Virginia is for Suckers: VA leg looking to spend $1B to lure Washington Commanders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well families move to VA from MD to improve their lives so I'm sure a football team moving from MD will actually have a winning season.

I honestly think it would do a lot to improve attendance. No Ravens fans live in VA after all.

[Anonymous]

Public finance PP here again. Since people don’t seem to grasp how public financed projects work: the issuer (in this case the Virginia Football Stadium Authority) will issue government bonds for which the payment that is pledged will solely come from taxes generated and collected at the stadium (ticket sales, merchandise sales, rental sales, licensing sales, etc). Taxes will NOT be raised on Virginia residents to pay for these bonds. That’s not how it works. Public finance is the method of financing projects for the public good without raising taxes or diverting funds from a budget.

How is this for the public good? I suspect the argument is: jobs (in construction and then once built in performing its functions), entertainment for the public, good will for the state, and “if we build it they will come” sense that with the stadium will come supporting business and increased opportunities (hotels, retail, restaurants, etc).

Historically public finance has been heavily favored by democrats since people are trying to make this political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public finance PP here again. Since people don’t seem to grasp how public financed projects work: the issuer (in this case the Virginia Football Stadium Authority) will issue government bonds for which the payment that is pledged will solely come from taxes generated and collected at the stadium (ticket sales, merchandise sales, rental sales, licensing sales, etc). Taxes will NOT be raised on Virginia residents to pay for these bonds. That’s not how it works. Public finance is the method of financing projects for the public good without raising taxes or diverting funds from a budget.

How is this for the public good? I suspect the argument is: jobs (in construction and then once built in performing its functions), entertainment for the public, good will for the state, and “if we build it they will come” sense that with the stadium will come supporting business and increased opportunities (hotels, retail, restaurants, etc).

Historically public finance has been heavily favored by democrats since people are trying to make this political.

And what happens if tax revenues generated by the stadium are insufficient to cover the debt obligations? Will the stadium authority default on its debt, or will taxpayers make up the difference? You keep ignoring this question, and it’s really tedious.

[Anonymous]

This is awesome news! I'd love to see the new stadium come to Virginia!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- but NFL stadiums also hold music concerts, NCAA football games, NCAA basketball playoffs (e.g. Big East conference, March Madness) ... maybe even a Super Bowl at some point. To say it's only 10 games a year, period, is highly misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public finance PP here again. Since people don’t seem to grasp how public financed projects work: the issuer (in this case the Virginia Football Stadium Authority) will issue government bonds for which the payment that is pledged will solely come from taxes generated and collected at the stadium (ticket sales, merchandise sales, rental sales, licensing sales, etc). Taxes will NOT be raised on Virginia residents to pay for these bonds. That’s not how it works. Public finance is the method of financing projects for the public good without raising taxes or diverting funds from a budget.

How is this for the public good? I suspect the argument is: jobs (in construction and then once built in performing its functions), entertainment for the public, good will for the state, and “if we build it they will come” sense that with the stadium will come supporting business and increased opportunities (hotels, retail, restaurants, etc).

Historically public finance has been heavily favored by democrats since people are trying to make this political.

And what happens if tax revenues generated by the stadium are insufficient to cover the debt obligations? Will the stadium authority default on its debt, or will taxpayers make up the difference? You keep ignoring this question, and it’s really tedious.

Calm down.

I would need to see the official statement of these bonds to know with certainty but generally, unless these are general obligation bonds, in the event they cannot collect enough taxes to cover the debt service the issuer would not legally be obligated to cover the shortfall. In reality most issuers do not allow their bonds to default and there are several options that can occur such as refinancing (call the bonds and re-issuing) and looking to the state’s general fund from a surplus. In that event it would come out of state money but not from increasing taxes.

TIFs (tax increment financing) where increases in property taxes would raise concerns for me as a tax payer but that’s not this kind of project. For example: ALL of the District, all of it, and all of its future increases in real property taxes collected, have already been pledged for debt service for bonds the district has issues in the 2000s. This was how the city revitalized Chinatown/Gallery Place. So, given we are on a big increase in real property assessments, say we hit a recession like in 2008 and real property assessments start to go down. Well, you will be collecting less total taxes. So one way to solve that problem would be to increase the tax rate. That is when tax payers end up paying. But this Virginia football stadium isn’t a TIF for property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well families move to VA from MD to improve their lives so I'm sure a football team moving from MD will actually have a winning season.

I honestly think it would do a lot to improve attendance. No Ravens fans live in VA after all.

The best selling NFL jersey in Virginia is Baltimore Ravens QB Lamar Jackson. No local connection either because he’s from Florida and went to college at Louisville. This is how bad Snyder is, people. Don’t give him any of your tax money.
https://www.wric.com/nfl/map-shows-most-popular-nfl-jersey-in-every-state/amp/

[Anonymous]

Snyder's "negotiations" with Virginia is just a ploy to get Bowser to cough up an even bigger handout for RFK. DC even just gerrymandered the heck out of Ward 6 so that local neighbors can no longer oppose a big fat RFK development.

[Anonymous]

We don't want Dan Snyder in Virginia, even for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snyder's "negotiations" with Virginia is just a ploy to get Bowser to cough up an even bigger handout for RFK. DC even just gerrymandered the heck out of Ward 6 so that local neighbors can no longer oppose a big fat RFK development.

This is the only smart post in this entire thread. Every 10 years or so the Redskins would talk about building a stadium in VA. It never happens and never will happen. It is used as a ploy (leverage) in negotiating with DC and MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- but NFL stadiums also hold music concerts, NCAA football games, NCAA basketball playoffs (e.g. Big East conference, March Madness) ... maybe even a Super Bowl at some point. To say it's only 10 games a year, period, is highly misleading.

FedEx has hosted hardly any of those things. Pre-Covid in 2019 it had one music festival and a couple Rolling Stones shows. The year before, just a set of Taylor Swift shows. Before that, Springsteen, Metallica, hardly any other artists can fill it. A handful of college football games over its 24 years of existence, hardly any of them major. It has only ever hosted one Army-Navy game which considering where it’s located is pathetic. Virginia Tech and Maryland have each hosted games there a couple times. They have the Prince George’s Classic which is an annual HBCU matchup. This is not comparable to a baseball stadium or a basketball/hockey arena both of which attract crowds to a neighborhood 1 out of every 4 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- but NFL stadiums also hold music concerts, NCAA football games, NCAA basketball playoffs (e.g. Big East conference, March Madness) ... maybe even a Super Bowl at some point. To say it's only 10 games a year, period, is highly misleading.

FedEx has hosted hardly any of those things. Pre-Covid in 2019 it had one music festival and a couple Rolling Stones shows. The year before, just a set of Taylor Swift shows. Before that, Springsteen, Metallica, hardly any other artists can fill it. A handful of college football games over its 24 years of existence, hardly any of them major. It has only ever hosted one Army-Navy game which considering where it’s located is pathetic. Virginia Tech and Maryland have each hosted games there a couple times. They have the Prince George’s Classic which is an annual HBCU matchup. This is not comparable to a baseball stadium or a basketball/hockey arena both of which attract crowds to a neighborhood 1 out of every 4 days.

+1. We shouldn't use random ancillary events as a justification for a billion-dollar football stadium. That's like saying you need that overpriced Ferrari because once in a while you might use it to pick up some milk from the grocery store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public finance PP here again. Since people don’t seem to grasp how public financed projects work: the issuer (in this case the Virginia Football Stadium Authority) will issue government bonds for which the payment that is pledged will solely come from taxes generated and collected at the stadium (ticket sales, merchandise sales, rental sales, licensing sales, etc). Taxes will NOT be raised on Virginia residents to pay for these bonds. That’s not how it works. Public finance is the method of financing projects for the public good without raising taxes or diverting funds from a budget.

How is this for the public good? I suspect the argument is: jobs (in construction and then once built in performing its functions), entertainment for the public, good will for the state, and “if we build it they will come” sense that with the stadium will come supporting business and increased opportunities (hotels, retail, restaurants, etc).

Historically public finance has been heavily favored by democrats since people are trying to make this political.

And what happens if tax revenues generated by the stadium are insufficient to cover the debt obligations? Will the stadium authority default on its debt, or will taxpayers make up the difference? You keep ignoring this question, and it’s really tedious.

Calm down.

I would need to see the official statement of these bonds to know with certainty but generally, unless these are general obligation bonds, in the event they cannot collect enough taxes to cover the debt service the issuer would not legally be obligated to cover the shortfall. In reality most issuers do not allow their bonds to default and there are several options that can occur such as refinancing (call the bonds and re-issuing) and looking to the state’s general fund from a surplus. In that event it would come out of state money but not from increasing taxes.

TIFs (tax increment financing) where increases in property taxes would raise concerns for me as a tax payer but that’s not this kind of project. For example: ALL of the District, all of it, and all of its future increases in real property taxes collected, have already been pledged for debt service for bonds the district has issues in the 2000s. This was how the city revitalized Chinatown/Gallery Place. So, given we are on a big increase in real property assessments, say we hit a recession like in 2008 and real property assessments start to go down. Well, you will be collecting less total taxes. So one way to solve that problem would be to increase the tax rate. That is when tax payers end up paying. But this Virginia football stadium isn’t a TIF for property taxes.

And there you go. That may not be a tax increase, but it is taxpayer money. If there is a meaningful surplus, I want it going to an actual public good, like education or healthcare. Not to some crappy, second-rate football team so the owner can make a few more pennies while he gropes female employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public finance PP here again. Since people don’t seem to grasp how public financed projects work: the issuer (in this case the Virginia Football Stadium Authority) will issue government bonds for which the payment that is pledged will solely come from taxes generated and collected at the stadium (ticket sales, merchandise sales, rental sales, licensing sales, etc). Taxes will NOT be raised on Virginia residents to pay for these bonds. That’s not how it works. Public finance is the method of financing projects for the public good without raising taxes or diverting funds from a budget.

How is this for the public good? I suspect the argument is: jobs (in construction and then once built in performing its functions), entertainment for the public, good will for the state, and “if we build it they will come” sense that with the stadium will come supporting business and increased opportunities (hotels, retail, restaurants, etc).

Historically public finance has been heavily favored by democrats since people are trying to make this political.

And what happens if tax revenues generated by the stadium are insufficient to cover the debt obligations? Will the stadium authority default on its debt, or will taxpayers make up the difference? You keep ignoring this question, and it’s really tedious.

Calm down.

I would need to see the official statement of these bonds to know with certainty but generally, unless these are general obligation bonds, in the event they cannot collect enough taxes to cover the debt service the issuer would not legally be obligated to cover the shortfall. In reality most issuers do not allow their bonds to default and there are several options that can occur such as refinancing (call the bonds and re-issuing) and looking to the state’s general fund from a surplus. In that event it would come out of state money but not from increasing taxes.

TIFs (tax increment financing) where increases in property taxes would raise concerns for me as a tax payer but that’s not this kind of project. For example: ALL of the District, all of it, and all of its future increases in real property taxes collected, have already been pledged for debt service for bonds the district has issues in the 2000s. This was how the city revitalized Chinatown/Gallery Place. So, given we are on a big increase in real property assessments, say we hit a recession like in 2008 and real property assessments start to go down. Well, you will be collecting less total taxes. So one way to solve that problem would be to increase the tax rate. That is when tax payers end up paying. But this Virginia football stadium isn’t a TIF for property taxes.

And there you go. That may not be a tax increase, but it is taxpayer money. If there is a meaningful surplus, I want it going to an actual public good, like education or healthcare. Not to some crappy, second-rate football team so the owner can make a few more pennies while he gropes female employees.

These kind of bonds are used to finance all kinds of public good projects: public schools, public colleges and universities, public hospitals, public transportation (WMATA, even BWI), roads, bridges, water/wastewater, revitalizing “blighted” areas, public housing, workforce housing, senior housing, etc. This is also how Arlington and Alexandria are subsidizing Amazon HQ2. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All investments include risk. Bonds are one avenue to raise financing without necessarily raising taxes or re-allocating budgets. Whether this particular project is a good bone investment, I don’t know. An “official statement” would need to be published and distributed outlining by law in detail the financing structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public finance PP here again. Since people don’t seem to grasp how public financed projects work: the issuer (in this case the Virginia Football Stadium Authority) will issue government bonds for which the payment that is pledged will solely come from taxes generated and collected at the stadium (ticket sales, merchandise sales, rental sales, licensing sales, etc). Taxes will NOT be raised on Virginia residents to pay for these bonds. That’s not how it works. Public finance is the method of financing projects for the public good without raising taxes or diverting funds from a budget.

How is this for the public good? I suspect the argument is: jobs (in construction and then once built in performing its functions), entertainment for the public, good will for the state, and “if we build it they will come” sense that with the stadium will come supporting business and increased opportunities (hotels, retail, restaurants, etc).

Historically public finance has been heavily favored by democrats since people are trying to make this political.

And what happens if tax revenues generated by the stadium are insufficient to cover the debt obligations? Will the stadium authority default on its debt, or will taxpayers make up the difference? You keep ignoring this question, and it’s really tedious.

Calm down.

I would need to see the official statement of these bonds to know with certainty but generally, unless these are general obligation bonds, in the event they cannot collect enough taxes to cover the debt service the issuer would not legally be obligated to cover the shortfall. In reality most issuers do not allow their bonds to default and there are several options that can occur such as refinancing (call the bonds and re-issuing) and looking to the state’s general fund from a surplus. In that event it would come out of state money but not from increasing taxes.

TIFs (tax increment financing) where increases in property taxes would raise concerns for me as a tax payer but that’s not this kind of project. For example: ALL of the District, all of it, and all of its future increases in real property taxes collected, have already been pledged for debt service for bonds the district has issues in the 2000s. This was how the city revitalized Chinatown/Gallery Place. So, given we are on a big increase in real property assessments, say we hit a recession like in 2008 and real property assessments start to go down. Well, you will be collecting less total taxes. So one way to solve that problem would be to increase the tax rate. That is when tax payers end up paying. But this Virginia football stadium isn’t a TIF for property taxes.

And there you go. That may not be a tax increase, but it is taxpayer money. If there is a meaningful surplus, I want it going to an actual public good, like education or healthcare. Not to some crappy, second-rate football team so the owner can make a few more pennies while he gropes female employees.

These kind of bonds are used to finance all kinds of public good projects: public schools, public colleges and universities, public hospitals, public transportation (WMATA, even BWI), roads, bridges, water/wastewater, revitalizing “blighted” areas, public housing, workforce housing, senior housing, etc. This is also how Arlington and Alexandria are subsidizing Amazon HQ2. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All investments include risk. Bonds are one avenue to raise financing without necessarily raising taxes or re-allocating budgets. Whether this particular project is a good bone investment, I don’t know. An “official statement” would need to be published and distributed outlining by law in detail the financing structure.

Are you actually reading these posts, or are you just writing knee-jerk screeds? The whole point is that a new stadium for Dan Snyder is not a public good for Virginia and there is a long history of publicly-financed stadiums turning out to be bad deals for the state/locality, regardless of what their boosters promise when they’re trying to get the deal done. That you can’t address these issues directly and instead in engage in this kind of nonsense, talking to all of us like we are five when in fact you are the one who can’t seem to follow the discussion, only suggests that you are one of those mindless boosters who narcissistically think no one is as smart as you.