Chargers rule! What a whupping. Battle on!
I sure enjoyed the Titans game.
One interesting aspect struck me in the U-T reader letters (“Voices”) on the game. There were six letters published. NONE were from San Diego city residents. BTW, all were from north of I-8, except perhaps the one from El Cajon.
The point is, a very large number of ticket-buying Charger fans are not San Diego residents. Almost all “out of towners” are “day trippers” — they drive down for the game, perhaps “tailgate,” and then return home. They do little for our city economy. None stay overnight.
Yet the Chargers are looking for San Diego city residents to pay big bucks to subsidize the new stadium proposed for downtown (admittedly a dormant project at best — at this point in time). Bad idea.
Let me be clear. Subsidizing pro sports makes little or no economic sense, and CERTAINLY fails the “social justice” test. I adamantly oppose such subsidies for millionaires.
But if we taxpayers are going to be duped into paying for a chunk of the new stadium, surely it should be a countywide subsidy.
Comments 9
While there are plenty of good arguments against using tax dollars to subsidize a new stadium for the Chargers, your small sample size and overly generalized statements do not support your arguments. While I agree with the sentiment that the entire county should vote and contribute if such a subsidy will be needed to keep the Chargers in San Diego, you can’t make such broad conclusions about what percentage of Charger fans reside in the city of San Diego or what impact that “day trippers” like me have on the economy of San Diego.
I’m sure MTS appreciated the money I paid to take the trolley to the game just as I am sure the vendors at the stadium appreciated me paying for over priced hot dogs, diet Pepsi’s and nachos. I’m sure the people who sold me those items appreciated having a job. I’m sure the businesses surrounding Petco Park and their employees also appreciating having the Padres around and I’m sure the City doesn’t mind the sales tax revenue either.
A discussion on social justice and the relative economic merits subsidizing pro sports should be based on the facts. Your article is lacking in facts and heavy in unsupported conclusions.
Author
Carl S., I LOVE the fact that you chide me for making statements not backed by facts (facts in my short commentary — NOT a research paper), and then you make a SERIES of statements not backed by fact — backed only by “I’m sure that . . . .”
I’m NOT sure that my comments required the rigorous proof you are claiming I must make to present my opinions. Certainly no such criteria restrained you!
I asserted that “The point is, a very large number of ticket-buying Charger fans are not San Diego residents.” Do you dispute that statement? Is it a conclusion based solely on the factoid I presented, or is it obvious in itself? What proof is necessary anyway?
That being said, I’ll play your game.
FACT: The city of San Diego has about 1.3 million people. The county of San Diego is 3.1 million people — hence 1.8 million live outside the city. Logically most of the people in the region attending the game are from outside San Diego. If you think otherwise, present your case.
FACT: On average, conservatives like football more than liberals.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/television/Conservatives-vs-liberals-Their-favorite-TV-shows.html
The City of San Diego has a comfortable Democrat plurality in voter registration, while outside the city our county voters are more Republican than Democrat. Thus it’s likely that more conservatives than liberals attend Chargers games, and they have a greater tendency to live outside the city. If you think otherwise, present your case.
It always amuses me that “conservatives” such as yourself get huffy when one threatens their pet subsidy — in this case, pro sports. The piddling amount of money you mention spending in San Diego at one of the few (8) regular season Charger games provides a laughably small amount income to the city, or to city residents.
BTW, I’ll go out on a limb with this conjecture — I suspect many stadium employees are not city residents, but I can’t prove it — maybe they ARE all city residents!
As to all that sales tax you are generating for the city — I’m not in the least impressed. Even if you were foolish enough to spend $100 on stuff at the stadium, the CITY gets only ONE PERCENT of that in sales tax — the rest goes elsewhere. So MAYBE you “donate” a BUCK a game to the city to subsidize your pastime. Big Whoop!
And while I’m delighted you ride the trolley, we subsidize your preferred mode of transportation BIG-time. If you paid your full “freight,” I bet you’d be paying likely 2-5 times more (including capital costs).
But thanks for playing “Justify Pro Sports Stadium Subsidies.”
Richard, I was going to chide you for giving the crony capitalists ammunition to propose a county-wide tax subsidy (as I live outside the City). As usual, I was not disappointed by the Gridiron welfare queens’ usual Keynesian arguments.
Hey! The stimulus worked for Obama, right?
Richard, did you even read anything that I wrote? Or were you so hot under the collar from taking things a little to personally to notice that I was largely agreeing with your conclusions? My point is that if you want to make a credible argument that people will pay evaluate on the merits, to do so on the facts and not based on a whatever letters the UT decides to publish on a given day.
You are right that I’m a conservative, but your assumption that I support subsidizing professional sports teams is amusing. When it costs $100 for just 1 single ticket and I have to pay $5.75 for a Diet Pepsi, something isn’t right.
I don’t think the Chargers should get a dime of taxpayer money without a vote and certainly not until the City truly straightens out the pension mess. And while were at it, I think the Chargers can do a lot more to help their argument by taking steps to lie the blackout.
I really get ticked off whenever there is a blackout, but not because I want to watch the game. The Chargers can easily lift the blackout:
http://blog.chs-law.com/2010/09/why-i-am-done-with-chargers-for-2010.html
If they want to help the locale economy, they can pay to lift the blackout so that the local businesses can benefit from increased patronage and give the tickets to local military personnel or some other worthy group or charity.
I have different complaints about the Padres and i don’t think Petco Park has turned out as well for the City as planned. I haven’t studied that particular issue closely so that is just my “gut” feeling, but I can tell you they’ve priced themselves out of my desire to attend on a regular basis.
Mr. Starrett,
Your Keynesian views are easily debunked, in about three minutes, with a modern explanation of Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs
There’s a little bit of “talking past each other” going on here. Maybe read what Mr. Starrett wrote, instead of assuming that he is a commie or something, simply because he disagrees on a point with — OMG! — Mr. Rider.
In Journalism, the rule is to ensure your headline fits the story. But, this is a blog, with a lot of opinion.
True, that “a very large number of ticket-buying Charger fans are not San Diego residents,” as Rider writes. Because, whether its 2/3, or 1/2, or only 1/3 or even 1/4, all those numbers are a “very large number.” In this case, the “leave it to the opinion of the reader” to decide what’s a large number approach is fine as a point of discussion.
Yet, whether the headline appears to say something different, may be the point. Rider’s follow up comment shows more “scientifically” how he got to the headline statement, fair enough.
Our only point here — as admins — is that you all agree on the essential, in that you oppose professional sports subsidies. Yet, the secondary discussion, whether the original assertion was adequately backed up, is simply a difference of opinion about messaging, not philosophy.
Just our thoughts.
Carry on.
(GL)
Carl S., glad to hear we are pretty much in agreement on the underlying issue of public subsidies. And, after all, that IS the core issue from a conservative/taxpayer viewpoint. Let’s together sing the conservative version of Kumbaya, and make up (if not kiss).
Our disagreement flared from two aspects:
1. You claimed I had not provided proof in my short commentary. True enough. It’s just my opinion, though my headline was unnecessarily definitive. Should have said “Most Charger fans are LIKELY not city residents,” which would be true, and not “require” proof. My bad.
2. You inferred that you were somehow helping our local economy and tax revenue with your game visits. You are, but “trivial” would grossly overstate the effect and value of such visits. Perhaps you had not thought that through.
Absent the taxpayer subsidies, your pittance WOULD be welcome — but such “donations” won’t even START to cover the present and future pro sports (and trolley) subsidies from taxpayers.
Your concern about your high ticket prices is a nonstarter. That’s a function of supply and demand, something the Chargers rightly can set, as can any business.
You choose to pay to go to games, I choose not to. To each his own.
If people stop buying the high-priced tickets, doubtless the Chargers will adjust downward their prices. But with current attendance, it seems to me they are making the right price decisions. Indeed, they are in the sweet spot — selling most but not all of the tickets.
As a pricing policy, that’s maximizing revenue. I fault the Chargers for their “rent seeking,” but not their pricing policies.
As to the blackout, the Chargers face a quandary. If it becomes apparent that the Chargers will buy up enough tickets to broadcast the games, then it’s likely that fewer people will choose to buy tickets.
After all, my view on my home big screen HD TV is better than anyone sitting in the stadium. One attends for the “experience” more than to “see the game.”
Arguably the Chargers SHOULD buy up the tickets, since we subsidize the stadiums. But the fools who draft these contracts don’t include such stipulations, so the Charger owners don’t do so (with rare exception).
“If people stop buying the high-priced tickets, doubtless the Chargers will adjust downward their prices.”
If you really want to see ticket prices fall, stop subsidizing the NFL. Everyone complains about players being overpaid but they vote for subsidies. If owners financed there own stadia, ticket prices would either (a) rise to the point where few people would buy or (b) the owners would look for additional revenue sources or find ways to cut costs.
“Food stamps and stadium subsidies” is the modern-day “Panem et Circenses”
It will be interesting to see how many last minute Charger tickets are sold for the Atlanta game, now that the blackout is in effect. Hopefully someone will post up that figure, if available.