{"id":606,"date":"2026-10-29T14:04:06","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T14:04:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thetheolowgen.com\/?p=606"},"modified":"2026-10-29T14:04:06","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T14:04:06","slug":"they-pledged-the-new-taxes-to-the-stadium-and-called-it-the-project-paying-for-the-project-omahas-city-council-unanimously-approved-the-deal-oct-27-for-a-roughly-140-million-city-owned-s","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thetheolowgen.com\/?p=606","title":{"rendered":"THEY PLEDGED THE NEW TAXES TO THE STADIUM AND CALLED IT THE PROJECT PAYING FOR THE PROJECT | Omaha\u2019s City Council unanimously approved the deal Oct. 27 for a roughly $140 million, city-owned stadium for a third-division soccer club: the team puts in $23 million and rent, the city borrows up to $106.5 million and pays $10.5 million for streets and sewers, and the debt gets paid with tax-increment financing, a new extra sales tax inside the district and 70% of the state\u2019s new sales tax there for 20 years \u2014 all of which the club\u2019s FAQ says is not taxpayer money because \u2018the project pays for the project\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

They pledged the new taxes to the stadium and called it the project paying for the project. I know the sentence. It is the most elegant sentence in public finance, because it is a circle, and a circle has no place where anybody pays. The project creates revenue; the revenue pays for the project; therefore nobody pays for the project. It is the sentence a city says when it wants you to stop asking whose credit is on the bond. I have sat through ribbon cuttings in better cardigans than this deal deserves. I have never once seen a building pay for itself. I have seen people pay for buildings and then be told they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the record. On Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2026, the Omaha City Council unanimously approved the redevelopment agreement and stadium lease for Union Omaha\u2019s planned downtown stadium, Omaha.com\u2019s Jen Rae Hein-Wang and Charles Isom report. The city will own the roughly $140 million stadium \u2014 about 6,500 fixed seats, room for about 8,500 \u2014 on a site at 10th and Izard north of Cuming Street, the anchor of a district expected to bring about $330 million in total investment. The Reader\u2019s Jessica Wade, reporting for Nebraska Public Media ahead of the vote, describes 25 acres of former industrial land the city bought from Union Pacific, a $117 million redevelopment agreement, and $48 million in tax-increment financing the council had already approved unanimously this year. The team\u2019s attorney, David Levy, laid out the money: about $23 million in team equity, $2 million a year in rent, and \u201cincremental project revenues\u201d such as sponsorships, naming rights, new sales taxes and property taxes. The city will put in $10.5 million for infrastructure and finance $106.5 million through lease-purchase and revenue bonds. \u201cI do want to note a majority of the city participation in that is financing, not direct city dollars,\u201d Levy said. The club\u2019s own stadium FAQ spells out the rest: the tax-increment financing redirects new property taxes on the site to construction for 20 years before they go to \u201ctaxing entities such as the Omaha Public School District and the City\u201d; an occupation tax adds \u201ca small, additional sales tax applied only within the district\u201d; and a state turnback lets \u201c70 percent of new state sales tax generated near the stadium, up to $1.25 million per year for 20 years,\u201d go \u201cdirectly to bond debt payments.\u201d Mayor John Ewing Jr.: \u201cThis is a big win for Omaha.\u201d Owner Gary Green: \u201ctoday we are a big step closer to giving professional soccer a permanent home in our city.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now the defense, and it is printed on the club\u2019s website in bold. \u201cIs existing taxpayer money being used?\u201d The answer: \u201cThe only new public expenditure is for the stadium land and public infrastructure,\u201d and beyond that \u201cno taxpayer money is spent because the project pays for the project through new revenues.\u201d \u201c\u2018But for\u2019 the project, these revenues do not exist.\u201d The city can \u201cborrow at lower rates than private developers.\u201d And naming rights, parking and event income \u201cserve as a backstop to debt shortfalls.\u201d Fine. Some of that is true: the land is empty, and a new building on empty land does make new tax. But follow the circle around once. The land purchase is public money. The sewers are public money. The borrowing rate is cheap because it is the city\u2019s credit, not the club\u2019s \u2014 that is the entire point of the city doing the borrowing. The \u201cnew\u201d sales tax is a tax, an extra one, paid by whoever buys a beer or a burger in the district, and it is pledged to a stadium before the first bar opens. Seventy percent of the state\u2019s new sales tax there, up to $1.25 million a year, is pledged too, for two decades. The schools wait 20 years for the property tax. And the club\u2019s own FAQ says the team\u2019s equity is \u201capproximately 15 percent of the cost of the stadium.\u201d The private side gets a permanent home and the public side gets a deed and a debt schedule, and the word for that is ownership. I have my own reasons, lately, to read the word \u201cnew\u201d on a tax line slowly. \u201cBut for\u201d is a sentence nobody can ever prove wrong, because the world where the project didn\u2019t happen never shows up to testify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buck wants to know whether a beer at the new stadium counts as him personally paying for the project, and if so, whether he gets a seat with his name on it. Deb says he has never in his life paid for a project. Joey has offered to build a stadium out of pizza boxes, no bonds, no foam core. I love them. They are seasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe project pays for the project\u201d is the alibi. The bond with the city\u2019s name on it is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. A city bought the land, will lay the pipes, will lend its credit, will add a tax and will park the schools\u2019 share of the new property tax for twenty years, all for a third-division soccer club that put in about fifteen cents on the dollar \u2014 and the club\u2019s FAQ calls this protecting taxpayers from risk. Maybe the stadium fills every night. I hope it does; Omaha deserves the soccer. But a city that has to tell you, in a FAQ, that no taxpayer money is being spent has already noticed that you are a taxpayer. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask the council, out loud, before the construction manager vote in December: if the district\u2019s new taxes come in short, whose name is on the bond, and who pays the difference?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n