CodeMonkey Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 all i know is that people can carp all they want about "taxpayer dollars", but to me, i want my "taxpayer dollars" used to solidify the bills future in buffalo. if one thinks the 80 million will be "wasted" "corporate welfare" whatever, i say forget about it! the tired argument about money to fix roads, education etc, doesnt matter. the politicians pi$$ away the money anyway, why not use some of it on a tangible project like a stadium upgrade? i say do it! A small percentage of people in Buffalo follow the Bills, or even football at all. A ridiculously small percentage of people in New York State are Bills fans or even give a **** about the Bills. Why should they fund Ralphs business venture? If it was only the county tax dollars you might be able to make a small case for what you are saying. State wide you are pissing into the wind. And it is, and will always be, my contention that Bills fans and only Bills fans should fund the team. And that includes any stadium renovations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 A small percentage of people in Buffalo follow the Bills, or even football at all. A ridiculously small percentage of people in New York State are Bills fans or even give a **** about the Bills. Why should they fund Ralphs business venture? If it was only the county tax dollars you might be able to make a small case for what you are saying. State wide you are pissing into the wind. And it is, and will always be, my contention that Bills fans and only Bills fans should fund the team. And that includes any stadium renovations. You are laboring under the misconception that tax payers pay for such handouts. In this case, bonds will be issued that will be payed for by fees and tax revenues generated by the investment. True taxpayers will guarantee the bonds should they fail but that has a less than 1% chance of happening. It's not like people would stop going to Bills games. Considering how taxpayers in Minnesota and San Diego are being held up for totally new stadiums, asking for a couple mil to renovate RWS is a total no-brainer, assuming you want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Governments are supposed to make investments just like any business. Drive around your town. 90% of the private development happened because government made some kind of investment in infrastructure or tax incentives. They do that because it pays off in the long run. Only Tea partiers don't get that. They want to go back to the 1700's. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 all i know is that people can carp all they want about "taxpayer dollars", but to me, i want my "taxpayer dollars" used to solidify the bills future in buffalo. if one thinks the 80 million will be "wasted" "corporate welfare" whatever, i say forget about it! the tired argument about money to fix roads, education etc, doesnt matter. the politicians pi$$ away the money anyway, why not use some of it on a tangible project like a stadium upgrade? i say do it! This is exactly how I feel. At least I'd see something good done with my taxpayer dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 You are laboring under the misconception that tax payers pay for such handouts. In this case, bonds will be issued that will be payed for by fees and tax revenues generated by the investment. True taxpayers will guarantee the bonds should they fail but that has a less than 1% chance of happening. It's not like people would stop going to Bills games. Considering how taxpayers in Minnesota and San Diego are being held up for totally new stadiums, asking for a couple mil to renovate RWS is a total no-brainer, assuming you want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Governments are supposed to make investments just like any business. Drive around your town. 90% of the private development happened because government made some kind of investment in infrastructure or tax incentives. They do that because it pays off in the long run. Only Tea partiers don't get that. They want to go back to the 1700's. PTR Of course taxpayers pay for such handouts. The renovation will be paid out of general revenue of the state. How will the renovation generate significantly more revenue by the Bills to cover the 100 million? Can they simply raise all of their prices? And if the Bills don't generate more tax revenue from the renovation, who will pay the difference? The Bills aren't moving, so that part of your argument is not persuasive. Also not persuasive is pointing out how other municipality's citizens are being are being "held up" for the costs of their stadiums, but how this project (100 million ="a coupe of mil") would pay for itself no problem. Other than "smaller government", I'm not sure what "tea partiers" want, but it is typical of those with your way of thinking that their specific interest should get a "handout" from the government which comes completely form the citizens of the state. Yes, plenty of "government investment" has helped private development. But study the COMIDA program in NYS and see how much money is wasted on companies that never deliver the jobs promised. Or, on a grander scale--witness the national embarrassment of the US government's "investment" in solar bust Solyndra (hey--it's only a couple of hundred million, right?). That's gonna pay off in the long run, huh? Like the electric car industry and it's subsidies. Some people think the market will support worthwhile investments and business ventures. Perhaps the County should just sell the "Ralph Wilson Stadium" to....Ralph Wilson. Hell, for a dollar. Then the taxpayers could walk away from any liability and only realize the tax revenue it generates. If Ralph thinks that there is extra money to be generated by a stadium upgrade, he will make that investment if he is an astute businessman. Same for the next owner. If Ralph doesn't see any financial advantage in renovating with his own giant mountain of cash, why should the state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) A small percentage of people in Buffalo follow the Bills, or even football at all. A ridiculously small percentage of people in New York State are Bills fans or even give a **** about the Bills. Why should they fund Ralphs business venture? If it was only the county tax dollars you might be able to make a small case for what you are saying. State wide you are pissing into the wind. And it is, and will always be, my contention that Bills fans and only Bills fans should fund the team. And that includes any stadium renovations. yea, i am pi$$ed that ny state taxpayers had to help fund citifield for the mets, you aware of that?? i dont give a sh-t about the ny mets!....On April 6, 2006, the Mets presented plans for their new, open-air ballpark to be built in the parking lot next to Shea Stadium. Several features, including a rotunda at the entrance, evoke memories of Ebbets Field. This was the intention of Mets owner Fred Wilpon, who was raised in Brooklyn when the Dodgers played there. The park features irregular outfield fences, elaborate steel bridgework and a cantilevered deck in right field. The total project costs are estimated at $600 million. The approximately $444.4 million ballpark will be financed by tax-exempt and taxable bonds to be issued by the city's Industrial Development Agency. The city will contribute approximately $85 million in fiscal 2006 capital budget funds for necessary infrastructure improvements and an additional $4.7 million in capital reserve for the new stadium. The state's Empire State Development Corporation will contribute $70 million for the construction of the infrastructure improvements and $4.7 million in capital reserve for the stadium from bond proceeds. The total infrastructure improvement costs are estimated at $177.2 million. The Mets will be responsible for the construction of the ballpark and related infrastructure improvements. A report by the Independent Budget Office, which was released on April 20, 2006, claimed that the ballpark would cost the city of New York approximately $177 million over forty years, and the state about $89 million during the same time. It also stated that the Mets would save close to $298 million from the use of tax-exempt bonds. ......so.. my point, WE ARE OWED!!!! Edited October 23, 2011 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) yea, i am pi$$ed that ny state taxpayers had to help fund citifield for the mets, you aware of that?? i dont give a sh-t about the ny mets! I agree completely! Everyone in NY should be pissed about that as well! I don't mean just the Bills stadium, all sports stadiums should be funded by the teams that get rich from them! Why should the billionaires and millionaires get bailed out by people barely making ends meet? It is insane. If I was to start a company in Buffalo that made widgets and would employ a couple thousand people and generate some corporate tax revenue, should I expect NYS to build me a building for my company then put 100 million into renovations to the building some years later? Of course not. Complete insanity. Edited October 23, 2011 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in Jax Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 If anybody wants to read a thought-provoking article about the impact of public stadium spending on local economies, try this: http://www.brookings...taxes_noll.aspx Although the article is almost 15 years old, I think it makes some interesting points. Calculate the boost that the Bills give to the economy in WNY, and I'd say it is well worth the county / state spending 100 M for upgrades. The state benefits on many levels by having the Bills here, and stadium upgrades are part of the cost of ownership for a NFL team. If you don't do it, you lose the team and the $ it brings your state. It is quite simple, really. No, it's really not quite simple. I'm guessing you did not read the article in the link above, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in Jax Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Considering how taxpayers in Minnesota and San Diego are being held up for totally new stadiums, asking for a couple mil to renovate RWS is a total no-brainer, assuming you want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Governments are supposed to make investments just like any business. Drive around your town. 90% of the private development happened because government made some kind of investment in infrastructure or tax incentives. They do that because it pays off in the long run. Only Tea partiers don't get that. They want to go back to the 1700's. Oh, ok...so YOU'RE bringing politics into this thread? I suppose you think we should continue to follow the failed liberal, left-wing policies that have left us (the US) on the brink of bankruptcy, created a class of worthless moochers, and allowed an unqualified, incompetent hack to occupy the office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? No thanks, I'll pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Oh, ok...so YOU'RE bringing politics into this thread? I suppose you think we should continue to follow the failed liberal, left-wing policies that have left us (the US) on the brink of bankruptcy, created a class of worthless moochers, and allowed an unqualified, incompetent hack to occupy the office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? No thanks, I'll pass. For a conservative, your avatar shows you really leaning to the left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 They raise taxes or float bonds. But several posters here are actually suggesting that the "20 million" the Bills pay the state per year would "pay off" the 100 million in 5 years. This, clearly, makes no sense at all. It should be obvious that in order to pay for a new outlay, the state either has to raise revenue (taxes, bonds) or cut outlays for other projects. Unless a new stadium or renovation results in new/increased tax revenue from the stadium, then the state can't recoup its investment. Pretty simple. It "makes no sense at all" that the $20M/year the state gets from the Bills in just taxes (which isn't the total economic impact to the state/region, BTW) would pay-off the $100M in renovations in about 5 years? Really? "Paid for" means just that. I can only assume you're thinking the state should make an additional $20M/year, which no one else is saying/expecting they will. It's called an investment for the future of the Bills in Buffalo. A small percentage of people in Buffalo follow the Bills, or even football at all. A ridiculously small percentage of people in New York State are Bills fans or even give a **** about the Bills. Why should they fund Ralphs business venture? If it was only the county tax dollars you might be able to make a small case for what you are saying. State wide you are pissing into the wind. And it is, and will always be, my contention that Bills fans and only Bills fans should fund the team. And that includes any stadium renovations. Bills games are among the highest-rated games for a market out of all NFL markets. Meaning more than a "small percentage" follow the Bills. And as was already stated, a much smaller percentage of people in NYS are Mets fans, yet they were all taxed for the Mets' new stadium. If that was allowed to happen, $100M for The Ralph shouldn't be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) It "makes no sense at all" that the $20M/year the state gets from the Bills in just taxes (which isn't the total economic impact to the state/region, BTW) would pay-off the $100M in renovations in about 5 years? Really? "Paid for" means just that. I can only assume you're thinking the state should make an additional $20M/year, which no one else is saying/expecting they will. It's called an investment for the future of the Bills in Buffalo. . Come on doc--you disappoint me. That 20 mil goes to the state till every year and it is already spent when it arrives. 100 mil for the stadium would be a new expense to the existing state budget. If the state doesn't get an increase in tax revenue from the Bills as a result of the renovation, how can they "pay for" it unless they cut their funding of something else by that amount? It's like asking NYS to take the (let's say) 10k I give them annually in taxes the next 5 years and use it to fund my 50k home renovation. Hey, I pay 10k a year in taxes, so it should "pay for itself" in 5 years, right? The Bills aren't leaving doc. The state is never going to break even on the Mets stadium either. Edited October 23, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Come on doc--you disappoint me. That 20 mil goes to the state till every year and it is already spent when it arrives. 100 mil for the stadium would be a new expense to the existing state budget. If the state doesn't get an increase in tax revenue from the Bills as a result of the renovation, how can they "pay for" it unless they cut their funding of something else by that amount? It's like asking NYS to take the (let's say) 10k I give them annually in taxes the next 5 years and use it to fund my 50k home renovation. Hey, I pay 10k a year in taxes, so it should "pay for itself" in 5 years, right? The Bills aren't leaving doc. The state is never going to break even on the Mets stadium either. Actually, with the new CBA mandating that teams spend 99% of the salary cap --- read: taxable earnings --- on a cap that has increased by $10-15M per year recently, it's not like the state's tax revenue from the Bills revenues have been/will be stuck at a standstill. You'd be hard-pressed to name many businesses that have seen the kind of growth the NFL has produced in the past 20 years. This isn't to be taken to be a ringing endorsement by me for corporate welfare, but if they're going to do this kind of thing for Company X, they should be expected to do it for Company Y. 'Course, I would prefer that they just lower taxes on these businesses and then make them fund their own capital improvements, instead of having to filter the money through the sticky hands of govt, but hey.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I don't see NYS as funding Ralphs business venture. I see NYS as a landlord and the Bills as a tenant. The tenant has certain needs to keep his business growing. If the landlord wants to keep a tenant in it's property then they have to upgrade it. This is a great example of why government should not be in business. They are in no negotiating position right now. The Bills can decide how much the landlord spends. The landlord can either pay it or end up with an empty property. A 70,000 seat stadium in the middle of nowhere is a bad real estate investment to be in if there is no tenant. I don't fault the Bills at all for this. In Capitalism the object is to keep growing. They've created a strong enough brand and following that puts them in a great business position. Local Governments across the USA on the other hand have put themselves in very bad negotiating position by getting involved in these type of projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Come on doc--you disappoint me. That 20 mil goes to the state till every year and it is already spent when it arrives. 100 mil for the stadium would be a new expense to the existing state budget. If the state doesn't get an increase in tax revenue from the Bills as a result of the renovation, how can they "pay for" it unless they cut their funding of something else by that amount? It's like asking NYS to take the (let's say) 10k I give them annually in taxes the next 5 years and use it to fund my 50k home renovation. Hey, I pay 10k a year in taxes, so it should "pay for itself" in 5 years, right? The Bills aren't leaving doc. The state is never going to break even on the Mets stadium either. Okay, let's say the money is already spent. What do they do if they no longer have that $20M/year? And as for where do they come up with the funding, they always seem to find it. If your home were the only one in NYS and it was generating money for the state, they'd probably do it. And as for the Bills not leaving, with LA looming, you can't say that anymore. There will be a team, at least, in LA. The questions are who and how soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Bills games are among the highest-rated games for a market out of all NFL markets. Meaning more than a "small percentage" follow the Bills. And as was already stated, a much smaller percentage of people in NYS are Mets fans, yet they were all taxed for the Mets' new stadium. If that was allowed to happen, $100M for The Ralph shouldn't be an issue. Come on Doc, you disappoint me. Do you seriously think a high percentage or NYS residents are Bills fans? Or give a **** about the Bills? I would bet less than half of the adults in the Greater Buffalo area would call themselves Bills fans, much less the entire state. As far as the Mets thing, read my post up above about that. Or to quote my Mom when I was about 5 ... "do two wrongs make a right?". I don't see NYS as funding Ralphs business venture. I see NYS as a landlord and the Bills as a tenant. The tenant has certain needs to keep his business growing. If the landlord wants to keep a tenant in it's property then they have to upgrade it. This is a great example of why government should not be in business. They are in no negotiating position right now. The Bills can decide how much the landlord spends. The landlord can either pay it or end up with an empty property. A 70,000 seat stadium in the middle of nowhere is a bad real estate investment to be in if there is no tenant. I don't fault the Bills at all for this. In Capitalism the object is to keep growing. They've created a strong enough brand and following that puts them in a great business position. Local Governments across the USA on the other hand have put themselves in very bad negotiating position by getting involved in these type of projects. I agree and I also do not blame the Bills. If the state was !@#$ing stupid enough to pay for my place of business I'd let them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Come on Doc, you disappoint me. Do you seriously think a high percentage or NYS residents are Bills fans? Or give a **** about the Bills? I would bet less than half of the adults in the Greater Buffalo area would call themselves Bills fans, much less the entire state. As far as the Mets thing, read my post up above about that. Or to quote my Mom when I was about 5 ... "do two wrongs make a right?". You disappoint me as well. You said "a small percentage of people in Buffalo follow the Bills," and that's what I was responding to. As for your bet, it's more nebulous than Collins' numbers for tax revenue generated by the Bills. The bottom line is that the state will have to help pay for stadium improvements, just like they did for the Mets and Yanks, because the corporations are good for commerce. It has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. I agree and I also do not blame the Bills. If the state was !@#$ing stupid enough to pay for my place of business I'd let them too. So WEO, does the state gives the place where you work any money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxelRipper Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 The real question is why doesn't the county sell the naming rights to the stadium? That alone should cover a good deal of the renovation cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) You disappoint me as well. You said "a small percentage of people in Buffalo follow the Bills," and that's what I was responding to. As for your bet, it's more nebulous than Collins' numbers for tax revenue generated by the Bills. The bottom line is that the state will have to help pay for stadium improvements, just like they did for the Mets and Yanks, because the corporations are good for commerce. It has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. So WEO, does the state gives the place where you work any money? The state HAS to pay for it? Wow. Anyway, as you can see, without generating extra tax revenue, it doesn't get "paid for". Can you show me that stadium in LA? And if thats what you want to call Medicaid reimbursement for services rendered, yeah, my hospital like yours (oops!, I mean like the ones near you) gets money from the state. Edited October 24, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 The state HAS to pay for it? Wow. Anyway, as you can see, without generating extra tax revenue, it doesn't get "paid for". Can you show me that stadium in LA? And if thats what you want to call Medicaid reimbursement for services rendered, yeah, my hospital like yours (oops!, I mean like the ones near you) gets money from the state. Yep, if they gave taxpayer money for the Mets and Yanks stadiums, they should have to do it for the Bills'. And again, sure it gets paid for. The difference is that the state has to allocate that $20M/year they get thanks to the Bills to paying-off the county-owned stadium improvements. Otherwise no improvements mean a strong possibility of no team and no $20M/year ever again. The stadium and team(s) in LA are coming, doc. If you don't want to accept that, that's your prerogative and says more about you than anyone else. And real zinger there with the "hospitals near me," doc. I'm SO broken up not being at one (anymore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Yep, if they gave taxpayer money for the Mets and Yanks stadiums, they should have to do it for the Bills'. And again, sure it gets paid for. The difference is that the state has to allocate that $20M/year they get thanks to the Bills to paying-off the county-owned stadium improvements. Otherwise no improvements mean a strong possibility of no team and no $20M/year ever again. The stadium and team(s) in LA are coming, doc. If you don't want to accept that, that's your prerogative and says more about you than anyone else. And real zinger there with the "hospitals near me," doc. I'm SO broken up not being at one (anymore). The state has to allocate the money they currently get for no renovations--and give it back to the Bills as free renovations?? Where does that money come out of? They take it away from who or what that it was already earmarked for? You can't answer this. The answer is that the state budget never gets smaller--only ever larger. Only increased taxes will cover this renovation. Why did you bring up the hospital then? To inadvertently point out how the hospital subsidizes the state by caring for some of it's citizens at below cost? How is that related to Mr. Wilson and his billion dollar private enterprise demanding another free stadium upgrade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts