Pros And Cons Of Public Funding A New Sports Arena

Disadvantages of Public Funding a New Sports Arena With all advantages, there are also disadvantages to any situation. Increasing economic growth with constructing a new NBA arena does not necessarily mean that it is beneficial for the city. Yes, it does create new job opportunities in the city for many individuals, but the vast majority of these jobs are temporary construction jobs, part-time jobs, or low income paying jobs on game days for the Levi’s Stadium in in Santa Clara (Avalos, 2014). According to Jolie Lee of the USA Today Network, approximately “121 professional sports facilities in use for all five major sports leagues required $43 billion in investments in new construction or major renovations in 2010” (Lee, 2013). Therefore,

By building a new arena, property values could possibly decrease on homes due to more traffic and noise. Neighborhoods could also have an increase of drunk driving from people drinking at the stadium. Another tactic the local government can exercise is the right of eminent domain in order to obtain the land needed for their construction. The Arlington City Council was moving forward on eminent domain proceedings against as many as nineteen properties needed to build a new Dallas stadium. City officials stated that they had to pay fair market value for the properties, and even offered incentives for those who moved out quickly or accepted the offers at the beginning. Having to force people out of their homes just so they can build a new arena is unjustifiable for these families (Joyner,

Hamilton County had borrowed $623 million in bonds and has had to refinance twice to stay afloat (Preston & Kuriloff, 2013). In 2013, the city of Sacramento had to debate whether the city should move forward with plans to subsidize the project of building the new downtown King’s arena. The city planned to only contribute $258 million towards the arena, and sell bonds to private investors to raise its share and then pay the investors back within 36 years. However, when the bond payments add up within the 36 years, the true financing cost is in the $700 million range (Bizjak, Kasler, & Lillis, 2013). The city government in Bridgeview is borrowing even more money after financial struggling from funding the Toyota Park stadium. According to Neil deMause, “the latest borrowing binge — $27 million — will put Bridgeview taxpayers at greater risk of funding an even bigger bailout of the village-owned stadium if it continues to flounder” (deMause & Cagan, 2008). In 2006, Bridgeview borrowed $100 million to construct the new stadium for the Chicago Fire team believing that it would pay off from stadium revenues; however, the lease stated that all revenues would go to the team. The city was only receiving revenue from concerts being held in the stadium because not all games are played at the arena. The income received from