Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums • Hacker News Board

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#81

Post by tokai » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

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.

It is a bad argument against having public libraries whether it's true or not.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#82

Post by jumha » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

The senate/Cesar built gladiators arenas when Rome was on the decline.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#83

Post by yxhuvud » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

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.

Privatizing profits is not compatible with socialism though. Not even close.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#84

Post by krapp » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

tylersmith wrote: post #78

krapp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't say anything about funding, just that in San Jose at least libraries are absolutely homeless shelters.

Fair enough, I was replying to you and the GP.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#85

Post by chiph » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

dwighttk wrote: post #51

Arlington, TX subsidized the Cowboys stadium and however that plan was structured they were set to pay off those bonds 14 years early (2020 instead of 2034). Instead they refinanced the bonds to help pay for the new Texas Rangers ballpark.[1] The increased tax revenue really surprised them despite the projections being made before the recession. (A 25 year bond only taking 11 years to pay off.) [1] https://www.dallas…

They also took 19 properties from their owners to build it.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eminent_domain_ruling_affe...

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#86

Post by nraynaud » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

I'd suggest we be careful with the vocabulary, there exist 2 kind of stadiums: the stadium for spectacle made for filming sport related TV shows; and the stadium for the local citizens where normal people have access to sport facilities.

Please, don't throw the baby with the bathwater, even if I don't use a stadium, people will enjoy their local running track, disk throwing field or soccer field.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#87

Post by lifeisstillgood » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:25 PM UTC

Simplest answer to all this I know of is for local and national governments to have to publish, and news outlets to report regularly on, in the same common format, P&L and balance sheet statements, including hard to measure non financial indicators like commute times.

We all need a base line to work from. We should all have the same baseline

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#88

Post by TulliusCicero » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #86

I'd suggest we be careful with the vocabulary, there exist 2 kind of stadiums: the stadium for spectacle made for filming sport related TV shows; and the stadium for the local citizens where normal people have access to sport facilities. Please, don't throw the baby with the bathwater, even if I don't use a stadium, people will enjoy their local running track, disk throwing field or soccer field.

I don't think this warning is really necessary. Nobody's thinking of a modest local high school stadium with garden variety bleachers when they're discussing this topic.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#89

Post by mathattack » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

I cringe when I see SF bringing the Warriors to town. Why not use the space for housing? It’s not like Cincinnati where you need Sports attractions to draw people to the area.

Having a Sports Team May help local restaurants, but I would think so would more houses. When there are so many homeless people, the housing stock is more important than a stadium.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#90

Post by logifail » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

cmorgan31 wrote: post #74

logifail wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the city loved that team and the stadium construction was a huge deal and a big political victory Can you quantify "the city loved"? I'm sure the construction was "a huge deal", large construction projects almost always are. Something professional politicians choose to support != something that a majority of voters would choose to support, given the chance.

You can’t quantify love or sentiment unless you accept brand loyalty and subjective measures. It seems like a silly thing to request but perhaps that is your point. If these were ballot initiatives for funding similar to public transport you would see a bit more rejections from anyone outside of the city centers. If we go by popular vote you will likely see most cities vote to keep their teams because we’ve all been…

>> If we go by popular vote you will likely see most cities vote to keep their teams

Source?

>> because we’ve all been raised to think of them as ours despite owning nothing.

Not sure why there should be a connection between public funding for teams and teams staying in any particular city.

If all cities stopped public funding for privately-owned sports teams, the teams would still need a place to call "home".

The owners would just be slightly less rich.