So, we should have voted for the referendum because its defeat hurt the Rockets' feelings? We've injured the pride of a corporate entity? Now I feel guilty about buying my Honda. That must have really hurt General Motors' feelings. How about this: let's agree, as Rocket fans, that we want the team to stay. And let's also agree that we are not a monolithic entity that lacks the ability to act independently. I thought the referendum was a crock of ****, and I'm glad it lost. Not to say that I wouldn't support a revised version of it-- just that my loyalty as a Rocket fan doesn't mean I have to support referenda with which I do not agree.
Brian what was it about the propasal that you didnt like? I live in Australia so all I know about it was the Rockets wanted a new stadium and didnt get it.I thought that if any team would get the nod for a new stadium it would be the Rockets so there must have been something really wrong with there proposal. ------------------ Your Starting Power Forward for the Clutch City Allstars
Corporate welfare to the extremely rich makes me nauseous. Corporate sports has gotten out of control. Look at the Staples Center: Lakers tickets are ridiculously overpriced, and crowd out the average fan. To be honest, I'm becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the NBA... it seems to me to be little more than a private club of millionaire exploiting the nation's love of the game for their personal benefits.
Whew! Now I know how General Custer felt... Let me take these one at a time. Rocketman 95 Well, be that as it may, I'm sticking to my guns. I am still young enough to believe that idealism is a blessing rather than a curse, and I also believe that there are a lot of people out there who agree with me. I also think that had the referendum's opposition couched the debate in the terms I'm advocating, the damned thing would have passed by a 95% majority. Well, like I said, I am concerned more with the added costs that taxation causes. I'm not saying businesses can blow Houston off-- I'm saying that everything counts in small amounts. Those added costs get passed down to the individual in the end. Hey, I'm not here to debate human nature. I never said Les should proactively take MY side. That would be dumber than Ricky Williams' contract. Instead, I'm advocating a shift in our priorities. We're the majority here. It's time we used our clout for something other than acquiescing to the wishes of a billionaire. Shanna That wasn't the point. The point is that you're asking me, "Why would you ask Les to accept a belief system he can easily worm his way out of?" I equated that with asking a bigot to stop hating. Heck no, he's not likely to. But that doesn't make his position right. Just because Les can get New Orleans to give him whatever he wants doesn't mean that I should abandon my belief that public financing of essentially private sports arenas is stupid, and that we have the power as voters to end the practice. Right, but I'm arguing that we can have our cake and eat it, too. I honestly believe that. We can have a sports team we love and follow, and we can put the onus of building arenas on those that are going to reap the tangible profits from it: the owners. Side issue. Irrelevant. My views on corporate welfare are largely the same, so I'm not trying to reconcile a contradictory position as you're implying. (ADDED IN)Also, that's completely the opposite. That money-- corporate taxes-- belongs to Dell. To say that you pay for Dell because Austin doesn't tax them as heavily as Houston might is absurd. You're treating Dell's money as the government's-- as though governments have a pre-emptive claim to what we earn and what we build. Wrong! That's not how it works. Lowering taxes to entice a corporate entity to relocate is not the same thing as levying new taxes or raising them to entice the company to stay. Right, and he's asking us to pay for a new facility to help him increase that profit, to no tangible benefit for us. It is a double-standard. The main arguments I'm seeing here are largely emotional in regard to the Rockets-- "I love them, root for them, don't want them to leave". Well, how much is love worth? Can we arrange a straight-up trade of X amount of public financing for Y amount of thrills and excitement? Les is saying, "Give me financially tangible assets and my basketball team will provide intangible entertainment to you". Double standard. We will never agree on this point, because I consider the entire issue (public financing) to be immoral. There are a lot of things the government should be doing (and a lot more it SHOULDN'T), and helping a pro basketball franchise increase its profits is way, way, way down the list. I've never said otherwise. But business savvy and moral behavior aren't always close bedfellows. Lobo OK, let's be pragmatic. Explain to me how we arrived at a situation where we allowed the government to be used as a tool to help a basketball team make more money. I've explained my reasons for this. Yes, it is idealistic, and it is revolutionary, and most people prefer the status quo. I'm not changing my position. LOL!!! Oh my God, that is hilarious! Governmental financing of private enterprise is referred to as "capitalism"? Are you joking here too? I don't begrudge Les his profit-seeking or his pursuit of financial security. I do, however, begrudge him the right to enhance his ability to pursue those things by manipulating the government to help the poor billionaire out. Jeff I stand corrected. Well, I'm not campaigning against it. I am, in the interest of stimulating intelligent discussion on this BBS, outlining the reasons I personally do not support this practice. The basic description of the process of publicly funding sports arenas sounds so slam-bang simple-- "Soak tourists and travelers, build a new palace, guarantee the Rockets stay!"-- that I feel a explanation of my opposition is critical. The debate is often simplified to the point that it wouldn't seem to make sense to take one side or the other. And maybe it doesn't. But I'm not giving up my position. Right, but again, I don't see any inconsistency in wanting the Rockets to be successful and also wanting them (along with the rest of the professional franchises in America) to get their damned hands out of our pockets. I don't want Rudy to teach Kenny Thomas to kick up his leg on layups, or throw elbows when rebounding like a certain SOB power forward we all despise. That doesn't mean Thomas will never do it. It just means I think that behavior is wrong, and I hope it can be avoided. Likewise, I don't want the University of Texas to win the national championship next year by recruiting Lawrence Philips and then giving him Andy Katzenmoyer's schedule and OJ Simpson's lawyers. I'm not naive, but I am idealistic. There's a fine line. ******** Whew! My fingers hurt. Thanks to all who have responded. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited January 20, 2000).]
Good response Kagy. When people have intelligent beliefs, no matter where they stand in relation to mine, I can respect it. One point though. "Right, and he's asking us to pay for a new facility to help him increase that profit, to no tangible benefit for us." No fans, save for possibly some Green Bay fans (I'm pretty sure Indians and Celtic shareholders did not make a profit), actually receive tangible benefits from their sports teams outside of the free stickers they may receive upon entering the arena. When it comes to sports, I want the intangibles. I want a team that I can be proud of, championship or no championship. If they leave, the intangible benefits are no more as well. Thanks Jeff. I was pretty sure that the election was just to allocate funds already in place for this arena. Am I right when I believe that the money can only be used by the Sports Authority, whose main job is building and maintaining sports arenas in Harris County? If that is true, Brian, would you at least agree, despite your feelings on why the taxes are there, that the referendum should have been passed? And hey, O.J.'s lawyers were just doing their jobs, and they did it well. Leave 'em alone. [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited January 20, 2000).]
A very interesting thread. My humble opinion: The arena referendum deal was the best deal the city would have gotten. The city of Houston will be bent over a rail and will get it where the sun don't shine for the next one, it will come with a "build-it-or-we're-leaving" tagline, and because of that, it will pass. My extra humble opinion: Professional sports are fiscally out of control, yet nothing will happen to reform professional sports until people like us stop supporting professional sports teams. Pro sports franchises have turned into bionic money trees, and we fans are the fertilizer. What do we do? I wish I had a clue. ------------------ Bring It!!
Brian, The assumption that Houstonians will be forced to pay indirectly through the taxes levied upon those businesses and companies that choose to visit Houston is dubious at best. This tax, to my recollection, has been in existance for a few years now. Any increase in prices as a result of this tax must have been already instituted to 'make up' for the increased costs to these visiting companies. Thus, as a Houstonian, you've experienced these higher prices for some time now. Since this was merely a proposed continuation of an existing tax that failed, I assume this tax has been abolished. Thus, under your logic, the companies that experienced this increased cost by visiting our city no longer have a reason to increase prices to cover this cost. My question is: Have you seen a noticable decline in prices attributable to this reduced cost? I thought not. Once a company has an excuse to raise prices (and consumers have adjusted to such a price increase) do you think those companies will lower prices in response to lower costs. The only reason I'd see to do so is in the face of competition. Yet, this tax was inconsequential to those visiting. How often do you look at the bottom of every receipt or invoice you receive to check that the correct tax amount has been applied? Especially in cities that you've visited? I'd wager that maybe 1 out of 100 visitors to Houston actually knew about or had the time or inclination to investigate this tax. Those companies that actually knew about this tax most likely wrote it off on their own state income tax returns. So, the actual cost to these companies was minimal.
The true solution is for the teams to be publicly owned. In the NFL, the Green Bay Packers are publicly owned. Here's some benefits: 1. The team is never going to leave. 2. Public decides team decisions with votes 3. Stronger fan support: sold out games 4. No nutcase owner standing at the sidelines making wielding his authority 5. Loss for the team is truly a loss for the city - same goes for wins 6. Sales of team-related material means profits for the city The bad news is that 1. NBA teams are already established with private owners 2. Commissioner probably won't approve such teams The only way to reach that goal would be to create a whole new league. cman
Just have two things to say.... First....Brian K. Your views make a lot of sense, but don't ya think your being a little idealistic? We live in a capitalistic society and the one with the most capital...wins. That's the bottom line...like it or not. Either the people in Houston pony up some dough or some other city will and you'll be watching Baywatch reruns instead of RocketBall. Second...Rocketman95. Would you have said the same thing if Johnny Cochrane and his merry bunch of jackasses had defended one of the suspects in the James Byrd dragging death and gotten them off??? Think about it.....
Driver 8 I'm not sure what to make of the following two quotes: So, it's dubious to think that the tax trickled down, but we've also experienced the higher prices for some time now? Which is it? Wrong. This was a proposal to divert the collected taxes from one stadium fund to another. It had nothing to do with whether or not the tax remained in existence. So it's "shut up, peon, and pay your taxes. You won't see any benefit if we eliminate them anyway"....? No, I don't think those companies will cut their prices. Their profits, though, will rise if their tax burden was cut, and this will result in a larger dividend for their stockholders. We could debate the positive results that occur when investors end up with more money in their hands, but we're getting off topic. The fact is simple. We pay for increases in corporate taxation. The issue is different. I thought we were debating the efficacy of public funding of arenas for privately-held franchises. First off, when I travel on business, I am not the one who analyzes the cost of the trip. The company pays for the whole thing. I could care less what it costs-- but I bet there's someone in finance who'd care if suddenly, it became more expensive to jet me to different locations. Second, what evidence do you have that this type of expenditure is eligible for a tax write-off? Moon Dogg C'mon, son, snap out of it. I said at least three times in my previous post I was being idealistic. I consider that to be something akin to a badge of honor. As for Baywatch, the only things I watch on TV are: sports, news, weather, and the Simpsons.
MoonDogg, Yes. Every person, no matter how guilty we perceive them to be, is entitled to the best defense afforded to them. If we just decide to throw those who we "know" are guilty in prison without trial, or fair representation, it won't be long until anyone even remotely suspected of a crime will be thrown in prison. It's not Cochran's fault that the L.A. county prosecuters were a bunch of bumbling idiots. But that's a topic for another time and place. Kagy, I respect your idealism. And I would normally agree with you. However, this is something that people actually receive pleasure from. Other corporate welfare cases usually just line the pockets of the board of directors and upper management while no one else benefits. At least in sports, people who care can benefit one way or another. DaDakota, if intelligent debating is boring to you, don't read! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited January 20, 2000).]
BK, et al ... I have read and attempted to understand everyone's point of view on this but still would like to make a couple of observations or reassertations: 1. Everything in our lives is a compromise. In this "pay taxes to support a private entrepeneur's venture" instance, the downside is ... it appears I am paying public funds to a private enity. As I pointed out in my posting above, that happens everyday. I may not like it. My compromise is: Frankly, I would rather pay Les than most of the multi-nationals who divert their national income (paid by smucks like me) to tax deferred shelters and then subplant their expanding workforce to foreign soil. Les at least spends his money not only in this country,but a great deal in this part of Texas and a majority in the Houston area. And when he does spend his money it directly impacts on my entertainment and enjoyment. That is my compromise. I prefer to have his company benefit from the public funds, than another firm that I know will not guarantee to stick around when we give them concessions. Example: Compaq. Millions and millions of dollars in public concessions over the last seven years, given locally and statewide. Then they lay-off substantial jobs locally. Stop buying locally. They diverse their plastics and pre manufactured goods overseas. 2. In a capitalist society the law of supply and demand prevails. Always. It establishes the price and drives the market. I do not have to agree with Les's good fortune, or Steinbrenner's opportunities or Bud Adams abrasive public image. But, if I want to demand their products, then I must accept the price. If I became convinced that Nike harshly exploited workers, regardless of where in the world, then to appease my own convictions I would abruptly stop using their products. If every company making footwear treated their employees harshly then I would have to either stop wearing footwear or re-think my convictions. The two cannot co-exist in a conscentious capitalist ... consumer-oriented ... society without some compromise. 3. If I am a taxpayer who does not watch Houston Basketball or be entertained in any of the city's "hot attractions"(including the new baseball and football venues) and therefore do not want to pay taxes to support the referendum, I need not worry. The taxes were not going to be paid by me anyway. Only by visitors to the city, car renters, hotel guests, etc... 4. If I am a sports supporter who enjoys calling myself a Rockets Fan and I do not live in the immediate area, I do not pay for the arena. Don't worry the public coffers will be opened for another new venture somewhere in your city. Maybe a National Belly Button Lint Inc. factory, employing sixteen locals and two hundred others who they bus in from lower Slobovia County. Your taxes will pay their wages, their utilities, roads, etc.... for several years. And when they get behind in the marketplace, or a competitor invents a synthetic belly button lint collector, the factory will move to Mexico due to "labor shortages". 5.If I do live in the area,and I am a big Rockets Fan, I pay the price through taxes only if I go outside and use the above mentioned rent-a-cars, hotels, etc.... In short, I guess I am saying that: (a) Les is the lesser (no pun intended) of two (or more) evils, because he guaranteed to stay for thirty years, provides an entertaining (that is not wholly distastful) product, offers a great deal to the community in charity as well as employment support, and is in part anyway, the legal partner of what the Federal Government recognizes as a "unique public affliated" business relationship. A sports franchise. (b) The proposed referendum was fair to the public if compared to the previous established agreements both here and elswhere for sports franchises. (c) The city of Houston, will eventually either lose this franchise, or have to pay a much higher price in a less than fair agreement in the future. That just may reflect what the naysayers feel .... another gouging, self-important private businessman who is getting too much public funds through taxes. Well, too bad. If I were Les and in his business and knew the value of my franchise, the demand that it brought, the prevailing price that could be charged .... Houston would pay twice or three times as much as they turned down last fall. And I'd laugh all the way to the bank. As far as I would be concerned, again if I was Les Alexander, you had your chance, now I can be that big bad guy you were painting me as ... [This message has been edited by popeye (edited January 20, 2000).]
If the posts are too long winded, don't read the thread. Pretty simple. OK, maybe new taxes would be imposed for the stadium, but money would be diverted from other areas. But that money does have other purposes, and when I was living there, Houston couldn't get a bond measure passed to fix dilapidated schools. This says a lot of public priorities. I am not saying the referendum trades dollar-for-dollar education funds for sports entertainment funds, but there is only a finite amount of funds the public will allow the government to collect (especially in Texas). Using public money to support a few persons entertainment whims has its costs, this is self-evident. As for the it is only "competition" line, that is totally bs. The problem is that American professional sports isn't governed by competition. In fact there are specific laws (both government laws--after all this is a democracy and we can change these, and rules set up by the fat cat owners that limit community ownership) specifically designed to concentrate power in the few. These laws and rules limit competition in these industries and create monopolies or close to it. The Austrilian fellow discusses what can happen if you let communities own (or part own) teams, it takes power away from the Les types because they want to work with other Les types. (Note: After GB, the NFL no longer allows such community ownership). Basically, in any other line of business they couldn't get away with this one second, but WE ALLOW (some talk as if we don't have this power) professional sports leagues do it for some reason. I might add that some cities have started to catch on, and the “idealism”/”reality” disparity may not be as far apart as implied in this thread. LA wouldn't take the NFL's bull and the NFL is dumbfounded about it, Phoenix threw out there politicians who gave them bad sports deals, and SF has mainly privately funded new arenas for their teams. Again, after all, we live in a democracy, it is not like the owners hold all the cards, even if it looks like that for the time being. I don’t want the Rockets leave (even though I am not in Texas at the moment), but my personal opinion is there are more important priorities at stake (yet I am am carzy sports fan too). I would like to add when I was in Houston I didn’t support the new baseball area nor would have Butt’s proposal. And Drayton sure has returned the favor in sending off Hampton and Everitt. Also, I didn’t like it when the Oilers left either, but how much did it really effect my daily life when they left, not much.
Argue how ever you want, but please don't refer to Pro sports franchises as "just doing business". In my line of business, you have to justify a capital expense in simple economic terms - its either economical or its not. (Yes, there are other considerations like safety, environment, community development etc, but ultimately, its going to be economics). Some of the things we do in the business world if a project is not economic are:- a) Reduce the capital expense b) Reduce operating expense. Obviously, to remain competitive in todays NBA, owners must have modern arenas and those arenas must be partially funded by the public. If all the owners were placed on equal footing and they had to fund arenas entirely themselves, what do you think would happen? They would either settle for less return on their investment or they would reduce operating costs, ie PLAYERS SALARIES. Currently, player salaries are held artificially high by Cities' willingness to partially build the arenas they play in. It is not a true business. Reality is that there are many cities that want NBA teams and hence willing to pay a price for it. Is it right that they use the public's money for it? I don't know and I'm not going to debate it, but thats the issue that Kagy feels so strongly about. The argument for both sides is fair enough, but the bottom line is, right or wrong, you have to vote yes and give the Franchise what it wants, or the team leaves. For all the idealists out there, sure you can use this case to make a statement, and really show the NBA that they can't bully cities around, but I just don't buy that - The City of Houston will be the big loser and it will cost twice as much to get a team back.(See NFL). The fact that Houston voted YES to a new baseball arena, a sport which: - has no salary cap - pays LUDICROUS salaries to players - basically the richest team wins, makes it even more of a slap in the face to Les Alexander that this one was voted down. Les has a history of chasing free agents and doing what it takes to win championships. Drayton rewards Houston Voters by trading Hampton away! The injustice of it all.
Being idealistic is fantastic. However it is awfully hard to be idealistic instead of being realistic. Idealistically: There is no need for government anymore. Humans live together in completely peaceful anarchy. Realistically: Society is not "All-for-one, one-for-all." We just can't trust each other that much. Therefore government is necessary to govern the people and to create/enforce laws and regulations, etc. Idealistically: Les says, "Gee, my Houston Rockets need a new house. Where's my checkbook?" And by golly we are all just happier than pigs in **** with our beloved Rockets until the sun goes supernova and melts the planet, at which point it wouldn't matter much anymore anyway. Realistically: Les says, "Gee, my Houston Rockets need a new house. What is the best way of getting one?" Here is where the business begins: The Houston Rockets need a new house. Surely the city of Houston will help pay for their beloved Houston Rockets. After all, they are the Houston Rockets, not the Les Alexander Rockets. As so many of you stated, Les would be a fool not to accept the better offer, even if it means moving the team. My point in all of this is that yes, idealistically the owners should pay for any new stadiums they might want. Realistically, that will NEVER happen, and if a city wants to keep a team to represent them, to give them hope and pride, that city has to fork over some dollars. We might pay for tickets, merchandising, etc. but if we want the Rockets to stay, we've got to be willing to spend something extra. We must weigh what is ideal with what is real. It would be great if everyone owned electric cars and there was no more pollution, but at this point in our history, much like team owners paying for their own facilities, that just won't happen. ------------------ Proud Cheerleader 'til we move to New Orleans 302
If I could add my two cents: Bob Lanier was quoted to saying to Les after he lost: "Well Les, it's like that Brer rabbit tale where he keeps asking not to be thrown into the briar patch only to get what he really wants." Translation: Les is in a great position to get MUCH MORE for the new referendum than the previous one that was voted down. Naysayers: Like the rules or not as far as franchises go, this plan was fair and reasonable when compared to other cities efforts for their respective teams. Also-I live in Houston. I park downtown where the stadium was to be built. It is free to park on the streets there, so I pay nothing-and there is nothing there either except parking lots, which doesn't say much for civic development downtown. Point is I voted for the referendum and swayed others to vote for it, as well. And I've reasoned it would have cost me an additional $1200.00 a year if this suceeded out of my pocket alone, just in parking fees. But again, I chose to vote for the proposal simply because it was fair. I also feel that, believe it or not, voting proposals down has never lowered taxes--ever. We spend roughly the same amount every year on taxes regardless of what passes or fails. My point is I would much rather have my taxes go to something that will give me pride in my downtown community, than in something that is going to pay for the construction of highways or roads or something I won't notice or see. The sad fact is this: When Houstonians have a chance to do something to improve the area and progress towards the future, we balk. And I can't understand it. When we try to pinch a few pennys to make a point, we are nothing more than a regressive city. And I, as a Houstonian, do not understand how my brethren and neighbors can hold on to such a fatal vision. Think this way the next time you go to the voting booths, please naysayers. If it is a fair deal IN RELATION TO ITS PEERS I am first a Houstonian, a Texan Second, a United States Citizen third--and I choose to spend my tax-dollars accordingly. Thanks to all who read this.
This has been interesting reading and I'm glad to see the ones with principles. I don't think it matters. The Rockets are gone when the lease is up. Les would be a fool to say so now, and kill what attendence he has. Stern said he will have the league votes to move when the contract is up. Why would he pay to stay in Houston when another city will pay him to be there. The only player that has strong ties to Houston is Hakeem and he will be retired. The only way Les stays is if the city pays and builds the arena and says here its yours to use, and if you just read the above post that won't happen. Thats why I say the Rockets are history in Houston..
Brian, I'm not going to argue tax law, finance or economics with you, but I'd like to conclude my point (and start talking Rockets basketball as I am still glowing over five straight). My understanding was that this referendum extended the existing flow-through tax (like sales tax, where the company charging it simply remits the entire amount collected) on rental cars and hotels that was originally imposed for construction of the new stadium. My second assumption was that if this referendum failed, this tax would stop being collected by these vendors, as the original period for the collection of this tax had expired. If these assumptions are wrong, let me know. If not, then this tax was merely a continuation of a tax already in existance, paid by very few Houstonians. As it was, it created about the smallest tax burden upon the average Houstonian that could be expected. What better way to publicly finance a corporate boondoggle than to let out-of-staters pay for it. Especially if they're other corporations! Next, states routinely allow companies to deduct the sales tax paid to other jurisdictions. The Multistate Tax Compact, adopted by California for example (as California Revenue and Taxation Code section 38006), states the following: "Article V. Elements of Sales and Use Tax Laws. Tax Credit. 1. Each purchaser liable for a use tax on tangible personal property shall be entitled to full credit for the combined amount or amounts of legally imposed sales or use taxes paid by him with respect to the same property to another State and any subdivision thereof. The credit shall be applied first against the amount of any use tax due the State, and any unused portion of the credit shall then be applied against the amount of any use tax due a subdivision." I didn't want to have to get all legal on you, but since you required evidence, here it is. Feel free to look it up at a law library. Or simply take my word that I'm not making this up; it's my job, I'm a tax consultant. My main point is this: as a realist, I already assume that the city of Houston will be forced to pay for a portion (if not all) of a new arena to keep the Rockets in Houston. ASSUMING this (whether or not this assumption is valid is another point, but bear with me), I'd like to see as little actual Houstonian tax dollars contributed toward the project. I think taxing visitors to the city is a great way to acheive this goal. There may be better methods out there, but I didn't hear any from the opposition. All I heard was how bad this tax was for Houston. Typical destructive mentality. Attack without proposing a solution. Finally, again ASSUMING that the Rockets demand a new arena, I believe Houston lost its golden opportunity to keep my beloved team in its city with the minimum pain incurred. I'll wager that the next financing proposition presented to the citizens of Houston (if Houston even gets the chance) hits harder in the pocketbook than the last referendum. Undoubtedly the opposition will attack such a proposal as another corporate financing boondoggle (as it plainly is) without propsing any sort of solution to keep the Rockets in town. The only difference is that if I were in Houston, I'd probably vote it down too. I don't want to pay for Les' palace anymore than the next guy. [This message has been edited by driver8 (edited January 21, 2000).] [This message has been edited by driver8 (edited January 21, 2000).]
PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND NO TAXES WERE GOING TO BE RAISED! IT WAS EXISTING TAXES AND FROM WHAT I UDNERSTAND THE SPORTS AUTHORITY HAS THE MONEY ALREADY. THE MONEY CAN BE USED FOR NOTHING ELSE BESDIES SPORST RELATED STUFF, SO NOW THE MONEY IS JUST BEING WASTED BECAUSE HOUSTON WOUDLNT' VOTE ON THE ARENA, IT DIDNT RAISE TAXES WHATS THE PROBLEM
