Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#61

Post by creato »

dluan wrote: post #33

Is the author actually trying to say that taxpayers paying or stadiums is socialist? As a Seattle sports fan, I am evidence that a lot of major American sports practice is not a democratic socialist exercise - we had a team and community anchor taken from us with zero recourse. And with what's happening in Columbus right now with the Crew has basically been a hostage situation for over a year. It's funny that America…

> Now if only Bloomberg writers would wise up to the 'economic development' scams that companies like Amazon exploit, we'd actually have a better society.

Is anyone really not wise to this issue? I think everyone fully understands it is a race to the bottom, but people still want to win the race. Locally, people are making the best decision they can given the bargaining power they have.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#62

Post by ianai »

paulie_a wrote: post #17
ajross wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would one propose to make it illegal for an elected government to finance construction of a public building? I mean, yeah, sports stadiums are wasteful. But how would you draft that such that it wouldn't eliminate libraries and museums? I mean, I agree with you in spirit but at the end of the day the whole point of a democratic government is that it's empowered to work to better our collective lives. And that has…

Pretty easy, private corporations are different than public non profit organizations. Football stadiums may weasel into non profit. But it is absolutely a for profit organization. I've never been to a library that requires an ultra expensive tickets. Museums have a reasonable rate for expenses in conjunction with donors. It's a two part but simple questions for lawmakers: are you a profit making entity or are you not…

On jobs, I’m unconvinced that stadiums create many jobs. At least at the stadiums I’ve lived near, they seemed to be fully staffed with far fewer people than other social venues - say casinos (though I don’t see a US government making a casino) or even a mall.

I’d rather localities invest in community centers, libraries, museums, etc than stadiums.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#63

Post by the_cat_kittles »

ademup wrote: post #38
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #8

why do they call this socialist in the first sentence and crony capitalist in the 3rd.

See the aforism "Privatizing profits and socializing losses". I think the author is saying that the costs are being socialized by having taxes fund construction and maintenance while the owners are making it happen via the mechanism of crony capitalism.

seems kind of dumb to call anything that uses money from taxes socialist.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#64

Post by CamperBob2 »

slg wrote: post #37

There is no question that public stadium subsidies are almost always a bad investment. However these type of articles never take into consideration that people generally like sports teams and want them to stay in the same region. It also isn't just people who attend the games or businesses around the stadium. A local sports team, unlike nearly any other private business, provides a huge but unknown amount of utility…

TL;DR - It is more complicated than "sports stadiums = bad" but these discussions rarely get deeper than that.

Additionally, the detractors often don't understand that these things are basically urban pacification projects. The argument has been made that having a place where the mayor sits down with a businessman on one side and a bricklayer on the other, where everybody has temporarily set aside their differences in politics, occupation, wealth, class, IQ, gender, religion, what-have-you and is lustily cheering for the same outcome, is good for social order.

To the extent that's true, it makes stadiums a valid subject for government funding. I don't like sportsball and I don't like being forced to pay for it, but I also can't see how to shoot any holes in this argument. It makes some sense.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#66

Post by SpikeDad »

ams6110 wrote: post #7
ajross wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would one propose to make it illegal for an elected government to finance construction of a public building? I mean, yeah, sports stadiums are wasteful. But how would you draft that such that it wouldn't eliminate libraries and museums? I mean, I agree with you in spirit but at the end of the day the whole point of a democratic government is that it's empowered to work to better our collective lives. And that has…

> But how would you draft that such that it wouldn't eliminate libraries and museums Maybe we should. These days, public libraries are little more than homeless shelters. I haven't been to one in at least 5 years for that reason, and printed books are largely irrelevant in today's world anyway. Museums could be operated by private non-profits and foundations. No need to have taxpayers directly finance their construct…

Jeepers what a cruel and ill-informed person you are. As someone who works in a public library in some places the public library is the only institution left to be available for the benefit of the underrepresented folks like homeless.

Our print book circulation remains strong regardless of other electronic services we provide. There are millions of books that never get e-book versions.

Most museums and public libraries are indeed operated with non-profit organizations responsible to the local government authority (including mine).

You should get yourself into a library as soon as possible.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#67

Post by krapp »

tylersmith wrote: post #58
ams6110 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But how would you draft that such that it wouldn't eliminate libraries and museums Maybe we should. These days, public libraries are little more than homeless shelters. I haven't been to one in at least 5 years for that reason, and printed books are largely irrelevant in today's world anyway. Museums could be operated by private non-profits and foundations. No need to have taxpayers directly finance their construct…

You're getting heavily downvoted but at least here in san jose what you're saying is true. Many libraries are now literal homeless shelters. My wife is a librarian and her libarary just became a shelter despite the constant problems that are the homeless. She has to clean human shit off the childrens' computers but they keep inviting this mess in.

Getting rid of public funding for libraries because homeless people seek shelter there only deprives the homeless of shelter (which they have a right to, however badly they smell) and it deprives the public of the amenities public libraries provide. It doesn't solve any problems.

If so many people have such a problem with homeless people in libraries, maybe their city needs more homeless shelters that serve the same needs. I mean, they camp out under bridges and overpasses as well, should we demolish the roads too?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#68

Post by rnd0 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #31
hammock wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>dumb-but-popular Do you have a recent example of a new football stadium that had popular support among the constituent taxpayers? My memory can only recall ones opposed by the general public.

I remember the Seattle vote back in the mid-90s, we clearly rejected it but they went ahead with it anyways.

I lived there then; as I remember it was put to the ballot two or three times -and when it kept getting voted down they basically just said "screw it" and built it anyway.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#70

Post by krapp »

imjustsaying wrote: post #43
landryraccoon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The voters have to achieve consensus that sports stadiums aren’t worth it first. Democracy doesn’t really have easy shortcuts, educating voters is hard but it has to be done. You can’t make something illegal if the majority of voters want it. Until voters stop wanting them publicly subsidized stadiums will continue to be built.

>Democracy doesn’t really have easy shortcuts The easy shortcut is IQ and education cannot improve it.

If you believe smart people never vote against their own interests then you're mistaken.
Post reply on HN