<p>I am so annoyed to read that public officials in Georgia are set to approve a new billion-dollar stadium in Atlanta for the NFL team, the Falcons!</p>
<p>Hold on a minute! The Georgia Dome was built only 20 years ago! Isn’t there a recession going on? Don’t leaders in places like Georgia complain about using public money foolishly? I like football a lot, but I think it’s high time to end the backmail that U.S. professional sports teams employ to get tremendous public subsidies for their private ventures. As Professor Lapchick has studied and revealed, these stadium/arena deals RARELY provide any real tangible benefit to the local economy.</p>
<p>We’re going through a similar process in St. Louis right now. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but it has been interesting to read the articles. The Rams had actually scheduled 3 games in London over the next 3 years (giving up home games each season) and it was met with quite a bit of harsh criticism and math which showed how much money the St. Louis economy would lose for each of those games. Also, they are playing out scenarios for renovating the stadium and what economic effects that would have on local businesses, etc. The Edward Jones Dome (in STL) is used for much more than just the St. Louis Rams. Trade shows, NCAA basketball, high school and college football (some) and other things. </p>
<p>I understand the difficulty of approving these types of measures. I’m not sold on it either way. But I know in the Rams case, their lease says that if the Dome is not in the top 25% in the NFL by 2013 or 2015, then they can void their lease and leave. The Edward Jones Dome was built in the early 1990s so it’s about the same age as the Georgia Dome.</p>
<p>It works because they see what’s happened to LA. 18 years with no NFL because LA won’t use tax money for stadiums. When the last expansion happened, the NFL picked Houston because the money would come from tax payers and not private entities like in LA.</p>
<p>This sounds soooo familiar! Deja vu all over… I thought it already happened… Wait, it did! We blew the Kingdome here in Seattle! That was a lot of bang for the taxpayer buck, and not much more.</p>
<p>But I am not a fan of public assistance for private ventures, whether it is a stadium for highly paid professional athletes and billionaire team owners, or huge tax incentives to bring in corporations with their promises of creating jobs.</p>
<p>Here in Massachusetts, the Krafts built Gillette Stadium WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS. To pay for it all, they developed Patriot Place, a retail/dining/hotel/medical complex. I have no objections to this–they’re footing the fill for the stadium, they should be allowed to make a buck to pay for it.</p>
<p>Like the MA model, MADad. Sure wish other places would follow suit, but it’s easier to put it on the backs of taxpayers than trying to figure out a way to finance it as a private venture. HI generally makes everything public instead of private–initially, private interests said they’d make our convention center but no, our legislators decided we the public should fund it & have to keep adding more & more $$$ to it, as it’s greatly underutilized!</p>
<p>MADad beat me to it - I was just going to point out the Kraft family/New England Patriots built one of the nicest stadiums in the league and paid for it mostly themselves. The only help they got from the state was some road & infrastructure improvements for access to/from the stadium. A worthwhile investment, considering the tax revenue the state gets from ticket sales for football games, soccer games, concerts, and sales tax from the stores and restaurants they built along with the stadium - not to mention the payroll taxes from the many stadium and shopping center employees. </p>
<p>I have read that most publicly-financed stadiums never come close to paying for themselves. But the investment the state made in roads for Gillette Stadium wasn’t very big compared to what the Krafts spent to build the stadium.</p>
<p>Public funding for sports stadiums always makes me scratch my head. But, especially football stadiums. Consider that there are 16 or so games during the regular season, half of which are played at home, that leaves about 8 home games. Add in potential playoff games and you’ve got about a dozen. (don’t flame me, my numbers are probably wrong)</p>
<p>I know they can use the stadium for other things - concerts, maybe college/highschool games, etc…but I just never understood how this can pay for itself or justify public spending.</p>
<p>The public financing issue shows just how lousy these owners can be. I’m somewhat surprised that Arthur Blank - of Home Depot - who I assume still controls the Falcons wouldn’t see the opportunity in owning a stadium. The Krafts have made a fortune because:</p>
<ul>
<li>they have an NFL team, which means they have a predictable revenue stream of some $100+M a year.
<ul>
<li>they own all the space, which they rent and promote and use for deductible charity operations. </li>
</ul></li>
<li>they built retail next door. Patriot Place is an outdoor mall next to the stadium and draws in part because it is next to the stadium. A tenant, for example, is the CBS Experience, a big restaurant that’s only there because the NFL is there. </li>
<li>because they have the space, they built the typical “hall of fame” into an attraction they can promote. It draws people unlike most team halls. </li>
</ul>
<p>Sad thing is stadiums get outdated and then become albatrosses because the private companies don’t own them. They have no incentive to do anything but seek a new stadium each time a facility ages. As another example, contrast the Red Sox: they wanted a new stadium for generations until the current ownership realized promoting the ballpark was a better way of making money. They’ve worked with the city to turn the area around Fenway into a pedestrian mall on game days - closed off a street, brought in vendors - and they’ve made the old place shine because they make money from owning it. </p>
<p>So my comment is: tell the owners they’d do better owning instead of renting and get the local authorities to work with the owners to enhance the upside. Maybe that’s access to more land. Maybe that’s some infrastructure. This makes more for everyone and stops the cycle of stadium building and decline.</p>
<h1>1 reason for $ being spent for The GA Dome is safety for those attending events. Anyone who was there when the 2008 March 14tornado blew off the roof? The whole dome shook with bolts and washers falling from the roof, a big chunk of the upper level wall torn loose and all the catwalks and scoreboards were moved.</h1>
<p>[edit]Major weather-related issues
Three years after the completion of the dome, the integrity of its roof became an issue. During a Falcons pre-season game in August 1995, a severe rainstorm caused water to pool up on the fabric, tearing part of the material and causing a section of the roof to fall into the stadium. The storm was intense enough that the roof panels could be seen moving during the game, and the water and roof material later fell with enough force to smash seats in the upper decks and knock holes in concrete floors. Fortunately, no one was injured during the incident, because the collapse occurred after fans left the stadium. The roof was eventually repaired in a way that prevented similar incidents from occurring in the future.[11][12]
In the<em>2008 Atlanta tornado outbreak</em>on March 14, 2008, during the<em>2008 SEC Men’s Basketball Tournament, a tornado ripped two holes in the dome during the</em>Alabama–Mississippi State<em>quarterfinal game, which delayed the game for one hour and three minutes. The quarterfinal game to follow between the</em>Kentucky Wildcats<em>and</em>Georgia Bulldogs<em>was postponed to the following day.[12]</em>The resulting damage forced the rest of the tournament to be moved to the<em>Alexander Memorial Coliseum</em>at*Georgia Tech.[13]</p>