The Conservative Cave
The Bar => Sports => Topic started by: ReardenSteel on May 05, 2008, 02:26:11 PM
-
Very short but delicious article on the current pains/hypocrasy of one Clayton I. Bennett. (Bennett would like to move the Sonics from Seattle to Oklahoma City) I'll give the jist of it here but it's a good read and I recomend the link. OK, here goes...
- In 2006 Seattle voters say "no" to tax subsidies for pro sports teams.
- Bennett says, “The net benefit of this building will provide an economic upside and will not be a tax drain.â€
- 2007 Seattle voters say "no" again. New Sonics stadium effectivly killed.
- Oklahoma owner Clayton Bennett wants to move the team to Oklahoma City.
- City of Seattle says, "Pay off your lease + lost benefits to the community"
- Bennett lawyers, “The financial issue is simple, and the city’s analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle†(Sonic fans will spend their "Sonic money" on other entertainment)
- And as a coup de grâce... Bennett to Oklahoma City "I need $100M subsidy to fix up your stadium and build new practice facility, just imagine the economic benifit of an NBA team in your town"
So Long, Seattle
Stadium welfare schemes
Radley Balko | May 2008
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125461.html
Anyone pulling out their hair yet? :lmao: :lmao:
-
We went down this road here in KC a few years ago regarding improvements to both the stadiums here.....the teams threatened to leave, and the analysts determined that the net effect financially if they left was "zero", However the fans pissed, moaned, and succeeded in getting the tax increase on the ballot, and the teams put millions into an advertising campaign, so it passed narrowly.....and we are stuck with a higher sales tax........
I'm not a sports fan, so I really don't care, but it seems strange to me that players and team owners make millions each year.....and the taxpayers get to pay for the stadiums.....?? WTF??
doc
-
We went down this road here in KC a few years ago regarding improvements to both the stadiums here.....the teams threatened to leave, and the analysts determined that the net effect financially if they left was "zero", However the fans pissed, moaned, and succeeded in getting the tax increase on the ballot, and the teams put millions into an advertising campaign, so it passed narrowly.....and we are stuck with a higher sales tax........
I'm not a sports fan, so I really don't care, but it seems strange to me that players and team owners make millions each year.....and the taxpayers get to pay for the stadiums.....?? WTF??
doc
and this is why I laugh my ass off at guys like Oreilly when he 'scolds' socialists ...
cause we all know he & his network, FOX, are all for GWB ..
which means OReilly is all for welfare (ie: corporate welfare) ...
I grew up in arlington Texas TVDOC ...I feel your pain... and I lost most respect for GWB & the Bush's in general when his texs rangers bribed taxpayers to pay for his new stadium AND the state spent a ton of cash on offramps to the new stadium (used eminent domain too)
new england patriots are the ONLY team I know of that actually have paid for their new stadium
-
Well, I could understand a little more if it were a NFL or MLB team (and I'm speaking based on the Seattle Sonics relocation to OKC) that I have to pay that $130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents. I mean it's not like Clay Bennett (husband of an E.K. Gaylord heir) and Aubrey McClendon (Co-founder of Chesapeake Energy) don't have the personal wealth to invest on that 170 million dollar Ford Center facility-upgrade. I mean we've already paid around 500 million dollars over the past 15 years for a new Triple-A baseball field and a 17,000 + seat arena.
-
We went down this road here in KC a few years ago regarding improvements to both the stadiums here.....the teams threatened to leave, and the analysts determined that the net effect financially if they left was "zero", However the fans pissed, moaned, and succeeded in getting the tax increase on the ballot, and the teams put millions into an advertising campaign, so it passed narrowly.....and we are stuck with a higher sales tax........
I'm not a sports fan, so I really don't care, but it seems strange to me that players and team owners make millions each year.....and the taxpayers get to pay for the stadiums.....?? WTF??
doc
and this is why I laugh my ass off at guys like Oreilly when he 'scolds' socialists ...
cause we all know he & his network, FOX, are all for GWB ..
which means OReilly is all for welfare (ie: corporate welfare) ...
I grew up in arlington Texas TVDOC ...I feel your pain... and I lost most respect for GWB & the Bush's in general when his texs rangers bribed taxpayers to pay for his new stadium AND the state spent a ton of cash on offramps to the new stadium (used eminent domain too)
new england patriots are the ONLY team I know of that actually have paid for their new stadium
JCC, I thought that you hated the Pats! :o
-
Well, I could understand a little more if it were a NFL or MLB team (and I'm speaking based on the Seattle Sonics relocation to OKC) that I have to pay that $130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents. I mean it's not like Clay Bennett (husband of an E.K. Gaylord heir) and Aubrey McClendon (Co-founder of Chesapeake Energy) don't have the personal wealth to invest on that 170 million dollar Ford Center facility-upgrade. I mean we've already paid around 500 million dollars over the past 15 years for a new Triple-A baseball field and a 17,000 + seat arena.
I think we can all agree on the injustice of tax payer funded stadiums. At least to some degree. What really struck me about the above story was the duel arguments Bennett and his lawyers were forced into by the lawsuit filed by the city of Seattle.
Does anyone know if this has ever happened before? (does it happen every time?) I recall the Cleveland Browns suing to keep the Browns identity in town despite the loss of the team but do not recall lease or "lost revenue" arguments. Most other major moves were before my time or the stadium issues were about expansion teams. (or the city/voters caved and built new stadiums to keep existing teams) However, an owner agruing "no lost revenue" in city "A" and "newly generated revenue" in city "B" at the exact same time is, well... lets just say Bennett has quite a bit of moxy, LOL.
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
But, they did kill Babs . . . H5! :tongue:
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
-
The greediest sports owner is that SOB from New Orleans, Tom Benson of the Saints. He threatened to leave after Katrina and move the team to San Antonio. The State of LA gives him the concessions, all receipts, all parking fees and pays him around $20 million to stay. I hope when his contract expires, the state offers him zero compensation. He wanted a new stadium because he said he was not making enough money. With around 60k tickets sold every game that is not possible. The lying prick would not let the state auditors review his books for verification.
-
Given the rep the Jailblazers have built over the last several years (and have been trying to live down recently) they don't have the strength to threaten Portland.
Of course, they did scam us on the new stadium. But not that badly. Other cities have fared far worse. We got them to pay 55% of the cost.
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
I can understand if there is an unfullfilled contract involved certain expectations remain, but still, "lost revenue" is a bogus claim in just about all cases.
Yes, they still get left with an empty old stadium. The team can't take it with them. The ownership is irrelevant. Whoever owns it, it will remain in Seattle.
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
I can understand if there is an unfullfilled contract involved certain expectations remain, but still, "lost revenue" is a bogus claim in just about all cases.
Yes, they still get left with an empty old stadium. The team can't take it with them. The ownership is irrelevant. Whoever owns it, it will remain in Seattle.
I'm inclined to agree in most cases but what abuot the case in the OP? And if "lost revenue" is a bogus claim we can say as much about "gained revenue" can we not? Our very own Odin's Hand, has told us he is amoung the taxpayers who need to come up with "$130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents". That represents lost entertainment dollars from everyone's pockets right there. Plus the money that does go to the OKC SuperSonics (or whatever they call themselves) could very well be money not going to the OSU Cowboys basketball and football teams, the new baseball team Odin mentioned, theme parks, the science museum (I remember the Omniplex from grade school in Altus, lol) etc etc etc...
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
I can understand if there is an unfullfilled contract involved certain expectations remain, but still, "lost revenue" is a bogus claim in just about all cases.
Yes, they still get left with an empty old stadium. The team can't take it with them. The ownership is irrelevant. Whoever owns it, it will remain in Seattle.
I'm inclined to agree in most cases but what abuot the case in the OP? And if "lost revenue" is a bogus claim we can say as much about "gained revenue" can we not? Our very own Odin's Hand, has told us he is amoung the taxpayers who need to come up with "$130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents". That represents lost entertainment dollars from everyone's pockets right there. Plus the money that does go to the OKC SuperSonics (or whatever they call themselves) could very well be money not going to the OSU Cowboys basketball and football teams, the new baseball team Odin mentioned, theme parks, the science museum (I remember the Omniplex from grade school in Altus, lol) etc etc etc...
What better way to gain revenue than through taxation? It is a much more direct way to enhance revenue instead of waiting for someone to decide to spend money. Also, it creates an asset for OKC.
They will be selling beer for $9.00 a pop. Back the sales tax out of that and see how much tax revenue is generated.
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
I can understand if there is an unfullfilled contract involved certain expectations remain, but still, "lost revenue" is a bogus claim in just about all cases.
Yes, they still get left with an empty old stadium. The team can't take it with them. The ownership is irrelevant. Whoever owns it, it will remain in Seattle.
I'm inclined to agree in most cases but what abuot the case in the OP? And if "lost revenue" is a bogus claim we can say as much about "gained revenue" can we not? Our very own Odin's Hand, has told us he is amoung the taxpayers who need to come up with "$130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents". That represents lost entertainment dollars from everyone's pockets right there. Plus the money that does go to the OKC SuperSonics (or whatever they call themselves) could very well be money not going to the OSU Cowboys basketball and football teams, the new baseball team Odin mentioned, theme parks, the science museum (I remember the Omniplex from grade school in Altus, lol) etc etc etc...
What better way to gain revenue than through taxation? It is a much more direct way to enhance revenue instead of waiting for someone to decide to spend money. Also, it creates an asset for OKC.
They will be selling beer for $9.00 a pop. Back the sales tax out of that and see how much tax revenue is generated.
Oops. Can't argue with that. Fine points indeed. :cheersmate:
I had it in my head that "gained revenue" meant added spending for the buisness sector. Private industries, commercial investments and the like. What we had there was a failure to communicate, lol. Looking back I can see where selling the tax as in the interest of the city was a large point of the argument.
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
I can understand if there is an unfullfilled contract involved certain expectations remain, but still, "lost revenue" is a bogus claim in just about all cases.
Yes, they still get left with an empty old stadium. The team can't take it with them. The ownership is irrelevant. Whoever owns it, it will remain in Seattle.
I'm inclined to agree in most cases but what abuot the case in the OP? And if "lost revenue" is a bogus claim we can say as much about "gained revenue" can we not? Our very own Odin's Hand, has told us he is amoung the taxpayers who need to come up with "$130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents". That represents lost entertainment dollars from everyone's pockets right there. Plus the money that does go to the OKC SuperSonics (or whatever they call themselves) could very well be money not going to the OSU Cowboys basketball and football teams, the new baseball team Odin mentioned, theme parks, the science museum (I remember the Omniplex from grade school in Altus, lol) etc etc etc...
What better way to gain revenue than through taxation? It is a much more direct way to enhance revenue instead of waiting for someone to decide to spend money. Also, it creates an asset for OKC.
They will be selling beer for $9.00 a pop. Back the sales tax out of that and see how much tax revenue is generated.
Oops. Can't argue with that. Fine points indeed. :cheersmate:
I had it in my head that "gained revenue" meant added spending for the buisness sector. Private industries, commercial investments and the like. What we had there was a failure to communicate, lol. Looking back I can see where selling the tax as in the interest of the city was a large point of the argument.
the governments gain, is the peoples loss..
of course, until that government 'redistributes' some money back to some people ...
and yes, that is classical AMERICAN SOCIALISM at its finest..
-
The economic benefit argument is valid. The lost revenue argument is bogus.
Think of the sports franchise as a ship that docks in the bay of Tulsa for one day, sponsored by the taxpayers of Tulsa. Barbra Streisand is going to sing her last concert before she dies on that ship. A million liberals swarm into town to hear and see Streisand before she croaks. The hotels are full. The restaurants are teeming. There is economic activity everywhere for that one day.
The next day, Streisand dies and the ship sails out to sea. Does the shipping company or Streisand's estate owe Tulsa anything for "lost revenue" because the economic activity did not remain the same everyday thereafter? Or will things return to how they were the day before yesterday?
At least Seattle gets an empty old stadium. Tulsa didn't even get to keep the ship.
Well if that has to be the analogy, so be it. :rotf:
The flaw in that analogy is that a case for lost revenue is made valid by the lease the Sonics signed. If the Sonics, and/or the Streisand's build a house of entertainment at the taxpayers expense on the condition of doing a number of shows there, then they have to do said number of shows there.
I do agree that it the Sonics "died" (went bankrupt) the Seattle taxpayers would have to eat the bad investment. But the Sonics are alive and well (not that their play makes that point obvious) and eyeballing OKC like a cheating spouse. In any case, the city has a case. Imagine this happening the other way around. If the city locked out the Sonics during a scheduled game night to intead (for the sake of argument) show a Barbra Streisand concert, the Sonics would have a case for breach of contract and lost revenue.
Also, fwiw, Seattle didn't "get an empty old stadium", they built one off the sweat of their own peoples labor with the understanding that an NBA franchise would honor it's contract.
I can understand if there is an unfulfilled contract involved certain expectations remain, but still, "lost revenue" is a bogus claim in just about all cases.
Yes, they still get left with an empty old stadium. The team can't take it with them. The ownership is irrelevant. Whoever owns it, it will remain in Seattle.
I'm inclined to agree in most cases but what about the case in the OP? And if "lost revenue" is a bogus claim we can say as much about "gained revenue" can we not? Our very own Odin's Hand, has told us he is among the taxpayers who need to come up with "$130-a-year estimated sales-tax increase for OKC residents". That represents lost entertainment dollars from everyone's pockets right there. Plus the money that does go to the OKC SuperSonics (or whatever they call themselves) could very well be money not going to the OSU Cowboys basketball and football teams, the new baseball team Odin mentioned, theme parks, the science museum (I remember the Omniplex from grade school in Altus, lol) etc etc etc...
What better way to gain revenue than through taxation? It is a much more direct way to enhance revenue instead of waiting for someone to decide to spend money. Also, it creates an asset for OKC.
They will be selling beer for $9.00 a pop. Back the sales tax out of that and see how much tax revenue is generated.
Oops. Can't argue with that. Fine points indeed. :cheersmate:
I had it in my head that "gained revenue" meant added spending for the buisness sector. Private industries, commercial investments and the like. What we had there was a failure to communicate, lol. Looking back I can see where selling the tax as in the interest of the city was a large point of the argument.
Whenever you hear government talk about "revenue generation", the idea that private business will benefit is secondary to the real concern. The real concern is the production of sales tax, hotel tax, gasoline tax, etc. Of course we have a horse and cart situation which clearly applies, but it is safe to say the government entity involved cares not whether the horse lives or dies as long as the backup horse is ready to pull.