TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Facilitating sport: Uneven partnerships

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012, 8:53 p.m.
 

A new book by a Harvard University professor not only confirms that taxpayers lose when they subsidize construction of facilities for pro sports teams — it shows those deals are even worse for taxpayers than they thought.

In “Public/Private Partnerships for Major League Sports Facilities,” urban planning associate professor Judith Grant Long analyzes such deals for 121 sports facilities in use during 2010 — adding up the costs of land, infrastructure, lost property-tax revenue and operations, then subtracting revenue and rent that the facilities generate. She finds those costs hike taxpayers' bills an average of 25 percent, Bloomberg News reports.

That raises taxpayers' average cost per facility from the $170 million commonly cited by teams and media to $259 million — about $10 billion more overall. And on average, taxpayers bear 78 percent of construction costs, teams just 22 percent.

Contrary to popular perception, these partnerships “are in fact highly uneven,” Ms. Long writes. (Think of the current Pittsburgh Steelers' plan to expand Heinz Field.) She also notes that cities negotiate on the public's behalf at a disadvantage because pro sports leagues monopolize the supply of franchises and keep their finances less than transparent.

Pittsburghers know Long's conclusion — that “public partners should avoid paying building costs” — all too well from bitter experience. Hopefully, her demonstration of just how bad these lucrative giveaways to millionaire players and billionaire team owners are for taxpayers will help end them.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Pirates notebook: Prospect Tucker unaware of ‘trade’ frenzy
  2. Kang’s 9th-inning home run gives Pirates wild victory over Twins
  3. Penguins trade Sutter to Canucks, sign free agent center Fehr
  4. ATI workers retire early to ensure pension
  5. More than 100 stamp bags confiscated in Greensburg; 4 arrested
  6. Van Halen plays plenty of favorites in First Niagara show
  7. Pregnant woman killed by gunfire in Brighton Heights, other shootings reported in city
  8. Penguins bring in analytics expert from Carnegie Mellon
  9. Muni bond funds stressed
  10. Intrepid VFW post in West Mifflin earns all-state designation
  11. 5 face trial in beating of black man in Pittsburgh