Who paid for the Superdome?

[ForeverAutumn]

I just heard on the news that $185,000,000 was spent to restore the Superdome in New Orleans. Who paid for it and how do they justify such an expense when so many people are still without homes?

Maybe I'm naive, but it sure seems like misplaced spending to me. If the money came from the private sector, I hope that those same individuals/corporations have donated a substantial amount of money to rebuilding the city as well.

[FLZapped]

I just heard on the news that $185,000,000 was spent to restore the Superdome in New Orleans. Who paid for it and how do they justify such an expense when so many people are still without homes?

Maybe I'm naive, but it sure seems like misplaced spending to me. If the money came from the private sector, I hope that those same individuals/corporations have donated a substantial amount of money to rebuilding the city as well.


Yeah, I had the same question floating through my head.....why is it so important to restore some icon first?

-Bruce

[Resident Loser]

Yeah, I had the same question floating through my head.....why is it so important to restore some icon first?

-Bruce

...the fire and brimstone...I'm guessin' Nawlins has little going for it economically other than tourism...it must figure in somehow...Future soupbowl venue, multi-million$$$ latrine...who knows what the ubquitous they have in mind?

jimHJJ(...I wonder what that $185mil might have done to improve the levee/storm system...)

[kexodusc]

New Orleans is banking on a Superbowl in the new Dome...the net economic injection to host cities the last 5 years averages around $123 million. I'll be shocked IF they don't get it fast.
One day will return so much of that money back to the city.

The funding came from a lot of sources. $116 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (rebuilding infrastructure is one of its priorities), $41 million from the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (really just a refinancing of debt, the banks ate that $41 million), at least $15 million from the NFL and $13 million from the state.

From a humanitarian point of view, this was a no-brainer. Thousands of jobs affected, and billions of dollars at stake. I understand the people who ask what $185 million could have done as far as rebuilding homes. But it's not a case of there being only so much money. As long as public entities have the ability to borrow and tax, they have the ability to fund both. Really, many of the homes weren't going to be rebuilt if the Saints left town. These people need businesses to work for, and a lot of businesses feed off the Saints.

The New Orleans Saints organization salaries alone contribute almost $10 million in State Income Tax per year (6% is the top bracket).

Keep in mind, the STATE owns the Superdome and all profits go to the public. Keeping a lease tenant in the Superdome was a priority. The city really needs a facility like that, and was considering a $500 million replacement, but that got blown away by Katrina, so the $185 million was the compromise. Prior to the reconstruction, the lease on the Superdome was over $23 million a year. That $23 million would not be replaced if the Saints left. I believe it's lower now, but it should keep them there for some time.

Adding the old lease value and state income tax definitely puts the annual benefit to the state at over $20 million per year. Probably closer to $30.

It's a bit mind-boggling how much money an NFL team generates in a city, but there's also a reason that every city that's lost an NFL team has worked its ass off to get one back.

[paul_pci]

LA doesn't have a team and we're doing just fine.

[kexodusc]

LA doesn't have a team and we're doing just fine.
LOL!
Give it till 2008, the NFL's target date for the almighty return. Like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Houston before, LA will have the NFL back. They're sure trying aweful hard...

[ForeverAutumn]

... These people need businesses to work for, and a lot of businesses feed off the Saints.

The New Orleans Saints organization salaries alone contribute almost $10 million in State Income Tax per year (6% is the top bracket).

Keep in mind, the STATE owns the Superdome and all profits go to the public.

...Adding the old lease value and state income tax definitely puts the annual benefit to the state at over $20 million per year. Probably closer to $30.


Wow Kex! Great answer! Understanding all of that does make me feel better. The whole thing just seemed so trivial to me.

As for New Orleans getting the Superbowl...didn't they just have it in 2002? It seems to me that I recall the date being changed because of a couple of cancelled weeks due to 9/11. Could it be awarded to them again so soon? Maybe on compassionate grounds?

[kexodusc]

Wow Kex! Great answer! Understanding all of that does make me feel better. The whole thing just seemed so trivial to me.

As for New Orleans getting the Superbowl...didn't they just have it in 2002? It seems to me that I recall the date being changed because of a couple of cancelled weeks due to 9/11. Could it be awarded to them again so soon? Maybe on compassionate grounds?

Miami just had the Bowl in 1999, and are getting again this year. Tampa gets it in 2 years. Then the year after that Miami gets it again. Miami area and New Orleans are tied for having hosted 9 Superbowls each. So yeah, there's no reason why it won't go back soon.
Besides, the NFL hype machine loves playing the patriotism/human-spirit card as a side-show to their games to show how much NFL means to the common people, etc, etc..
I suspect there'll be a lot of political pressure to send it back soon. 2011 is the earliest though.

FA, if you wanna talk about neat story of inappropriate use of tax dollars for stadiums, look no further than the SkyDome. Man, the rest of Canada got a raw deal on that bunker. And if you don't like sports, Toronto tax payers got a raw deal too. $600 million to build back then...they sold it for what? $25 million, 4% of the cost to taxpayers....no wonder Alberta hates Ontario so much.

[FLZapped]

New Orleans is banking on a Superbowl in the new Dome...the net economic injection to host cities the last 5 years averages around $123 million. I'll be shocked IF they don't get it fast.
One day will return so much of that money back to the city.

The funding came from a lot of sources. $116 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (rebuilding infrastructure is one of its priorities), $41 million from the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (really just a refinancing of debt, the banks ate that $41 million), at least $15 million from the NFL and $13 million from the state.

Great, the feds wasted 116 million on a stadium. Brilliant. Yes, I said wasted, as in wasted MY money.



From a humanitarian point of view, this was a no-brainer. Thousands of jobs affected, and billions of dollars at stake. I understand the people who ask what $185 million could have done as far as rebuilding homes. But it's not a case of there being only so much money.


Yes only so much money, so is it more humane to build a stadium, or give people a place to live? Further, I believe your numbers are incorrect.Please show me where "thousands of jobs" are affected and "billions of dollars." I think you're stretching this one a little too thin.

I think it would have been better to split the money more between the small businesses and homes.



As long as public entities have the ability to borrow and tax, they have the ability to fund both. Really, many of the homes weren't going to be rebuilt if the Saints left town. These people need businesses to work for, and a lot of businesses feed off the Saints.


Wonderful, but how many really in the grand scheme of things. What good it is to have a stadium, when you don't have a population to tax in the first place. The stadium isn't going to make that shortfall up.



The New Orleans Saints organization salaries alone contribute almost $10 million in State Income Tax per year (6% is the top bracket).

What happened to the billions of dollars?



Keep in mind, the STATE owns the Superdome and all profits go to the public. Keeping a lease tenant in the Superdome was a priority. The city really needs a facility like that, and was considering a $500 million replacement, but that got blown away by Katrina, so the $185 million was the compromise. Prior to the reconstruction, the lease on the Superdome was over $23 million a year. That $23 million would not be replaced if the Saints left. I believe it's lower now, but it should keep them there for some time.

Wonderful, then the STATE should have footed the bill, not the feds.



Adding the old lease value and state income tax definitely puts the annual benefit to the state at over $20 million per year. Probably closer to $30.

Where'd those billions go again???

Sorry, I think it was Federal money poorly spent. The fact is, the majority of the people who attend are locals, therefore the vast majority of the revenue generated is local. When subtracted, the benifit just isn't that great.

-Bruce

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, if you wanna talk about neat story of inappropriate use of tax dollars for stadiums, look no further than the SkyDome. Man, the rest of Canada got a raw deal on that bunker. And if you don't like sports, Toronto tax payers got a raw deal too. $600 million to build back then...they sold it for what? $25 million, 4% of the cost to taxpayers....no wonder Alberta hates Ontario so much.

Even if you do like sports, Toronto tax payers got a raw deal on that one.

[Feanor]

...
From a humanitarian point of view, this was a no-brainer. Thousands of jobs affected, and billions of dollars at stake. I understand the people who ask what $185 million could have done as far as rebuilding homes. But it's not a case of there being only so much money. As long as public entities have the ability to borrow and tax, they have the ability to fund both. Really, many of the homes weren't going to be rebuilt if the Saints left town. These people need businesses to work for, and a lot of businesses feed off the Saints.
....

Kex, maybe you should ask yourself, "What would Bono do?". (He is know for his support for philanthropic causes.)

I think it is a brainer. The same money spent on building houses or basic infrastructure would have the same economic affect in the first instant.

Otherwise it's the same old, right-wing argument: give the money to the rich to use, after all, they're smarter than we are. No doubt as sports team or hosting some big event, (Superbowl or the Olympics), generates a lot of cash in the locate town. But who reaps the profit? And who gets to pay off the debt? Too often is small group of entreprenuers who make most of the money, while the rest of us get a few crumbs at best and are stuck to pick up the tab.

[kexodusc]

Kex, maybe you should ask yourself, "What would Bono do?". (He is know for his support for philanthropic causes.)

I think it is a brainer. The same money spent on building houses or basic infrastructure would have the same economic affect in the first instant.

Otherwise it's the same old, right-wing argument: give the money to the rich to use, after all, they're smarter than we are. No doubt as sports team or hosting some big event, (Superbowl or the Olympics), generates a lot of cash in the locate town. But who reaps the profit? And who gets to pay off the debt? Too often is small group of entreprenuers who make most of the money, while the rest of us get a few crumbs at best and are stuck to pick up the tab.


Sorry Feanor, I believe your intentions are noble, but you're thinking with your heart here. For the record I'm far from being a right-winger.
The homes are being rebuilt largely by other federal relief funds and private insurance. This money isn't coming from a source that was designed to be available to them - there is nothing being taken away at their expense.. Could the money have been made available? Yes. Should it be? Yes. If you read my earlier post you'd know full well the question people should ask isn't whether to spend $185 M on a Superdome or $185 M on the people. A real progressive thinker would ask why not make $370 M available for both? Especially if both have positive expectation economically and socially. I believe they both do. The money can be raised, so limited funds isn't an acceptable answer. People need homes - and they need jobs and a healthy corporate tax base to sustain community. One can't exist without the other, it's foolish to believe otherwise. Perhaps it's not the Mother Theresa, bleeding heart answer people want to hear, but it is the truth.

The typical left wing answer to this problem is to point fingers at big business and cry about the suffering masses help back by the capitalist/lobbyist machine. That's fine and dandy. But driving large, job and tax generating businesses out of New Orleans isn't leaving the people who do rebuild with much reason to rebuild at all. So you have to do a bit of both at the same time - damage control I guess we'll call it. The housing reconstruction efforts are not sustainable long-term obviously, and are not an economic benefit the same way a going-concern business like the Saints can be. For the record, the Saints would benefit as much or more moving to a more attractive market which would unquestionably give them even more gratuities on the tax payer's dime.

The Superdome/Saints direct employment aside, hotels, restaurants, taxis, merchandise vendors, tourism etc, all benefit tremendously from a single Saints game. Those businesses employ real people - the "little guys", not the rich greedy millionaires.

Faulting the government for helping to rebuild the Superdome is misdirected anger. We should be faulting them for not doing enough simultaneously to speed up the rebuilding efforts of both families and businesses.

[kexodusc]

Yes only so much money, so is it more humane to build a stadium, or give people a place to live? Further, I believe your numbers are incorrect.Please show me where "thousands of jobs" are affected and "billions of dollars." I think you're stretching this one a little too thin.
Yet again - it's not a choice of one or the other. It's not people vs. the NFL. The Superdome and NFL in New Orleans is a huge revenue machine. The spin-off of economic generation is easily worth billions. You asked several times about the billions of dollars, I'm sorry you're so fixated on that figure, I did say "billions were at stake" so I'm going to some very quick math for you - In 2004, in the old Superdome the Saints were valued at $718 Million. That'd be higher now since the Dome retrofit and NFL TV contracts make a football team there more lucrative. I don't have current figures, I'm not even going to waste my time googling, I'll leave that up to you - it's definitely higher now. Revenue generation annually of over $170 million - that's the Saints - not the other venues the Superdome hosts. The Dome itself is worth at least $200 million now, probably much more, say a conservative $300 million? So a billion between the 2 business values right there. A I dare say over a few years we're easily into billions..I'm not aware of any school of economics that preaches profit yielding, revenue generating machines are bad for the local economy. I shouldn't even have to bring up freshman economics and the multiplier concept. There's a lot of spinoff activity from that business. How many millions would it have cost to tear it down and clean up the mess? What's the problem here?


I think it would have been better to split the money more between the small businesses and homes.
Well I do agree homes and small businesses should get money too. But how many billions have small businesses and homes received? This is a small piece of the buy for all intents and purposes. Big businesses are and should be entitled to some too. Granted, not as much as people, I'm not saying that, but good businesses that improve the community should be entitled. But this isn't a big cuhink of the pie.


Wonderful, but how many really in the grand scheme of things. What good it is to have a stadium, when you don't have a population to tax in the first place. The stadium isn't going to make that shortfall up.

The lease on the stadium will cover a lot of the costs. The Dome isn't viable without it's largest tenant. It may not make all the money back explicitly, by itself, but it should generate enough positive expectation.
Maybe they crunched the numbers and just figured rebuilding the Dome would minimize the losses.


Wonderful, then the STATE should have footed the bill, not the feds.
Hmmm, thought the idea behind FEMA etc was to create an insurance pool for relief to rebuild homes and businesses in the event of disaster. If that's a bad idea and you don't want your tax dollars contributing, idea take it up with your congressman. Maybe it's not the best use of Californians tax dollars, but I'm sure the people in Louisiana are happy it's done. I'm pretty sure the tourism industry, which is huge in New Orleans appreciates it.


Sorry, I think it was Federal money poorly spent. The fact is, the majority of the people who attend are locals, therefore the vast majority of the revenue generated is local. When subtracted, the benifit just isn't that great.

Well by that logic no businesses, or people, native to New Orleans should receive fed money if it's not to the benefit of the nation. Where the money is generated is irrelevant. The fact it is generated at all is relevant. NFL teams do receive a sizeable portion of revenue from out-of-town sources. They're not as heavily gate driven as other sports- Superbowl money, TV rights, merchandising are a big chunk of it. All gets taxed in the state though. They'll make it all back and then some.

[Feanor]

...
The Superdome/Saints direct employment aside, hotels, restaurants, taxis, merchandise vendors, tourism etc, all benefit tremendously from a single Saints game. Those businesses employ real people - the "little guys", not the rich greedy millionaires.

....

But I have seen a lot of public-funded sponsorship of sport teams, stadium, and major sports events. The arguments you mention I've heard before, and they have a lot of validity. The issue isn't whether public funding of enterprise is bad so much as whether the Superdome was the best application. Call me cynical, but often sports-oriented sponsorship is choose because it is deemed popular and easily understood by the common citizen, rather than the best use of the money.

Never mind building homes. Could the money have been better spend on commercial or industrial undertakings rather than a sports stadium? Sports revenues tend to be seasonal, even one-time, and the jobs they create for the "real people" are mostly McJobs. Good industrial jobs tend to be more stable and better paying.

I have no clue: how committed are the Saints to staying in New Orleans? Sports tems have been know change cities for pretty philistine reasons. If New Orleans doesn't rebound, the Superdome won't keep them around.

[kexodusc]

But I have seen a lot of public-funded sponsorship of sport teams, stadium, and major sports events. The arguments you mention I've heard before, and they have a lot of validity. The issue isn't whether public funding of enterprise is bad so much as whether the Superdome was the best application. Call me cynical, but often sports-oriented sponsorship is choose because it is deemed popular and easily understood by the common citizen, rather than the best use of the money.

Never mind building homes. Could the money have been better spend on commercial or industrial undertakings rather than a sports stadium? Sports revenues tend to be seasonal, even one-time, and the jobs they create for the "real people" are mostly McJobs. Good industrial jobs tend to be more stable and better paying.

I have no clue: how committed are the Saints to staying in New Orleans? Sports teams have been know change cities for pretty philistine reasons. If New Orleans doesn't rebound, the Superdome won't keep them around.

I think you've made an excellent point - there's no guarantee of the Saints sticking around indefinitely. But I think the parties had to try. A lot of spin-off businesses would likely close shop and not bother sticking around if the Superdome was abandonned. Sending people out of the region is the last thing needed. Perceptions and attitudes would change for many people, business and home owners alike if the Saints left town. I believe this venture has a lot of "intangible" benefits. It's cliche, but N.O. is known for few things, and the Saints were one of them. If disaster relief wouldn't help the Saints it sends a signal to other businesses - don't even think of us, we can't keep our most visible franchise. It's irrational and a bit illogical, but having an NFL team does sort of put a city on the "map". Corporate tax bases are important to infrastructure and it

I agree wholeheartedly that the perceived value of sports teams is often miscalculated when public money is involved. SkyDome and Olympic Stadium in Montreal have to be 2 of the biggest disasters stories out there. But they don't hold Superbowls once every 5 years on average either. Not all public funded sport stories are busts. A lot of them are quite positive.

I don't know how much money from all sources has been obtained so far, but Federal sources alone account for at least 70 billion- the 10.5 B Bush signed for in the Disaster Relief Bill adn the $62 B from Congress for the Katrina Relief. Foreign donations are over 1 B...The damage was estimated around $80 Billion, so it would seem alot of people and businesss are getting money to rebuild eventually. Why should the state owned Superdome should be excluded from that?

It's a sensitive subject. It's hard to watch people live in glorified boxes while a shiny new Superdome is rebuilt. I believe the parties all new that the window of opportunity to keep the Saints in N.O. and thus make a Superdome and all beneficiaries to its activities viable was short so they acted in the timeframe they had. It's a necessary evil that some businesses are going to get reconstructed before the last family moves back to a permanent home.

[ForeverAutumn]

I guess if there's no business and, thus, a poor economy, there's no reason to move back at all. At first this was a very hard pill for me to swallow, but I can see now the logic behind this move. It's just another part of keeping N.O alive. Otherwise, if there's no reason for folks to move back there or stay there, the city will just dwindle and, eventually, die.

I saw the effects that the Hockey strike had on business's in Toronto. Restaurants and bars that were usually thriving on a Saturday night during Hockey Night in Canada, were empty during the strike. A lot of business's lost a lot of money. So, I can relate to how The Saints continuing to play in N.O. will boost the local economy.

Thanks for helping me to understand.