Monday Night Madness

Just got through sweating out the Cowboy's Monday night debut; by sheer luck they covered a Dallas and under parlay. Newman got lucky or Big D fails to cover the spread. Dallas defense better step up, or it's repeat of last year in a tough division.

I couldn't help but notice: the commentators mentioned several times the wonderful $1.3 Billion facility in Irving which has replaced the old Texas Stadium. They even mentioned the potential $50 million problem of a low scoreboard punters have no problem hitting. I have been a Cowboys' fan since before they started winning, but if I were a metroplex resident, I don't care if the resurrected ghost of Tom Landry were for it, I would have oppossed the use of tax money to build this sports palace.

OK, sports events stimulate spending. Problem is, most of that consumerism would be locally generated and locally spent anyway, just on other things. Perhaps the same family goes to Red Lobster and a movie instead of the game. I did not notice a huge contingent of the 105.000 faithful fans present who had travelled from Carolina. I'm sure there were some, but how far did their money on motel rooms and eats go towards covering a $1.3 Billion tab?

Jaws mentioned the stadium was employing about 7,000 people as ticket-takers and concessionaires. Let's see; 7,000x $7.50/hr/x 5hrs, throw in tips and slop, be generous and call it half a mil a game, the economic impact of the new stadium will pay for itself in roughly 2,000 years.

Folks, I am a big sports fan, but I also believe people should pay for their habits. Tennis fans should pay for tennis courts and lights. Hockey fans should pay for ice to play on. Verging on the heretical here, high school football fans should pay for the suits of armor our local players battle less than successfully in, not to mention their less than successful coaches salaries.

Old saying, slightly twisted, "Money's tight and times are hard, pay for your own kickoff card". Another old saying; "You want to play, you gotta pay".

Karnak on Sports

I had to go to archives for this one, but Jan. 27, 2007 I wrote "Karnak at the Council". I include from that, the following quote:

"In other action, Council approved, as expected, the tennis courts deal. I seem to have gotten their attention by appealing, tongue in cheek, for funds to provide the San Angelo Billiards Association, of which I am a member, a central pool hall with say, 24 regulation size tables. Discussing this later with individual members, I was surprised that almost none seemed to have considered the possibility of creating a Facilities Corp. to deal with the now inevitable requests from every sports group in town. “If tennis gets money, why can't (curling, archery, paintball, pick your pet)”, will be the litany. Tennis got a rather substantial sum, by the way, $750,000 total. "With that precedent, I can promise you other sports enthusiasts will be appearing before Council, hat in hand, asking that said hat be filled with public money."

Well, whodathunkit, Council is now wrestling with funding for a Little League request, they want money. I think it's time we got serious about the Sports Facilities Corp. option. This is provided for, dare I say, encouraged by Local Gov't Code Chap. 303 of Texas Statutes.

If Council approves such a Corporation it would provide future sports related supplicants an opportunity and give Council a buffer between them and direct tax expenditures. The Facilities Corp. would be empowered to take a proposal, issue bonds, sell them and repay them, all without a link to the City budget. It would say to future applicants "bring us a good business plan, we can issue bonds and see if anybody bites".


Yes, we have a troubled economy, but part of that, people with money are looking for some place more productive than "under the bed" to put investments. Every time a sports proposal is brought forth we hear all sorts of optimistic numbers thrown about as to the "economic impact" of (pick your pet sport). Having applicants first come before a Sports Facilities Corp. board would put a little market discipline into this numerology.


There would always remain the option of after review, coming before Council, hat abjectly in hand, and making a case for one's pet project being worthy of taxpayer subsidy. Council would, one hopes, have better numbers to play with. Going back to tennis, I own one tennis ball. I use it to fluff up the goosedown in my coat when I tumble-dry it. Why is my tax money paying for lights on tennis courts I will never use? Otra vez, I love badmiton, an impossible game to play in West Texas wind. Where are my badmition courts?


This Council has made great strides toward future fiscal responsibility in capital improvements, including a Charter Amendment to make some of that improvement binding on future Councils. We should start subjecting sports related items to a similar budget discipline. The day of simply stating "it's for the kids and it will bring in a kazillion dollars in economic impact" needs to be put on the far back burner.


I'm not trying to be the Grinch here. I'd love to see more kids active in sports of all kinds. Try HEB on a weekend, we have too many kids whose girth equals or exceeds their height. When I was a kid, I did Little League, swimming, wrestling in school, martial arts on my own. Best I recall, once the facility was built, it was up to the league to support itself. Sell ads, wash cars, cajole sponsors, that was up to us.


There is not a lot of down-side to a responsibly managed Sports Facilities Corp. Best case, a good plan is presented, bonded, bond-holders get paid, we have a new sport ongoing, and might actually see some favorable "economic impact". Worst case, the business plan falls short and we have a vacant field of dreams. Key word is "responsible". While Chap. 303 protects the authorizing entity (City of San Angelo) from direct liability, IF we put a bunch of over-enthusiastic cowboys in charge and a few bonds go south, that could indirectly affect the city by tainting us with potential City bond investors. Upside of that scenario the "sponsoring entity" can rein in the corporation as needed. Should the corporation issue an ill-advised bond, well, we can't unscramble that egg, but we could fire the chef so to speak and keep him from scrambling any more.

As Karnak predicted in 2007, the tennis precedent has encouraged others to come before Council, empty hat in hand. We should take a good look at the Chap 303 option for future funding and screening of proposals.

Tennis Thoughts

There has been a lot of criticism of the councils decision not to fund the tennis complex. Criticism is deserved, but not for the reasons I hear the most. I really feel the council made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.

Tennis is a popular sport around the country. Locally, there are a number of tennis players that play at country clubs, at school or on various free courts such as those at the recreation centers. The following is not as large as football, baseball or soccer, but there are a number of people that play. I support them having quality facilities that are open to the public. That is not where I have a problem.

I have a problem with what the ½ cent sales tax is degenerating into. Watching and following the debate on the tennis facility is like watching kids in a candy store complaining because someone got more chocolates or peanuts or peppermint than they did and its just not fair. Realistically, candy has been distributed pretty broadly with various sales tax projects in all the cities districts. When we have to get out scales or tape measures or balance sheets to make sure the split is "fair", there is a problem.

I have a problem with the continual justification of these projects for their economic impact. Last time I looked at a breakdown of San Angelo's jobs, two things jumped out at me. First, the travel, tourism, food service, and leisure business areas which are where the sports facilities create jobs, are among the lowest paid jobs we have. Second, I notice that San Angelo's median income is about 20% below that of Texas as a whole. This is in spite of the fact that our cost of living has caught up with other cities our size. One of the reasons for this gap is the number of jobs in the industries I have just mentioned. One quarter of the sales tax is required to be used to attract or support jobs close to the average wage of San Angelo. Much of the rest of the tax money supports projects that only create jobs at the lowest pay scale. I have a problem calling that economic development.

Finally, I have a problem with government at any level promoting sports and deciding what sports should be subsidized with free money. Tennis is a wonderful sport. It is one of 35 sports currently in the Olympics. That doesn't include the sports recognized by the Olympics and the International Sports Federations, popular sports such as bowling and billiards, or up and coming sports such as skate boarding and paintball. Many of these sports are at least as popular as tennis so what do we do when they ask for a public facility of their own? There are alternatives to tax handouts to build sports facilities. We need to look at them closely. There are also opportunities for multi-use facilities that can react to changing public tastes, and can have strong, popular sports help support new sports as they get established.

In the end, I hope that a tennis facility, hopefully as part of a flexible multi use facility gets built. At the same time, I believe that tax dollars should be used to provide a healthy economic diet before supporting candy store projects. That will take some political courage and voter approved changes to the sales tax, but I don't see a better solution.