The city tried to recoup some loss by incorporating certain areas of recent housing development Because of the low property values, the property tax yield was less than 30% of what it was for the average neighborhood in the city. The city got no property taxes from these new housing developments in unincorporated areas. The same developer bought up property in unincorporated areas, and he and a local contractor built little neighborhoods of cheap single family houses on those old fields. Most chose to live outside the city limits, in rural or unincorporated areas where rent and property values were lower. So, most of the new employees were people who came from elsewhere looking for the work, resettling in that town. The city had a slightly higher than 3% unemployment rate at the time. The idea was sold to the public as being fiscally beneficial to the city through the idea that the loss of property taxes on the land would be less than the property taxes paid by the future employees – a net tax gain by for the city. The deal was put together by a local developer who bought up the land tracts that formed the area where the plant was to be built. On top of the tax abatement, the city would not only incorporate the area, but provide the waterlines, sewage lines, power lines, widen the the roads bordering the area, etc. The deal was put together by a local developer who bought up the area where the plant was to be built. My home town, with a population of less than 100,000 similarly attracted an car plant with tax abatement. Yes – but you’re excluding the most important parts of how and why these types of deals work and who benefits.

That’s how big business including sports frachises works. Without that they would have built elsewhere. This is true for all big businesses, Toyota is building a huge new Corp location in Plano, why? Because they got over $150 million in tax breaks to do so. For instance why does a Vegas stadium need voters to approve a tax? Why aren’t they voting on a bond issuance instead? There is no way in God’s good creation a stadium in Vegas with a retractable roof wouldn’t not only pay for itself but print money IF the revenues generated from it went back into it. Some of the leases would make a con man blush. It is not unreasonable for a city/county/state to pay for infrastructure to support a new stadium the same as they would for any major development that will yield tax dollars down the road but that is as far as it should ever reasonably go unless the owner foregoes any income derived from all non football events. The real issue lies in some leases that give NFL teams a share of the revenue from non football events. If the owner pays for the stadium then he gets the revenue from those other events thus accruing the benefit.

So it’s not fair to make the team owner pay for the entire thing when he’s by far not the only one who will be benefitting from it.

Pay for lavish software and inner space