I'd be interested in the study's that show that the tax benefits for these subsidies do not net positive returns. I note because I live in Tampa and they were looking to partially subsidize a new stadium for the Rays and it was to be located in an area of basically abandoned and dilapidated structures. The argument is that the stadium would renovate the area, bring in restaurants and businesses (besides the stadium) and generally elevate the value of the entire area and that the bonds would be paid for by the increased property taxes. On its face, it makes logical sense, and really isn't all that different from other corporate welfare that you see, such as major tax breaks to entice corporate headquarters to be relocated (such as Toyota to Dallas a few years back).
