vs. whose taxes?

Another question is how many local bars and restaurants lose business to outside owned ventures attached to stadium plans.
 
Ha. It's actually a referenced in his follow up article. I was reading that too - and the comments are shockingly good and link to a lot of good material. Per the earlier comment about how complex it is to figure out the realities involved, a bunch of his costs are bullshit, but on the other end that argues for value a bunch of their benefits are bullshit.

In the end I guess I tend to look at it in a more general way. Neither Atlanta's Turner Field nor Nat's Stadium had any significant negative effects like borderline bankruptcy or overwhelming debt. They may have been losers but neither were dire. In Atlanta, Turner field never spurred growth, it didn't generate significant jobs/money or development - it was just a stadium. In DC, that area has seen a massive increase in value and popularity, tons of growth, development, etc.
 
Atlanta Deacon said:
It's not the current owners of the Braves or the current city government's fault that the Ted was built where it is located. Bill Campbell's organization wanted the parking revenue. The Ted should have either been next to the Dome or where Atlantic Station now sits. It would have had MARTA access and we wouldn't be having this discussion. This could of also been avoided if the Braves didn't enter into the worst TV contract in baseball. Liberty Media won't spend speculative money on payroll to try to increase attendance by wining, so the Braves need more money from the gate. They're like a hockey team trying to live on the gate, b/c their TV money is so bad. They will probably be able to draw 5k more on a weekday night by moving to Cobb and if the county is stupid enough to give them $300m (of tax revenue that's being "diverted"), then it's a no brainer for the Braves. That said, the corporate welfare payment to the Braves and their ownership is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Parking revenue isn't all Bill Campbell wanted. But this is spot-on. Personally, I'm glad they're moving so I don't have to deal with gameday traffic the handful of times a year I do. Oddly, I've heard more than a few people from my area (Fayette County) who are saying they're now more likely to go to Braves games since they don't have to deal with that shitty part of town. Just a quick zip up 285 on the west side. That's a cultural preference. But not making sporting events accessible by Marta has never made sense to me. Even in the case of Philips, OTP people don't want to deal with the hassle of Marta because even with a Philips stop, it's apparently still not that convenient.

After time, however, the novelty of the Cobb Co Braves will wear off when people realize it's the same old underachieving team like the rest of Atlanta's teams. And the spike in attendance will dissipate, especially when people have to deal with what is sure to be an insane traffic situation in the new location. Just like the new Falcons stadium, the cost for this Braves move will continue to grow and grow and it won't look like a bargain once it's all over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top