1
[Seattle Times] 15 years after moving Sonics, now it’s the Thunder asking for publicly funded arena
(www.seattletimes.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
NBA - Main
14 readers
2 users here now
Game analysis, highlights and everything else that is happening in the NBA.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I will never understand why public funds should pay for >50% of the funds for a privately owned sports clubs arena
This is one of the biggest taxpayer rip-offs in the country. Under the guise of the limited jobs it creates. Study after study proves what a rip-off it is. New York taxpayers are about to foot 1 billion so the Bills can keep coming up short of expectations.
It's not a ripoff every study is done after the fact of a franchise being in the community for years. Its effects can't be measured on an economic basis because its business is limited to itself. Its value is based of a social and cultural aspect. When OKC was trying to get companies like Boeing, Amazon and other Tech companies in the medical field they were worried about coming there because they had nothing to attract youth and young people to move or come here. They were worried about Brain Drain( when Young college graduates leave an area). Since the Thunder have came in 2008 the amount of companies and population has increased to where OKC used to be in the top 40 in population to now where in the 20s. This study has been done by OKC Chamber of commerce and Oklahoma City their effect is a collateral effect and not a direct effect. There hasn't been a study of a city that hasn't had a franchise to getting one. One thing that is certain is that every place that has complained about paying for a new arena and lost a franchise always pays for a new one to get back another franchise facts.
The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce put out a study that promotes Oklahoma City? Okay. I can point to multiple studies by University of Michigan, Brookings Institute, and on and on that says the economic benefits are not realized. If you want to argue that it makes a city more appealing, maybe. However, when a team leaves people generally find something else to do. You are talking about a minuscule percentage of a population that fits into an arena. Just because people desire a sports franchise, like Baltimore bringing back football, doesn’t necessarily mean it equates to better economics. That can be tracked. And it has been shown to not economically benefit areas all that much.