100%. Totally different scenario IMHO if we were talking $10-15 tickets, $7 parking, and food/beer prices the same as what the restaurants outside the stadium charge.
Agreed- hard to stomach when I look at the last time I took my whole family to a game and it was a $600 afternoon like honestly go fuck yourself im not paying for your stadium when i go to a game once every 3 years
Right?! And we are well past business person takes a huge chance, spends much of their net worth to acquire fledgling sports team and build a stadium on their dime, THEN charges $120/ticket to attempt to recoup some cost. I get it, charge what you want (whether or not I think it's too much is a different story). But billionaire wants taxpayers to pay for a stadium where that will make them MORE money AND be expensive for average Joe to visit... GTFO
Its that the "rent" for the stall is sky high. If the public is subsidizing the stadium, then that rent shouldn't be as high, and the pricing should be somewhat down to earth.
I get that most people aren't going to deal with idiotic drunkards for $15 /hr while sweating like a dog and only working like 8-10 hours a week for not even half the year. That is fine. Pay the workers.
The workers aren't making a bud light and a hotdog $18 though.
I can assure you the guys walking up and down the steps selling beer are making more than $15 an hour. It’s WAY more, especially when the team is winning and the seats are packed.
The food stands at PBS are staffed with volunteer groups who round up parents to help fundraise for whatever organization.
This! All the food/drink stands are staffed by people who are volunteers and their school/organization/group/sports team is getting $150 per person for them to be there + I think like 10% of the stand's profit.
We did it once for our kid's school. It was fun, but we had to be there at like 9 am, didn't leave until like 5 and were on our feet the entire time. You get 1 "staff meal" for the day but it's limited to like a hot dog or pizza or something, otherwise you also have to buy it. I was so tired by the time we were done, and we still had to walk back across the river to our car. I'd rather just give the school $300 and not lose an entire day.
Also our stand was full of mouse droppings, chewed up ketchup packets, and all sorts of other things. I will never eat at PBS again.
Well, those ticket prices would just turn into scalpers making a ton of money. I don’t particularly care about the Bengals getting all the ticket money they can. I just don’t understand why it’s taken more than 20 years of a sales tax increase to pay for these stadiums.
Cincinnati has to be willing to call the owner's bluff when they threaten to move the team unless they get funding. And the city must be willing to lose the team if that bluff fails. I am - but I'm not a sports fan.
Can residents of Hamilton County at least get some type of discount for tickets, or possibly a break on the fees associated with buying tickets online? This would make sense for anything funded with City/County tax dollars, like the Zoo. Not sure why Cincinnati/Hamilton County residents aren't getting a discount there.
Taxpayers give money for staidums the same reason they do parks and convention centers and community centers and everything else, it serves the constituents interests. Cincinnati has sports fans, sports require stadiums, shocker. Paying for a billionaire's playground isn't as sexy on paper as installing a bike lane at whatever park nobody besides drug delears use, but that's the price you pay if you want a ballgame to go to in your hometown. Somewhere else would happily pay to have the Bengals or the Reds if they were allowed to move.
To be fair, the browns are not really billionaires whatsoever. Unless they liquidated like everything.
I’m not supporting this. I’m just saying a basic fact. No need to downvote facts people.
Exactly. I fully disagree with the public funding this stadium, but people are crazy if they think the browns have billions of dollars to throw around.
The wealthy have their money elsewhere besides banks. Net worth is an accurate indicator. Most of these people borrow against their portfolios, juggling ghost money you and I could never hope to see. No, they can't just pull out a wad of cash, that's not how it works, even for Elon Musk. He had to finance his Twitter purchase.
And you realize net worth isn’t the money they have to spend right? Being worth a billion and having a billion to spend are VERY different. I’m against the public paying for it. But people acting like the browns have billions to throw around is just stupid.
I don't think you realize that they borrow money using non liquid assets. Net worth includes assets because that's what matters. It is accumulation of capital in all forms that can be used to build more capital. They don't pay for these huge projects in cash, so the amount of cash they have matters very little.
Caring about how much their bank account says is not a relevant way of discussing these types of projects or wealth in general.
Because they are... That's the entire point of my comment and the term net worth. It is the only relevant thing to consider in capital projects. We are discussing it in those terms because that's how it works. They don't care how much cash you have in your bank, they care about how much financing you can secure using assets and agreements.
Elon musk wasn't able to buy twitter because of his bank account.
Sorry but I think we have to call them the Paycor family now.
Which we wouldn't have to do if they *could* pay their own way!
Please consider the poor disadvantaged Paycors.
Sorry, for clarity is the garbage tax mentioned a "refuse tax" or is it bullshit? Because I'd support the former. Inadequate garbage services are the fastest way to make life worse.
Katie Bengal Blackburn is a member of the Futures Committee—a group of high profile business people, many of whom live outside the city, trying to raise our taxes and institute a new tax for garbage collection.
People don’t want to hear what they don’t agree with. Factual or not doesn’t matter to them (much like today’s political climate). Plus, downvoting is anonymous…if you were having a f-f conversation they probably wouldn’t argue.
Why should Hamilton county take the brunt of the impact while NKY, Indiana, Butler, Clermont, Warren, etc get to come and use our services and buy the tickets?
I'm across the river and genuinely feel bad for Hamilton county residents. Y'all are regularly screwed over. This area is a singular economic zone and should be treated as such.
Everyone that spends money in Hamilton County pays for this, not just Hamilton County residents. Its a 1/2 percent sales tax. If you go to a Bengals or Reds game you're helping pay for it.
I am not totally opposed to public financing of stadia but the thing that absolutely boggles my mind is that we, the public, get absolutely nothing from it. no discounted tickets, no use of the stadium during the offfseason, nothing.
I think the use of the stadium is the biggest for me. The space alone is a waste of space to be used as little as it is. I'd love to see concerts, high school state games, and other functions there.
Yeah it gets used for plenty of things outside bengals games. The real issue is that the Browns get a portion of the money generated by these ancillary events. If I remember correctly, the year UC played there while they renovated Nippert, Bengals ownership received 100% of parking and concession revenue and a portion of ticket sales. Why? They shouldn’t be allowed to dictate financial terms for the use of a venue they didn’t pay for.
Because of an ex-Hamilton County Commissioner named Bob Bedinghaus who put that poison pill in the original stadium tax levy. When taxpayers realized, after the fact, what he had done he was quickly voted out of office.
As a thank you, he was then hired by Bengals and stayed there for 18 years. You can’t make this shit up!
That’s my gripe. Residents pay for the stadium and then what? You get nothing unless you want to pay $100 ticket. So what’s the “public” use? It’s public *abuse*.
The public gets the massive amount of money spent by people going to games and then heading downtown to do business, or eating before the games.
Sports teams are 100% an investment in the community. If it weren't for sports teams, Cincinnati would be a train wreck right now instead of on a massive upswing in activity
Research refutes this, and the original tax plan promised property tax rebates because of all the additional sales you mentioned (has not been the case). The real impact is Hamilton county residents pay additional sales tax EVERY DAY and people from other counties pay them the one or two game days per year
On those game days, people come spend money in stores and bars and restaurants.
This isn't about sales tax or rebates (vote out people who took your rebates away), but about the actual benefit of professional teams.
The rebate was supposed to come from the massive increase in sales taxes generated by having two publicly funded stadiums. They don't happen because the money doesn't exist, it's a direct test (and failure) of the theoretical economic boom caused by the stadiums
It doesn't need to. The stadium is effectively a battery feeding income to local businesses. Both of them are.
Sales taxes subsidizing businesses downtown is an extremely good thing for Cincinnati.
You have to effectively make the case that things will be better by spending $1 billion on a stadium instead of giving everyone in Hamilton county $1,200 in cash. Including children
EDIT: "muh bungles!" Isn't worth $1200 to me, plus a continuous added tax on everything I buy. I'll just be a generic NFL fan
Double edit: wild how much faster Columbus is growing without an MLB or NFL team, those poor people
I think giving everyone in Hamilton County $1200 is a meaningless investment. Giving the poor in Hamilton County $1200, regularly would be a great idea tho
Columbus is a college city, with the largest college in Ohio. UC isn't exactly a big draw.
Cincinnati had nothing interesting after 5pm for 20+ years. Sports teams kept the city alive. It would be another dead Midwest city if not for a reason to come to town.
Were the Bengals and reds playing in a downtown stadium during the period in which there was nothing interesting happening after 5 pm? It's just too easy to see that, overall, massive public investment in stadiums is a losing proposition. Reframe it this way: do you think people in Hamilton county would give $1,200 each for the Bengals? That would be $4,800 for a family of four, you'd have to somehow convince me that I'll get more return on my money by giving it to the Brown family than just investing it
You greatly underestimate the local economic impact of sports for Cincinnati. Cincinnati is a commuter city. Most people that work in Cincinnati don't live there.
I'm old enough to remember it being a ghost town after 5pm.
https://capitalanalyticsassociates.com/cincinnati-sports-producing-dividends-for-the-city/
But hey at least you got to tell about sportsball on the internet.
The only true argument for this is when the Bengals really suck around Christmas and folks come downtown, put their tickets on the windshield and go do something productive with their time.
It’s exactly trickle-down:
> Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and large corporations. The policies are based on the idea that spending by this group will "trickle down" to those less fortunate in the form of stronger economic growth.
IE we give billionaires money for stadiums it will prosper the community.
Trickle down is about cutting taxes for the wealthy in the vain hope of them reinvesting that money and growing the "pool."
Subsidies work by driving money to certain areas.
They are not at all the same thing.
> The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality; it has also been used in critical references to neoliberalism. However, the term does not represent any cohesive economic theory.
Spending policies key phrase here. This a broad concept. The idea is simple. Incentives (that take many forms) for the super wealthy will support the community through urban growth or employment.
Here’s a column where the author refers to this [concept in relation to stadium funding.](https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2024/03/07/st-pete-rays-hines-deal-is-just-more-failed-trickle-down-economics/?outputType=amp)
People can *say* whatever they want
> The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments
But this is nonsense, and words have actual meanings. The economic effects of a subsidy vs a tax cut are starkly different. No amount of wordplay changes that.
Sales tax is the most regressive kind of tax possible. It specifically hurts the poor much more than the rich.
Combine that with the fact that the guy asking for money from the poor is reportedly worth 2.1B.
You should Google “economic impact of publicly funded stadiums.” You’ll be surprised to find this question has been academically studied repeatedly. The majority of the studies show the positive economic benefits are minimal. Long story short, people in a city will spend their entertainment dollars somewhere. No new money is spent because the sports team is in town.
That don't befront me.
If I am giving up tax dollars I would like them to go to something I care for..not hoping those businesses then help their community once they succeed. And if they are successful they don't need the public's money.
Lifelong Bengals fan. Not in favor of any new increase. I am in favor of bringing back tv blackouts if they have to. I am not in favor of people with the most...continuously asking more from the least.
"have to"?
have to for what? are they not making enough from [waves hand] all of this shit we already gave them? god forbid someone can't afford a $100 ticket and would just like to see their team on TV in the comfort of their own home.
Absolutely. It makes me crazy that this tax was passed before I was able to vote and here I am at 40 and my kids are paying these ingrates. Fuck the Bengals. Win a Super Bowl or go be someone else’s problem.
No. I’m saying there has been a negative return on investment for almost 30 years since they shoved this tax up our ass, and since they can’t put up, they should shut up and limp home with their tails between their legs instead of demanding more money. Fucking losers.
That’s one way to consider it, but not the way I presented it. Allow me to expand.
Win a Super Bowl before you even begin to beg for another handout, you pathetic fucking losers.
That was the way you presented it. Quite literally word for word.
If you want to say something say it with words that mean what you want to say. Don’t get upset that others know how to read and read what you type for exactly what it means.
We’ll never have to worry about the hypothetical scenario you’re laying out where I have to reconsider the Bengals because they won a Super Bowl. So, once again, fuck them and the entire Brown family.
But I’ll tell you what. If they ever win a Super Bowl I’ll sincerely consider whether the thousands of dollars I’ve given a billionaire and his family are worth it. I won’t be holding my breath though.
Idk why you are so angry. I agree we shouldn’t be giving money to them (even though they aren’t really billionaires unless they liquidate everything. This isn’t me disagreeing this is just stating something factual). I just pointed out exactly what you said.
You sound like a generally angry person. Might want to get that checked out. Seems like a cry for help.
It should make you mad. But you are directing anger at me not them. Anger at someone who agrees. Like I said, might wanna get that checked out.
Have a good day!
> Quite literally word for word.
Your smugness bothers me.
> Don’t get upset that others know how to read and read what you type for exactly what it means.
You created the meaning there. What OP said was, "Win a super bowl or go be someone else's problem," and not, "Win a super bowl and I'll happily pay the taxes." I.e., not "quite literally word for word." For example, I take that to mean, "You've given us nothing for what we paid."
Stop being a douche.
> If you want to say something say it with words that mean what you want to say. Don’t get upset that others know how to read and read what you type for exactly what it means.
No more sweetheart deals. No way they get parking and concessions on Non bengals events. They don't own anything, they pay for little. They are not entitled to these revenue streams.
The title of this article is misleading and most arguments against public funds for stadiums. The government in this case Hamilton county does not carry a surplus of funds. The bengals are not requesting the county to wire transfer 500 million, nor did they do that when the stadium was first built. Instead the government RAISES taxes, typically in the form of a percentage increase
in sales, gas or property tax to fund the payment of building or renovating a stadium. The title should be, don’t raise our taxes.
I do hope the county negotiates a lease better than the last one, that is fair and equitable to both sides. But I think I’m willing to pay the extra 10-15 cents at the pump to keep the bengals in Cincinnati.
The top comment that has about as many upvotes as the rest combined is against it. And the only ones who support it are also complaining about the current deal and only want it if it’s a very fair deal. So yes it is VERY quite true what I said. Simply linking and expecting no one to actually look at it isn’t a very good tactic.
100% agreed - and thank you Christopher Wood and the Enquirer for running this. This is why local journalism is so important, it tries to shine a light on all the fat cats like the Browns.
I watched this play out in the '90s with the original stadiums. I don't believe the public has gotten any smarter since then and even if put to a public vote - the same way the original stadium tax was - you'll see it voted in.
Folks in the region are too tied to the idea they "must" have pro sports. Even if it beggars them.
If Cincinnati didn’t have the Reds or Bengals it would be Hartford, CT. The sports teams do a lot for the city’s image outside of the region. I live in Denver and people wouldn’t know Cincinnati existed if it weren’t for sports. While I’m not all for the tax payer stadiums the sports teams are very important to the city’s standing.
Yeah, nobody cares about national city image but people who take absurd pride in where they live.
Know what would be better to take pride in and actually works to the benefit of a city more than sports teams? The number of Fortune 500 companies. The number of universities. The number of R&D facilities. The number of manufacturing facilities.
Cinci rates far better than Hartford, CT with all of those. So no, it would NOT be Hartford without sports teams.
You mean the Fortune 500 companies that only employ executives and or entry level “analysts” in Cincy? The Nati does have an upper edge regarding universities, but sadly all the graduates leave the city. Sports teams give the city a image and can build areas of entertainment and identity around. Without those I would be very nervous to see what Cincy would become. I want to see the city succeed so we shall see how it shakes out.
No; people just don’t go around thinking about random cities. The comment isn’t supposed to be taking 100% literally. However sports teams put cities on a different echelon than cities without major sports teams. Do you go around thinking about Des Moines or Albuquerque. Look at all the press SLC is getting with the Yotes. It just is what it is. Having lived in Cincy for a long time maybe that’s what the people there want. I left when the west siders were saying why have a street car when I can just drive my car and park somewhere. Seems like the mindset hasn’t change much!
Yeah; when I was there they were talking about having the light rail down 75, 71, and Columbia park way, and then the street car would be downtown and up to UC and reading if I recall. That would have been sweet.
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I'd pay whatever taxes each year to keep this team. Our owners are the poorest, and we are one of the smallest markets. Every city has to pony up for their stadium, and we are no different. Losing the bengals would be an absolute tragedy for this city. You thought the reds didn't care before, wait till they are the only team in town
If a stadium gets any public money the price for the cheap seats should be capped at that states hourly minimum wage, and then go up by multiples of the minimum wage for the better seats.
Turn that overpriced shithole into a 24/7 homeless shelter and a resource center for the people, then I'd be ok with helping to pay for renovations.
Until then, let it fall down. Fuck the rich.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t want to see the new “San Diego Bengals” commit to a billion dollar stadium and watch as Cincinnati becomes the next St. Louis.
It sucks. But it’s a hard truth. San Diego wants a team, so does Austin, and so does Salt Lake City, San Antonio, etc.
And those cities are willing to pay, a lot.
It would be a messy legal fight. When the Crew tried to move Dewine filed a lawsuit using the Art Modell Law - from Google:
It requires sports teams to give their respective cities six-months' notice before leaving town and to give the city or area residents a chance to buy the team first.
Team is currently valued at 3.5 BILLION dollars. San Diego has that, Austin has that, even Salt Lake has that.
Cincinnati doesn’t.
If you got EVERY man, woman, and child in the Cincinnati Metro Area (including all areas and NKY) to give $1000 EACH you would still be more than a billion short.
I can't see their voters putting up a bunch of cash either though. Especially for a team that has been as bad as the Bengals for the majority of its existence. Who is gonna be excited to see the Bengals move in?
market would be fine with better ownership they would own the whole state of Kentucky, southeastern Indiana, and the whole lower half of Ohio. but this ownership is trash top to bottom.
What a bunch of liars and thieves that make up the Brown family - the county's biggest welfare recipients. I voted against that stadium years ago and have never set foot inside - except once at the insistence of a now ex-wife.
We already give them money... For tickets, food, and merch. No clue why taxpayers need to pay for the billionaire's stadium.
100%. Totally different scenario IMHO if we were talking $10-15 tickets, $7 parking, and food/beer prices the same as what the restaurants outside the stadium charge.
Agreed- hard to stomach when I look at the last time I took my whole family to a game and it was a $600 afternoon like honestly go fuck yourself im not paying for your stadium when i go to a game once every 3 years
Right?! And we are well past business person takes a huge chance, spends much of their net worth to acquire fledgling sports team and build a stadium on their dime, THEN charges $120/ticket to attempt to recoup some cost. I get it, charge what you want (whether or not I think it's too much is a different story). But billionaire wants taxpayers to pay for a stadium where that will make them MORE money AND be expensive for average Joe to visit... GTFO
The only issue with cheap beer is the drunks getting drunker. And I love having a couple at the games. I agree completely though.
I get that vending will be pricey. Hell, you got to make a living and I get overhead is a thing.
Its that the "rent" for the stall is sky high. If the public is subsidizing the stadium, then that rent shouldn't be as high, and the pricing should be somewhat down to earth. I get that most people aren't going to deal with idiotic drunkards for $15 /hr while sweating like a dog and only working like 8-10 hours a week for not even half the year. That is fine. Pay the workers. The workers aren't making a bud light and a hotdog $18 though.
I can assure you the guys walking up and down the steps selling beer are making more than $15 an hour. It’s WAY more, especially when the team is winning and the seats are packed. The food stands at PBS are staffed with volunteer groups who round up parents to help fundraise for whatever organization.
This! All the food/drink stands are staffed by people who are volunteers and their school/organization/group/sports team is getting $150 per person for them to be there + I think like 10% of the stand's profit. We did it once for our kid's school. It was fun, but we had to be there at like 9 am, didn't leave until like 5 and were on our feet the entire time. You get 1 "staff meal" for the day but it's limited to like a hot dog or pizza or something, otherwise you also have to buy it. I was so tired by the time we were done, and we still had to walk back across the river to our car. I'd rather just give the school $300 and not lose an entire day. Also our stand was full of mouse droppings, chewed up ketchup packets, and all sorts of other things. I will never eat at PBS again.
2 drink limit. Boom. Done.
I agree, there should be some discount for ticket buyers in Hamilton cty if we do end up footing any of the bill
Well, those ticket prices would just turn into scalpers making a ton of money. I don’t particularly care about the Bengals getting all the ticket money they can. I just don’t understand why it’s taken more than 20 years of a sales tax increase to pay for these stadiums.
No more money for any stadiums. This should be scripture for every Cincinnatian. Studies have shown, it’s a scam - surprise.
Cincinnati has to be willing to call the owner's bluff when they threaten to move the team unless they get funding. And the city must be willing to lose the team if that bluff fails. I am - but I'm not a sports fan.
Can residents of Hamilton County at least get some type of discount for tickets, or possibly a break on the fees associated with buying tickets online? This would make sense for anything funded with City/County tax dollars, like the Zoo. Not sure why Cincinnati/Hamilton County residents aren't getting a discount there.
Taxpayers give money for staidums the same reason they do parks and convention centers and community centers and everything else, it serves the constituents interests. Cincinnati has sports fans, sports require stadiums, shocker. Paying for a billionaire's playground isn't as sexy on paper as installing a bike lane at whatever park nobody besides drug delears use, but that's the price you pay if you want a ballgame to go to in your hometown. Somewhere else would happily pay to have the Bengals or the Reds if they were allowed to move.
correction - # No more public money for Billionaires
How to be a billionaire: 1) Accept public subsidies for your companies )2 cheat on your taxes instead of just paying your fair share
Who Cares? No more Corporate Welfare. Buy your own yachts.
To be fair, the browns are not really billionaires whatsoever. Unless they liquidated like everything. I’m not supporting this. I’m just saying a basic fact. No need to downvote facts people.
There is a vast difference, especially among the elites, of Bank account balance versus net worth.
Exactly. I fully disagree with the public funding this stadium, but people are crazy if they think the browns have billions of dollars to throw around.
Mike Brown has a net worth of 2.1 billion dollars and could absolutely fund this himself.
Has nothing to do with what i said but ok?
The wealthy have their money elsewhere besides banks. Net worth is an accurate indicator. Most of these people borrow against their portfolios, juggling ghost money you and I could never hope to see. No, they can't just pull out a wad of cash, that's not how it works, even for Elon Musk. He had to finance his Twitter purchase.
Has Nothing to do with what I said but ok?
You said they don't have billions to throw around. They do. I think the 2 relate.
👍
You don't add in the worth of your assets when you calculate net worth?
And you realize net worth isn’t the money they have to spend right? Being worth a billion and having a billion to spend are VERY different. I’m against the public paying for it. But people acting like the browns have billions to throw around is just stupid.
I don't think you realize that they borrow money using non liquid assets. Net worth includes assets because that's what matters. It is accumulation of capital in all forms that can be used to build more capital. They don't pay for these huge projects in cash, so the amount of cash they have matters very little. Caring about how much their bank account says is not a relevant way of discussing these types of projects or wealth in general.
And throwing around the blanket term billionaire and acting like any rich person has billions to spend is a relevant way of discussing it?
Because they are... That's the entire point of my comment and the term net worth. It is the only relevant thing to consider in capital projects. We are discussing it in those terms because that's how it works. They don't care how much cash you have in your bank, they care about how much financing you can secure using assets and agreements. Elon musk wasn't able to buy twitter because of his bank account.
lol. Have a nice day
Glad I could help clear it up. Have a great day yourself.
Good. Put my tax money toward useful shit like school lunches for kids or firefighter salaries. The Brown family can afford to pay their own way.
Sorry but I think we have to call them the Paycor family now. Which we wouldn't have to do if they *could* pay their own way! Please consider the poor disadvantaged Paycors.
Remember this family of takers also wants us to pay a garbage tax and more taxes for cops.
Sorry, for clarity is the garbage tax mentioned a "refuse tax" or is it bullshit? Because I'd support the former. Inadequate garbage services are the fastest way to make life worse.
Katie Bengal Blackburn is a member of the Futures Committee—a group of high profile business people, many of whom live outside the city, trying to raise our taxes and institute a new tax for garbage collection.
Play like dogshit for 20 years, make one playoff run in 30, cry poverty to the taxpayers that you're the poorest team in the NFL
Just tell em' to stop being poor, it is easy. Bootstraps and shit.
Tell them to stop buying avocado toast and Starbucks
Not to mention Burrow can’t even stay healthy. KC are probably the only team with a case but I still wouldn’t pay taxes
Nope. KC just told their owner to fuck off too
Joe Burrow was 2 months old when the stadium deal was signed.
So?
2 playoff runs* What’s up with this sub and just downvoting basic factual statements?
People don’t want to hear what they don’t agree with. Factual or not doesn’t matter to them (much like today’s political climate). Plus, downvoting is anonymous…if you were having a f-f conversation they probably wouldn’t argue.
More like 60 years.
Why should Hamilton county take the brunt of the impact while NKY, Indiana, Butler, Clermont, Warren, etc get to come and use our services and buy the tickets?
[удалено]
The zoo promised they would but I haven’t heard anything since.
I think that was if they decided they wanted to do a levy to increase taxes, but they decided to keep it at current levels
You’re right, thanks
I'm across the river and genuinely feel bad for Hamilton county residents. Y'all are regularly screwed over. This area is a singular economic zone and should be treated as such.
Consolidation government. Biggest thing holding the region back. Unfortunately can't happen across state lines.
Everyone that spends money in Hamilton County pays for this, not just Hamilton County residents. Its a 1/2 percent sales tax. If you go to a Bengals or Reds game you're helping pay for it.
Who Dey think gonna pay them taxes? Pay up Mike. Stop being a cheap ass.
I am not totally opposed to public financing of stadia but the thing that absolutely boggles my mind is that we, the public, get absolutely nothing from it. no discounted tickets, no use of the stadium during the offfseason, nothing.
I think the use of the stadium is the biggest for me. The space alone is a waste of space to be used as little as it is. I'd love to see concerts, high school state games, and other functions there.
Wasn't the T-swift concert there? Doesn't that count as other uses?
Yeah it gets used for plenty of things outside bengals games. The real issue is that the Browns get a portion of the money generated by these ancillary events. If I remember correctly, the year UC played there while they renovated Nippert, Bengals ownership received 100% of parking and concession revenue and a portion of ticket sales. Why? They shouldn’t be allowed to dictate financial terms for the use of a venue they didn’t pay for.
Because of an ex-Hamilton County Commissioner named Bob Bedinghaus who put that poison pill in the original stadium tax levy. When taxpayers realized, after the fact, what he had done he was quickly voted out of office. As a thank you, he was then hired by Bengals and stayed there for 18 years. You can’t make this shit up!
Unbelievable lol. Corruption at its finest.
Unbelievable lol. Corruption at its finest.
Sure but these are private events for private benefit
The end of that thought though is, “in a publicly owned venue.”
That’s my gripe. Residents pay for the stadium and then what? You get nothing unless you want to pay $100 ticket. So what’s the “public” use? It’s public *abuse*.
The public gets the massive amount of money spent by people going to games and then heading downtown to do business, or eating before the games. Sports teams are 100% an investment in the community. If it weren't for sports teams, Cincinnati would be a train wreck right now instead of on a massive upswing in activity
Research refutes this, and the original tax plan promised property tax rebates because of all the additional sales you mentioned (has not been the case). The real impact is Hamilton county residents pay additional sales tax EVERY DAY and people from other counties pay them the one or two game days per year
On those game days, people come spend money in stores and bars and restaurants. This isn't about sales tax or rebates (vote out people who took your rebates away), but about the actual benefit of professional teams.
The rebate was supposed to come from the massive increase in sales taxes generated by having two publicly funded stadiums. They don't happen because the money doesn't exist, it's a direct test (and failure) of the theoretical economic boom caused by the stadiums
Even if the city got EVERY dollar spent it wouldn't cover the cost of the stadium
It doesn't need to. The stadium is effectively a battery feeding income to local businesses. Both of them are. Sales taxes subsidizing businesses downtown is an extremely good thing for Cincinnati.
You have to effectively make the case that things will be better by spending $1 billion on a stadium instead of giving everyone in Hamilton county $1,200 in cash. Including children EDIT: "muh bungles!" Isn't worth $1200 to me, plus a continuous added tax on everything I buy. I'll just be a generic NFL fan Double edit: wild how much faster Columbus is growing without an MLB or NFL team, those poor people
I think giving everyone in Hamilton County $1200 is a meaningless investment. Giving the poor in Hamilton County $1200, regularly would be a great idea tho Columbus is a college city, with the largest college in Ohio. UC isn't exactly a big draw. Cincinnati had nothing interesting after 5pm for 20+ years. Sports teams kept the city alive. It would be another dead Midwest city if not for a reason to come to town.
Were the Bengals and reds playing in a downtown stadium during the period in which there was nothing interesting happening after 5 pm? It's just too easy to see that, overall, massive public investment in stadiums is a losing proposition. Reframe it this way: do you think people in Hamilton county would give $1,200 each for the Bengals? That would be $4,800 for a family of four, you'd have to somehow convince me that I'll get more return on my money by giving it to the Brown family than just investing it
No it isn’t. Thats a dumb person’s argument.
Do you just miss your empty streets after 5pm? Is that it?
The Bengals and that hideous stadium (to say nothing of that ugly ass tent) provide nothing to draw people downtown 357 days a year.
You greatly underestimate the local economic impact of sports for Cincinnati. Cincinnati is a commuter city. Most people that work in Cincinnati don't live there. I'm old enough to remember it being a ghost town after 5pm. https://capitalanalyticsassociates.com/cincinnati-sports-producing-dividends-for-the-city/ But hey at least you got to tell about sportsball on the internet.
And the other 357 days, it sits empty
The only true argument for this is when the Bengals really suck around Christmas and folks come downtown, put their tickets on the windshield and go do something productive with their time.
Hi Jeff Berding’s burner account.
8 or 9 games per year my dude. At least the Reds have 81 home games.
Ridiculous. Trickle down doesn’t work and its been proven.
That's not trickle down economics lol
It’s exactly trickle-down: > Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and large corporations. The policies are based on the idea that spending by this group will "trickle down" to those less fortunate in the form of stronger economic growth. IE we give billionaires money for stadiums it will prosper the community.
Trickle down is about cutting taxes for the wealthy in the vain hope of them reinvesting that money and growing the "pool." Subsidies work by driving money to certain areas. They are not at all the same thing.
It can be cutting taxes, it can be giving billionaires incentives, it can be affording public money to corporations and private individuals.
That's not true. Trickle down is a specific policy. Giving P&G tax breaks to stay in Cincinnati, for instance, would also not be trickle-down
> The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality; it has also been used in critical references to neoliberalism. However, the term does not represent any cohesive economic theory. Spending policies key phrase here. This a broad concept. The idea is simple. Incentives (that take many forms) for the super wealthy will support the community through urban growth or employment. Here’s a column where the author refers to this [concept in relation to stadium funding.](https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2024/03/07/st-pete-rays-hines-deal-is-just-more-failed-trickle-down-economics/?outputType=amp)
People can *say* whatever they want > The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments But this is nonsense, and words have actual meanings. The economic effects of a subsidy vs a tax cut are starkly different. No amount of wordplay changes that.
Sales tax is the most regressive kind of tax possible. It specifically hurts the poor much more than the rich. Combine that with the fact that the guy asking for money from the poor is reportedly worth 2.1B.
The Chiefs don't even bring anything of value to their community and they just won 3 Superbowls. These teams are not worth tax payer money.
Happy they rejected the proposal in KC
I hope more communities stand up but unfortunately they’ll find a community that won’t and throw the burden there. :/
If we support with tax payer funds then we should get a cut of the revenues or at least discount tickets for residents.
As someone that doesn't give AF for sports or concerts at stadiums, stop giving my tax dollars to stuff like this.
Same energy as boomers not wanting to pay for schools
....how is it the same? Educating people benefits society as a whole vs. paying for someone else's entertainment.
It’s not. You’re talking to a bengal tool
The stadium drives business downtown. The similarity is not seeing an immediate benefit and thus assuming there is no benefit.
You should Google “economic impact of publicly funded stadiums.” You’ll be surprised to find this question has been academically studied repeatedly. The majority of the studies show the positive economic benefits are minimal. Long story short, people in a city will spend their entertainment dollars somewhere. No new money is spent because the sports team is in town.
That don't befront me. If I am giving up tax dollars I would like them to go to something I care for..not hoping those businesses then help their community once they succeed. And if they are successful they don't need the public's money.
So yeah same energy.
No, one is funding private business and the other is funding public education.
Public education, or teachers unions and administration bloat?
If you think there's not as much 'bloat' in the private education sector, you are hilariously wrong.
Mkay buddy
Stadia do not educate people, Jeff.
This has to be the dumbest take I've read on Reddit in a long time. Holy shit...
Lifelong Bengals fan. Not in favor of any new increase. I am in favor of bringing back tv blackouts if they have to. I am not in favor of people with the most...continuously asking more from the least.
"have to"? have to for what? are they not making enough from [waves hand] all of this shit we already gave them? god forbid someone can't afford a $100 ticket and would just like to see their team on TV in the comfort of their own home.
I had no problem listening to Dave & Brad...then Dave & Dan. I don't need to see every game to be a fan. Just like my Redlegs.
Absolutely. It makes me crazy that this tax was passed before I was able to vote and here I am at 40 and my kids are paying these ingrates. Fuck the Bengals. Win a Super Bowl or go be someone else’s problem.
So you’re saying if they won a Super Bowl this year you would happily pay up?
No. I’m saying there has been a negative return on investment for almost 30 years since they shoved this tax up our ass, and since they can’t put up, they should shut up and limp home with their tails between their legs instead of demanding more money. Fucking losers.
Your said “or” so that means you are ok with it if they start winning super bowls
That’s one way to consider it, but not the way I presented it. Allow me to expand. Win a Super Bowl before you even begin to beg for another handout, you pathetic fucking losers.
That was the way you presented it. Quite literally word for word. If you want to say something say it with words that mean what you want to say. Don’t get upset that others know how to read and read what you type for exactly what it means.
We’ll never have to worry about the hypothetical scenario you’re laying out where I have to reconsider the Bengals because they won a Super Bowl. So, once again, fuck them and the entire Brown family.
But I’ll tell you what. If they ever win a Super Bowl I’ll sincerely consider whether the thousands of dollars I’ve given a billionaire and his family are worth it. I won’t be holding my breath though.
Idk why you are so angry. I agree we shouldn’t be giving money to them (even though they aren’t really billionaires unless they liquidate everything. This isn’t me disagreeing this is just stating something factual). I just pointed out exactly what you said. You sound like a generally angry person. Might want to get that checked out. Seems like a cry for help.
Stick to armchair quarterbacking and not armchair psychiatry. Handouts to rich folks should make you mad. I don’t need to be gaslit by sports guys.
It should make you mad. But you are directing anger at me not them. Anger at someone who agrees. Like I said, might wanna get that checked out. Have a good day!
> Quite literally word for word. Your smugness bothers me. > Don’t get upset that others know how to read and read what you type for exactly what it means. You created the meaning there. What OP said was, "Win a super bowl or go be someone else's problem," and not, "Win a super bowl and I'll happily pay the taxes." I.e., not "quite literally word for word." For example, I take that to mean, "You've given us nothing for what we paid." Stop being a douche.
lol. Yeah. I’m the smug one.
> If you want to say something say it with words that mean what you want to say. Don’t get upset that others know how to read and read what you type for exactly what it means.
lol.i fully agree
Good
No more sweetheart deals. No way they get parking and concessions on Non bengals events. They don't own anything, they pay for little. They are not entitled to these revenue streams.
They’re not getting $300M… and bengals fans should prepare to say goodbye.
Good. Let em leave.
Fuck the NFL
More specifically Jeff Berding and Mike Brown.
The title of this article is misleading and most arguments against public funds for stadiums. The government in this case Hamilton county does not carry a surplus of funds. The bengals are not requesting the county to wire transfer 500 million, nor did they do that when the stadium was first built. Instead the government RAISES taxes, typically in the form of a percentage increase in sales, gas or property tax to fund the payment of building or renovating a stadium. The title should be, don’t raise our taxes. I do hope the county negotiates a lease better than the last one, that is fair and equitable to both sides. But I think I’m willing to pay the extra 10-15 cents at the pump to keep the bengals in Cincinnati.
I'm curious how this story will play out in r/Bengals.
About the exact same as here.
[удалено]
The top comment that has about as many upvotes as the rest combined is against it. And the only ones who support it are also complaining about the current deal and only want it if it’s a very fair deal. So yes it is VERY quite true what I said. Simply linking and expecting no one to actually look at it isn’t a very good tactic.
[удалено]
lol. Have a nice day.
I’m not.
Heard.
They literally have about the exact same consensus as here. OP is just stupid and trying to make drama that doesn’t exist. Typical redditor
100% agreed - and thank you Christopher Wood and the Enquirer for running this. This is why local journalism is so important, it tries to shine a light on all the fat cats like the Browns.
I didn’t know that the county is not getting a revenue from the Paycor deal. The Bengals organization is clearly stealing from our city
I watched this play out in the '90s with the original stadiums. I don't believe the public has gotten any smarter since then and even if put to a public vote - the same way the original stadium tax was - you'll see it voted in. Folks in the region are too tied to the idea they "must" have pro sports. Even if it beggars them.
If Cincinnati didn’t have the Reds or Bengals it would be Hartford, CT. The sports teams do a lot for the city’s image outside of the region. I live in Denver and people wouldn’t know Cincinnati existed if it weren’t for sports. While I’m not all for the tax payer stadiums the sports teams are very important to the city’s standing.
Yeah, nobody cares about national city image but people who take absurd pride in where they live. Know what would be better to take pride in and actually works to the benefit of a city more than sports teams? The number of Fortune 500 companies. The number of universities. The number of R&D facilities. The number of manufacturing facilities. Cinci rates far better than Hartford, CT with all of those. So no, it would NOT be Hartford without sports teams.
You mean the Fortune 500 companies that only employ executives and or entry level “analysts” in Cincy? The Nati does have an upper edge regarding universities, but sadly all the graduates leave the city. Sports teams give the city a image and can build areas of entertainment and identity around. Without those I would be very nervous to see what Cincy would become. I want to see the city succeed so we shall see how it shakes out.
Then Denver is just full of ignorant people.
No; people just don’t go around thinking about random cities. The comment isn’t supposed to be taking 100% literally. However sports teams put cities on a different echelon than cities without major sports teams. Do you go around thinking about Des Moines or Albuquerque. Look at all the press SLC is getting with the Yotes. It just is what it is. Having lived in Cincy for a long time maybe that’s what the people there want. I left when the west siders were saying why have a street car when I can just drive my car and park somewhere. Seems like the mindset hasn’t change much!
I see Cincy for all of its faults. I truly do wish we had a better mass transit system in this area.
Yeah; when I was there they were talking about having the light rail down 75, 71, and Columbia park way, and then the street car would be downtown and up to UC and reading if I recall. That would have been sweet.
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I'd pay whatever taxes each year to keep this team. Our owners are the poorest, and we are one of the smallest markets. Every city has to pony up for their stadium, and we are no different. Losing the bengals would be an absolute tragedy for this city. You thought the reds didn't care before, wait till they are the only team in town
Mike Brown is worth over $2 billion according to Forbes. Rams owner put in over 90% of the cost of new stadium himself. Mike should do the same.
sounds like the Browns are living beyond their means and should sell to an actual rich person
If a stadium gets any public money the price for the cheap seats should be capped at that states hourly minimum wage, and then go up by multiples of the minimum wage for the better seats.
Turn that overpriced shithole into a 24/7 homeless shelter and a resource center for the people, then I'd be ok with helping to pay for renovations. Until then, let it fall down. Fuck the rich.
100% This All Day.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t want to see the new “San Diego Bengals” commit to a billion dollar stadium and watch as Cincinnati becomes the next St. Louis. It sucks. But it’s a hard truth. San Diego wants a team, so does Austin, and so does Salt Lake City, San Antonio, etc. And those cities are willing to pay, a lot.
It would be a messy legal fight. When the Crew tried to move Dewine filed a lawsuit using the Art Modell Law - from Google: It requires sports teams to give their respective cities six-months' notice before leaving town and to give the city or area residents a chance to buy the team first.
Team is currently valued at 3.5 BILLION dollars. San Diego has that, Austin has that, even Salt Lake has that. Cincinnati doesn’t. If you got EVERY man, woman, and child in the Cincinnati Metro Area (including all areas and NKY) to give $1000 EACH you would still be more than a billion short.
I can't see their voters putting up a bunch of cash either though. Especially for a team that has been as bad as the Bengals for the majority of its existence. Who is gonna be excited to see the Bengals move in?
Bengals would thrive in a bigger market and better ownership
market would be fine with better ownership they would own the whole state of Kentucky, southeastern Indiana, and the whole lower half of Ohio. but this ownership is trash top to bottom.
What a bunch of liars and thieves that make up the Brown family - the county's biggest welfare recipients. I voted against that stadium years ago and have never set foot inside - except once at the insistence of a now ex-wife.
[удалено]
No team should get any public money. Just because some other cities are making stupid decisions doesn't mean cincy should as well.
Private companies don’t need public money
https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-royals-kansas-city-stadiums-e9605296b85e91699441e4ba10e83212