Commentary

Taxpayer-Funded Stadiums a Lose-Lose Proposition

The owners of the Detroit Red Wings are looking to building a new $650-million entertainment district for the team in downtown Detroit with the help of state and local taxpayers.

The plan is in its early stages and details are scarce, but the overwhelming economic consensus is that subsidized stadiums are huge losers for taxpayers.

Amidst all the other excitement in Lansing, a bill to exempt certain businesses from state and local taxes via the Downtown Development Act was signed by Gov. Rick Snyder recently. According to MIRS Capitol Capsule, this “paves the way” for a replacement for Joe Louis Arena.

Despite statements from legislators (“8,300 construction jobs”), local “economic development officers (“makes good business sense”) and business leaders involved in the deal (“$1.8 billion in economic impact”), it is important to remember that there are almost no economic studies that find that stadium deals via direct subsidies or tax incentives are a good deal for taxpayers.

As Jeff Wattrick of Deadline Detroit points out, Andrew Zimbalist, the Robert A. Woods professor of economics at Smith College, "is arguably the best known and among the most respected economists studying the value of public investment in sporting venues and their ancillary developments … Zimbalist, like virtually every other serious scholar who has reviewed the data, came to the conclusion that the economic benefit to the community is an illusion."

Zimbalist writes, “All of the independent, scholarly research on the issue of whether sports teams and facilities have a positive economic impact has come to the same conclusion: One should not anticipate that a team or a facility by itself will either increase employment or raise per capita income in a metropolitan area.”

Flashy projects have not helped the city in the past. Remember the Renaissance Center, which was supposed to “anchor Detroit’s revival”? How about the money taxpayers put up for the stadiums for the Detroit Lions and Detroit Tigers? State and local citizens are still subsidizing the local teams.

The Pontiac Silverdome, where the Detroit Lions played before moving into Ford Field in Detroit, was built in 1975 for $55.7 million ($227 million today). Besides tax benefits from the city of Pontiac, the Lions received $800,000 per year from state taxpayers. After the Lions moved, Pontiac paid $1.5 million a year in upkeep and eventually sold the stadium to a Canadian developer for $583,000 in 2009.

Michigan residents can take solace that this is far from the worst stadium deal among the many around the country: That honor belongs to New Jersey taxpayers. As I wrote last summer:

In 2010, the New York Giants and New York Jets football teams (who actually play in New Jersey) broke ground on their shared New Meadowlands Stadium. In the meantime, the old Giants Stadium, which was demolished to make room for the New Meadowlands, still carries $110 million in debt from when it was built in 1976. In sum: The bill for a now-demolished stadium is being subsidized by New Jersey residents who are, again, subsidizing a new stadium on top of the old one for two teams named for New York.

New York, East Rutherford, Kansas City, Miami, Seattle, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Houston, Memphis, Pittsburgh — all those cities and more are home to stadiums and arenas abandoned by teams that residents are still paying for. It doesn't make sense to add Detroit to the list.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

News Story

Public Schools: 'Profit' Bad For Others, Good For Us

Superintendent speaking out on school choice earns $250K in compensation; school has 15 executives making over $120K

Vickie Markavitch has been one of the leading voices among the public school superintendents warning parents about education reform legislation that she says will have "public tax dollars profiting Wall Street."

She has been traveling around the state speaking out against the legislation all the while her school district houses a non-profit that uses school resources to advocate against school choice bills.

Markavitch and some other superintendents across the state are saying House Bills 6004 and 5923 and Senate Bill 1358 will lead to “for-profit” schools opening in Michigan.

As Markavitch rails against "for profit" schools, it is interesting to note that she and her top administrators in the Oakland Intermediate School District are doing quite well financially under the traditional public school system.

As the Oakland Intermediate School District superintendent, Markavitch earns $190,965 a year on top of a $65,000 a year pension she collects from having earlier retired from the district, according to public documents.

Oakland ISD's top 15 executives make between $123,676 and $190,965 a year in salary.

Markavitch, who was rehired as superintendent after retiring, spent two decades working in Illinois and Indiana, according to Crain’s Detroit. She could be vested in as many three public school pensions from three different states.

"They like to conjure up images that anyone in the private sector is a robber baron," said Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance. "Apparently when these administrators are hoarding this lavish amount of money, it’s not profiteering. To them, competition is profiteering. What they have right now is a monopoly on profit. They fear competition not because they fear profit, but because they fear their own profits could be endangered."

Danelle Gittus, spokeswoman for Oakland schools, said when analyzing the financials of any organization, salaries and profit are not comparable.

"However, I will say that our administrators earn their salaries by providing services and resources to benefit all learners, and in Oakland County that is approximately 200,000 students. Unfortunately the for-profit schools we have operating in Michigan are making profits while not serving students with special needs. We are pleased that you are able to access all of the information you needed to analyze the salaries of our administrators, as we are proud of our transparency. Unfortunately, similar information is not so easy to come by with the private, for-profit companies looking to expand in Michigan."

Jan Ellis, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Education, said there is no such thing as "for-profit" schools in Michigan. Some charter schools do hire for-profit companies to run their schools.

Gittus said when Markavitch said "for-profit schools" she was referring to "for-profit charter and cyber schools."

Another argument that traditional public school administrators have been making is that public charter schools don't have the same costs because they don't have to take special needs children into their schools.

However, according to the state, conventional public school districts labeled 12.7 percent of their students as special needs in 2011-2012, while charters had 9.2 percent of their students listed as special needs.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.