As Americans prepare for a hurricane season that could have abnormally high levels of activity, policymakers should be ramping up risk-mitigation. Unfortunately, various state, city and local governments in some of the most-hurricane prone areas seem extremely eager to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on stadium subsidies for sports franchises.

In a prime example of backward priorities, these governments have even compromised the financial viability of other pressing budget items, like pension funds, to give wealthy sport team owners multi-million dollar handouts.

In recent years, professional sports teams have started a rush to tap into public funds to either renovate or build new sports facilities. However, this is not a new phenomenon. About three decades ago, all these teams had a similar strategy. They pressured politicians to use taxpayer dollars to build this limited-used infrastructure with the promise of an increase in entertainment-related revenues.

But, as various economists have pointed out, these promises never truly materialized. Stadiums consistently underperformed as sources of revenue, partly due to the fact that they are only used a handful of times a month. Further, some of the estimates relied on unrealistic assumptions on how much event attendants would spend at each game or concert.

A closer look into these stadium deals shows that the trend of unrealistic economic projections is not going away. For example, the Charlotte-Bank of America stadium deal assumes that fans will spend roughly $1,000 more per game than they currently do to fulfill revenue projections. An overly optimistic projection, to say the least.

These economic miscalculations should always be frowned upon, but they become particularly egregious in areas prone to natural disasters. Areas that are exposed to significant natural disaster risks should not be tying valuable capital resources to fund largely unproductive ventures such as stadiums.

This can prove to be a costly, burdensome decision in the unfortunate case in which disaster eventually strikes, leaving cities and municipalities strapped for cash. Especially as federal disaster funding has become increasingly unavailable. Nonetheless, cities like New Orleans, Charlotte, or St. Petersburg, among others, have gone ahead and approved or undergone multi-million dollar agreements to use taxpayer funds for stadium construction or renovations.

In a flagship example of misplaced priorities, the New Orleans deal diverted $27 million in federal funds supposedly destined for pandemic aid towards the Caesar’s Superdome renovations.

Ultimately, these deals cannot be looked at as anything other than multi-million-dollar handouts to the politically connected billionaires who own these sports franchises. These franchises and leagues do not lack the capacity to raise the necessary capital. They should put the financial burden on their own shoulders and assume the full responsibility of building these stadiums. If they really believe they are as profitable as they claim, there should be no issues.

As these leagues continue to tout record viewership and lucrative media deals, they should be investing in their own basic infrastructure instead of relying on taxpayers to subsidize their operations.

Stadium subsidies ultimately tie up valuable public resources for long periods of time in largely unproductive enterprises. They also create sunk costs that subject cities to being strong-armed in the future, as Kansas City is experiencing with two of their sports franchises. In the worst case, even cities that acquiesce to these demands are still hung out to dry, as happened in St. Louis.

Areas with high risk of natural disasters should be especially wary of these deals. These at-risk areas should prioritize budget flexibility to be able to respond to emergencies, and not be fiscally tied down to subsidies for billionaire-owned sports teams.

Juan Londoño is a senior policy analyst at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.