flown-the-coop said:

---

And Chicago ain't going nowhere. The Plan just keeps cycling and certain folks get rich and others think they can get rich but really just pay taxes.

---

Whenever I am inside Houston's loop at shops or restaurants, I am always shocked to see so many white people, especially those with kids.

This is what Democrats do when they have a monopoly on power. EVERYTHING becomes "How do we sell out the future for a money laundering operation today that will make me and my friends rich?"

1939 said:

---

Sure but those low property tax states get it in other ways like state income taxes.

---

At least I'd own my own home.

The new stadium is like 20 miles away...

This won't affect t bears fans at all... if anything it'll improve the atmosphere

& I'd be willing to bet that Illinois politicians are getting a kickback from Indiana lobbyists the same way Texas politicians get kickbacks from Louisiana casino lobbyists


No one really cares at all about this new location... it's just political theater like always

I do not support public funds for stupid **** like stadiums. It would absolutely have to be a cash cow in returns for the life of the stadium.

And this is the catch, if public owns the stadium the team has to sign a bi fing lease to stay in the stadium until it is paid off and a certain return threshold has been met. Else they are assessed fines to cover that agreement.

Teams that leave before the stadium has met the ROI absolutely screws local tax payers. The issue is: who else is going to use that stadium to produce revenue to offset the cost?

No One.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I do not support public funds for stupid **** like stadiums. It would absolutely have to be a cash cow in returns for the life of the stadium.

And this is the catch, if public owns the stadium the team has to sign a bi fing lease to stay in the stadium until it is paid off and a certain return threshold has been met. Else they are assessed fines to cover that agreement.

Teams that leave before the stadium has met the ROI absolutely screws local tax payers. The issue is: who else is going to use that stadium to produce revenue to offset the cost?

No One.

---

You should read this about the Alamodome.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/11/18/alamodome-expected-to-turn-a-profit-for-the-first-time-in-21-years-officials-say/

Liberal loons.

The fatty and the racist.

Pichael Thompson said:

---

The new stadium is like 20 miles away...

This won't affect t bears fans at all... if anything it'll improve the atmosphere

& I'd be willing to bet that Illinois politicians are getting a kickback from Indiana lobbyists the same way Texas lobbyists get kickbacks from Louisiana casino lobbyists


No one really cares at all about this new location... it's just political theater like always

---

Most people I know from Chicago said the new location is much better and they'd rather drive the extra miles than spend 3-4 hours in a parking nightmare downtown.

Bird Poo said:

---

Dallas just lost the Stars to Plano.

The Mavericks are moving out as well but still within the Dallas zip code.

Jerry Jones was smart to avoid the dumbass Dallas city council's BS.

---

Not to mention JW Price and the Dallas County commissioners.

TyHolden said:

---

Pichael Thompson said:

---

The new stadium is like 20 miles away...

This won't affect t bears fans at all... if anything it'll improve the atmosphere

& I'd be willing to bet that Illinois politicians are getting a kickback from Indiana lobbyists the same way Texas lobbyists get kickbacks from Louisiana casino lobbyists


No one really cares at all about this new location... it's just political theater like always

---

Most people I know from Chicago said the new location is much better and they'd rather drive the extra miles than spend 3-4 hours in a parking nightmare downtown.

---

My two Chicago friends don't believe it will actually happen.

1) North and NW Chicago is where a ton of people who can afford tickets live. Most don't drive, and your friends would know this, It's CTA to Roosevelt Station. They aren't going to start commuting by car to Indiana. Zero chance. Your friends must already live in the south burbs to think it's better.

2) Bears still own the Arlington Heights racetrack. It's site prepped - fully demo'd blank slate. Right next to O'Hare. Right next to the fancy ass neighborhoods where the players live (who, btw, imagine selling a free agent on living in Gary to commute to the stadium, lol, and game charters out of Midway). There is no site selected in Hammond. Just a presser with a TBD. It's posturing until the Bears org lets go of the Arlington Heights site. I agree with them this is just more public leverage.

Ag with kids said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

But be smart for a second. Almost every NFL city throws in public money for a stadium. Not charity. The return is real. Tourism, hotels, restaurants, jobs, game days, property tax on a huge development. The math works.

---

Sorry, but this statement is just wrong in MOST cases. It may be true in this instance, but it isn't almost anywhere else. The fact is that the actual money that comes into the city through tax and other revenues is far less than it would be if the same area was developed for commercial and/or industrial purposes. In some cases, residential would suffice. FAR more jobs; FAR more commerce; and FAR better overall return on investment. There are only so many people that go to work each day at Cowboys Stadium and fewer at the AgBarn in the offseason. 250+ workdays for retail, commercial, and industrial spaces in that area would employ thousands -- and a large percentage at much higher wages.

It isn't just employment. As we're seeing in Dallas, city owned and financed sports arenas can end up being bad news 10, 15, 20 years later as teams decide they want something newer. Then, what do you do with it? Irving had to pay to tear down Texas Stadium, Atlanta the Georgia Dome and other cities are stuck with a paid-for facility that just sits there: St. Louis with the TWA whatever its called this week. Even if events happen, the facility never would have been built SOLELY for these events. Whenever you're accounting for an asset, if that asset has disposition costs, you have to include that in any rate of return calculation.

On a year-to-year level, it rarely makes sense for cities to invest and on a multi-year/life of the facility level it NEVER makes sense. Ironically, economists don't agree on much of anything but they do seem to agree that public financed sports arenas are all bad ideas.

With all that said, Chicago, while not necessarily an exception here, already had the Bears and a plan on the table to keep them.

---

Guess which part of the bolded would NEVER happen...

JFC...no one was turning that area where JerryWorld is into some deluxe area...it was central Arlington and semi-sketchy. There was no retail/commercial/industrial **** going anywhere in that area.

JerryWorld made that area better.

And I ****ING HATE Jerry...

---

In reality that stadium never should have been built based just on how Jerry got the city to steal people's property.


But outside of that, I wouldn't say the area is greatly improved.

• A bunch of local small businesses had to close because they couldn't afford the rent.
• The area around the stadium is a traffic nightmare (they dropped in the middle of a neighborhood).
• People (especially locals) avoid the area during events because its a real pain the ass to navigate.
• Property taxes on the remaining homes and businesses went up
• Lincoln Square still can't keep tenants
• Promised high paying jobs didn't materialize

All so Arlington residents could personally bore the brunt of the cost. The bonds came from 3 main sources. Hotel tax, Rental Car tax, and Sales Tax.

Although the hotel tax was the largest individual percentage, it didn't generate the bulk of the revenue. That came from sales tax and car rental tax which were largely paid by local residents. There aren't enough hotels in Arlington to generate a ton of tax revenue. And most of the car rentals in Arlington are rented by residents. If people are coming in for events, they are renting at the Airport not Arlington.


And what about increased revenue for local businesses? Think about where people stay for events. Where are the hubs for College Football games, the NBA All Star Game, Super Bowl, NFL games etc? It's Dallas and Fort Worth, not Arlington. Hell the entire FIFA WC Fan Fest and Local HQ is located in Fair Park, not Arlington



The Cowboys stadium is yet another data point that shows publicly financed stadiums rarely provide the promised ROI. That's not just my opinion either. There is a lot of research that confirms it as well.

Never forget that their use of eminent domain to steal people's property was so egregious, the state create the "Jerry Jones law", so use of eminent domain to take property for private use is now illegal.

Rather than trying to justify the economic value of a professional football franchise, it makes more sense to ask whether your enjoyment of your city is enhanced by having the team in town. If the pleasure of game day is worth the tax, vote for the stadium bonds.

I like to think of municipal government as a private club. I pay the dues because I like the amenities. A professional sports team is not an amenity that enhances my enjoyment of the city. Therefore, I vote against stadium bonds.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Rather than trying to justify the economic value of a professional football franchise, it makes more sense to ask whether your enjoyment of your city is enhanced by having the team in town. If the pleasure of game day is worth the tax, vote for the stadium bonds.

I like to think of municipal government as a private club. I pay the dues because I like the amenities. A professional sports team is not an amenity that enhances my enjoyment of the city. Therefore, I vote against stadium bonds.

---

Chicago is broke already but maybe they will cut spending now? Nahhhh

I love that the fans still have a team and liberal Chicago gets nothing.

nai06 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

But be smart for a second. Almost every NFL city throws in public money for a stadium. Not charity. The return is real. Tourism, hotels, restaurants, jobs, game days, property tax on a huge development. The math works.

---

Sorry, but this statement is just wrong in MOST cases. It may be true in this instance, but it isn't almost anywhere else. The fact is that the actual money that comes into the city through tax and other revenues is far less than it would be if the same area was developed for commercial and/or industrial purposes. In some cases, residential would suffice. FAR more jobs; FAR more commerce; and FAR better overall return on investment. There are only so many people that go to work each day at Cowboys Stadium and fewer at the AgBarn in the offseason. 250+ workdays for retail, commercial, and industrial spaces in that area would employ thousands -- and a large percentage at much higher wages.

It isn't just employment. As we're seeing in Dallas, city owned and financed sports arenas can end up being bad news 10, 15, 20 years later as teams decide they want something newer. Then, what do you do with it? Irving had to pay to tear down Texas Stadium, Atlanta the Georgia Dome and other cities are stuck with a paid-for facility that just sits there: St. Louis with the TWA whatever its called this week. Even if events happen, the facility never would have been built SOLELY for these events. Whenever you're accounting for an asset, if that asset has disposition costs, you have to include that in any rate of return calculation.

On a year-to-year level, it rarely makes sense for cities to invest and on a multi-year/life of the facility level it NEVER makes sense. Ironically, economists don't agree on much of anything but they do seem to agree that public financed sports arenas are all bad ideas.

With all that said, Chicago, while not necessarily an exception here, already had the Bears and a plan on the table to keep them.

---

Guess which part of the bolded would NEVER happen...

JFC...no one was turning that area where JerryWorld is into some deluxe area...it was central Arlington and semi-sketchy. There was no retail/commercial/industrial **** going anywhere in that area.

JerryWorld made that area better.

And I ****ING HATE Jerry...

---

In reality that stadium never should have been built based just on how Jerry got the city to steal people's property.


But outside of that, I wouldn't say the area is greatly improved.

• A bunch of local small businesses had to close because they couldn't afford the rent.
• The area around the stadium is a traffic nightmare (they dropped in the middle of a neighborhood).
• People (especially locals) avoid the area during events because its a real pain the ass to navigate.
• Property taxes on the remaining homes and businesses went up
• Lincoln Square still can't keep tenants
• Promised high paying jobs didn't materialize

All so Arlington residents could personally bore the brunt of the cost. The bonds came from 3 main sources. Hotel tax, Rental Car tax, and Sales Tax.

Although the hotel tax was the largest individual percentage, it didn't generate the bulk of the revenue. That came from sales tax and car rental tax which were largely paid by local residents. There aren't enough hotels in Arlington to generate a ton of tax revenue. And most of the car rentals in Arlington are rented by residents. If people are coming in for events, they are renting at the Airport not Arlington.


And what about increased revenue for local businesses? Think about where people stay for events. Where are the hubs for College Football games, the NBA All Star Game, Super Bowl, NFL games etc? It's Dallas and Fort Worth, not Arlington. Hell the entire FIFA WC Fan Fest and Local HQ is located in Fair Park, not Arlington



The Cowboys stadium is yet another data point that shows publicly financed stadiums rarely provide the promised ROI. That's not just my opinion either. There is a lot of research that confirms it as well.

---

I made no comment about the ROI.

I made no comment about the morality or legality of what was done to build the stadium.

I was only talking about whether the area was better now.


I lived in Arlington from 1988-1997 and then was in the metroplex until 2018.

That area was a ****hole before they started building the stadium. It's better than a ****hole now.

Now, I agree that everyone that lived there got ****ed. They were compensated for their properties at "market price", but not at the "market price" they would have gotten if the entire area was needed to be acquired for the stadium.

I won't comment much on the ROI, but I know that the properties there weren't paying **** in property taxes. That whole area was REALLY run down...it was basically Arlington's ghetto.

FWIW, every day when I went into and out of work, I could see Jerryworld being built. I was working in Hurst/FtW at the time.

And **** Jerry Jones.

They should have moved out when they halfassed the renovation of Solider Field a few years ago. It looked like a dumb six-year-old designed it.

Prosperdick said:

---

Quote:

---

You pay $6,285 a year in property taxes, double the $2,969 national average

---

They're idiots for sure but reading this sure stung. We're getting raped in Texas in property taxes.

---

but, but, but...housing is so affordable in Texas and there's no income tax.....

This is a fairly big topic of conversation locally, as I live in Indiana, but if I recall correctly when the Bears were in the early stages of looking into a new stadium they checked with the local government about how much they expected property taxes to be, and they answered somewhere in the $250M-300M/year range. Add the city controlling the vendors in the stadium and it is a high bar to profitability that just doesn't exist a few miles down the road.