December 28, 2004
Taxing questions
If you ever wonder why it's so hard to get a solid figure for sports stadium subsidies - I've started resorting to saying, "$2 billion a year nationwide, give or take a billion" - just consider this news item: The San Francisco Giants have asked that their privately-owned stadium, SBC Park, be reassessed for property-tax purposes, so as to reduce the team's annual tax bill. Giants execs argue (correctly) that stadiums tend to have a short shelf life, so should be considered to depreciate quickly; critics argue (correctly) that with San Francisco real estate prices soaring, it's hard to imagine that a popular (and lucrative) tourist attraction is hemorrhaging value; I'd add (correctly) that the short shelf life of stadiums is more a matter of politics (i.e., team owners keep demanding new ones) than engineering or economics. So if the Giants get their tax break, is that a subsidy? Or would keeping the higher tax rate be unfair to the team? If you think you know, contact these guys.
A less difficult case is the one unfolding in Tampa, where the Tampa Bay Lightning just got a $632,000-a-year gift from the city, in the form of a full property-tax exemption on the St. Pete Times Forum, where the team plays. (In exchange, the Lightning promised to stay in Tampa for at least the next ten years, though the only penalty for leaving would be having to repay the lost tax revenue.) Already, according to the eponymous St. Pete Times, Tampa is facing demands from other local business owners for their own tax breaks, while the Tampa Yankees are expected to exercise a lease provision that lets them renegotiate their tax status if another local franchise gets a better deal. Hey, but at least Tampa Bay hockey fans can be assured of getting to see their favorite players take the ice - oh, wait.
Posted by: rone at December 31, 2004 01:39 PM
