BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT WITH COLD SPRING SHOPS.

Stadium socialism is among the sillier forms of socialism.  "Stadium subsidies are among the worst uses of tax money.  They're also convenient instruments by which teams, or their leagues, can hold up the taxpayers."  I could mine that vein all day.  "The use of public money for stadium subsidies (for a lot of notionally private purposes, to be serious) is a misuse of taxpayer money and of taxpayers, though, and selling even for fun shares to fans, rather than putting all taxpayers on the hook, makes some sense."

For once, a Common Dreams contributor, in this case skeptical Republican Mike Lofgren, is not a figure of fun.  "Potomac Yard: A Rare Victory of People Power Over Stadium Socialism."  The greater marvel is that the soy-boys in charge of proofreading let that "stadium socialism" through.  (Their editorial writers, overaged sophomores for the most part, still haven't caught on that calling the state provided roads socialist isn't the rhetorical trump they think it is.)

In any event, a subsidized stadium is the very model of a regressive transfer for rent-seekers.

Stadium socialism and $700-per-night hotel suites are the exact opposite of quality-of-life enhancements that could be achieved at a fraction of the cost. Traffic mitigation and better public transportation; walkable neighborhoods on a human scale rather than alienating steel and glass canyons; green spaces for recreation, something desperately needed in crowded metro areas. A stand of trees just might be healthier for a community than the umpteenth corporate-franchised sports bar with its focus group-choreographed “hometown” atmosphere.

Potomac Yard could certainly use such upgrading rather than building a sports mausoleum; the Washington Metro region already has an “entertainment center” masquerading as a town at National Harbor, complete with the mandatory MGM casino to draw the suckers. It fairly oozes a sterile, vacuous atmosphere that makes it the perfect venue for the annual CPAC freak-fest.

Cities and counties could plan and zone for such quality-of-life improvements, but they do not generate enormous windfalls for developers and political contributions for elected officials. The website of my own county district supervisor—a Democrat—says in bold letters, “Development and land use are very important to the growth of the Mount Vernon District in coming years.” Note that it says “growth” rather than “quality of life.” Growth for its own sake is like metastatic cancer, a pathological condition.

That "growth for its own sake" sounds a lot like the tag-line of James "Political Environment" Rowen's web log.  There might be more to "quality of life" than a few more sky boxes for people to seek rents and maybe watch the game on a big screen.

We're noting bipartisan consensus, though, with Reason contributor Varad Raigaonkar noting the residents of Las Vegas folding rather than pushing more chips into sports complexes.

Oakland Athletics owner John Fisher's effort to relocate the baseball team to Las Vegas, Nevada, had seemingly earned him promises of $600 million in public funding for a new stadium from state lawmakers that he didn't need.

But if Fisher was hoping for a fresh start in Las Vegas, he might be in for a big surprise.

A poll by Emerson College found that only 32 percent of respondents reacted favorably to their tax money going toward the construction of a new baseball stadium for the Athletics. A formidable 52 percent voted in opposition.

Fisher's campaign to negotiate an extortionate deal with Nevada lawmakers is yet another potential example of taxpayer-subsidized stadiums, an unsavory arrangement that has become so commonplace it's easy to lose count.

The result of this poll, however, is a reminder that not everyone is on board with this corporate welfare. Just last week, taxpayers in Kansas City rejected a sales tax for renovations on a football stadium and the construction of a new baseball stadium, despite those teams' owners threatening to relocate if the initiative failed.

The Athletics ownership, however, has moved past such ultimatums. The team recently relocated to Sacramento, where they will stay at least until the end of the 2027 season.

The decision to leave Oakland came after many years of tension between Fisher and the city. The key catalyst was the infamous Coliseum stadium, which had been home to the Athletics since 1968.

The outdated arena is generally considered among the worst stadiums in pro baseball and has gone through it all: sewage troubles, feral cats, dead mice in soda machines, cat feces, moth infestations, and broken seats. The list goes on.

But attempts to replace it were in vain. Fisher's demand that the public fork over $855 million for infrastructure and development around a new ballpark—Fisher is worth $3.1 billion, by the way—was one of several reasons why he had a falling out with the city.

Poor Oakland: when that Coliseum was a state-of-the art flying saucer, the As and the Raiders were the pride of their sports, and John Madden was riding his bus between games.  Now Las Vegas has discovered the train wreck that the current Raiders are, and they're reluctant to bring in a struggling baseball team that Sacramento isn't interested in keeping.

The owner's pursuit of public funds is yet another attempt to make taxpayers bolster a private business and perhaps compensate for his mismanagement. Fisher now wants to take those problems to Las Vegas. The poll by Emerson College suggests that voters are not buying it.

Speaking of compensating for mismanagement, the team that was owned by Aaron Rodgers before Jordan Love signed the transfer agreement is looking for public money from a city that has none.

The Chicago Bears unveiled a nearly $5 billion proposal Wednesday for an enclosed stadium next door to their current home at Soldier Field as part of a major project that would transform the city’s lakefront, and they are asking for public funding to help make it happen.

The plan calls for $3.2 billion for the new stadium plus an additional $1.5 billion in infrastructure. The team and the city said the project would add green and open space while improving access to the city’s Museum Campus and could also include a publicly owned hotel.

The Bears are on the draft clock to start the evening, and the wishful thinking is all over the land of beer-swilling widebodies and pizza cut into pathetic little squares.

The Bears said the project would generate $8 billion in economic impact for the region. It would be built in three phases and take up to five years. The new stadium would be constructed on a parking lot just south of Soldier Field, the Bears’ home since 1971. The team’s lease at the 100-year-old stadium runs through 2033.

Mayor Brandon Johnson gave a full-throated endorsement, saying the project is in line with Daniel Burnham’s “Plan of Chicago.” He said there would be no tax hikes or new taxes for Chicago residents.

Renderings show the Bears’ stadium would have a translucent roof and massive glass panels that would bring in sunlight and allow for views of Chicago’s famed skyline. The plan is to host major concerts throughout the year as well as Super Bowls, Final Fours and Big Ten championship games.

Though Soldier Field’s famed colonnades would be preserved, the spaceship-like stadium that was installed in the renovation two decades ago would be torn out and replaced by playing fields as well as park space. The plan calls for a pedestrian mall, food and beverage options, a promenade and plaza.

“My administration insisted that any new project - especially one on public land - must deliver strong public benefit and public use for the City of Chicago, and I am pleased today that this plan does exactly that,” Johnson said.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, however, said he wasn’t on board.

“I remain skeptical about this proposal and I wonder whether it’s a good deal for the taxpayers,” Pritzker told reporters Wednesday at an unrelated news conference. “I’m not sure this is among the highest priorities for taxpayers.”

That could be the first time the potbellied dictator has ever given a darn about taxpayers, or perhaps he's upset that Hyatt got cut out of the proposed hotel concession.