Texas hypocrites spend $31 mil in tax money on SB while trying to cut teachers

Hasn't there been several studies showing the impact to be marginal or even negative at times?

I dug this one up from last year's SB in Miami.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/super-bowls-economic-impact-may-be-super-inflated/19347053/

Benefits of the big game are difficult to measure, especially in South Florida.

"The studies [saying there are big benefits from the Super Bowl] are just guesses, not studies," says Porter. "While there is a lot of money being spent there is no opportunity for the city to grab it."

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/cQi50B

The same argument could also be had for subsidizing sports events. The massive infusion of cash would be better spent on local infrastructure, schools and the like rather than a big building that sits empty half the year.

 

Does she bitch when cities spend billions to bring the Olympics?

 

Remember an episode of "The Simpsons" when the teachers went on strike? Mrs. Krabappel said think of the children and Skinner said it's going to cost you.

Don't blame politicians. Blame all of us.

 

I'm not (yet) defending the $31M. Just asking about revenues generated. When that many people are in one place they tend to spend money. I'd think at least sales tax revenues would be a halfway decent place to start.

Then you have to consider that goods and services were purchased by these unique visitors. What kind of impact did that have on the economy? Even if the economic impact was not great, I'd like to see what it was before rushing to judgment over the tax money spent, that's all.

 

Comparing the cost-side of a revenue-generator to a pure expense is intellectually dishonest.

 

A billion dollar industry like the NFL shouldn't even need tax subsidies. It's disgusting.

 

The NFL isn't the only one. If the NFL can't get subsidies, cut off subsidies for everything else, including newspapers.

 

fixed

 

Much of the SB-oriented $31 million was spent/allocated long ago. The budget issues the state currently faces have to do with the coming two budget years (which, iirc, begin in September). She still has a point, but it's a lot murkier than she makes out.

The whole Navy thing chaps my rear end, though, because it's completely dishonest. Those pilots have to accrue air time on a regular basis, and these flyovers typically are simply conveniently scheduled instances of this. So, yes, $450,000 was spent on this flyover, but it was $450,000 that would have been spent at one time or another anyway.

Oh, and the city of Arlington spent not a penny more than its initial commitment, which was $325 million. Jones was on the hook for everything else.

 

That it took someone until Thursday to write this story is the most amazing thing about it. It's as predictable as the "American businesses lose thousands of man hours because March Madness" stories we'll see next month. Heaven forbid the state spend money on anything other than the sacred cow of education. Teachers are our most precious resource, dammit!
It's just lazy and predictable bullshit.

 

Whenever the studies of this Super Bowl come out in a couple years, it'll probably be "determined" that the benefit didn't justify the cost -- completely ignoring, or course, the fact the bad weather shut down the Metroplex for most of the week leading to the game.

 

I don't like subsidies, I don't like public-funded stadiums, I don't like a lot of tax-payer funded business ventures.....

That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the Super Bowl brought in more than $31 million in revenue if you count all the hotel rooms, restaurants, rental cars, souvenirs etc., etc. - for what, roughly 100,000 people coming into town.