I have just one word: duh.
I have been saying this forever. When we (New Yorkers) paid to redo the Yankee and Mets stadiums I was so unhappy. What a waste.
Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
91–100 of 296 posts
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#92" Stadiums add little or nothing to the local economy." I think that AT&T Stadium (Arlington, TX) may be a good example of one that's helped. One article from 2015 says "WrestleMania — the Super Bowl of pro wrestling — is coming to Arlington’s AT&T Stadium in April, and it could pack a financial wallop for local businesses." The new Rangers stadium nearby has benefited, and so has nearby Six Flags & Hurricane Harbor.…
Was that because of the stadium, though?
You have to look at the big picture of lots of different cases, rather than just looking at one example, to avoid the correlation == causation trap.
The other thing to look at would be, "what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater economically beneficial impact.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#93Nothing should be subsidized.
> Nothing should be subsidized There went universal healthcare in all nations that have it. If you think the yellow vests rioting in France over a gasoline tax (among other things) are bad, just wait until you see how Europe burns to the ground over that one. In the US, Social Security has no actual lockbox ("trust fund"), it's a fraud in terms of funding; without perpetual vast subsidies, Social Security would immed…
Those people wouldn't lose health coverage if they had enough value to afford it from their own labor. If they don't make enough to afford health care then who benefits from them being healthy/alive? I don't find the fact that they'll whine and burn things down a convincing reason to subsidize their lives. Eventually they'll burn out and without healthcare they'll stop being a problem.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#94" Stadiums add little or nothing to the local economy." I think that AT&T Stadium (Arlington, TX) may be a good example of one that's helped. One article from 2015 says "WrestleMania — the Super Bowl of pro wrestling — is coming to Arlington’s AT&T Stadium in April, and it could pack a financial wallop for local businesses." The new Rangers stadium nearby has benefited, and so has nearby Six Flags & Hurricane Harbor.…
When it comes to subsidies, I think you would have to quantify a "local economy" as the economy local to the government entity giving the subsidy. The article about WrestleMania is probably only talking about the economy within a few miles of the stadium.
E.g. if someone drove across town to attend WrestleMania, then on the whole, that local economy probably got minimal extra activity out of the participant - they were likely going to spend some or all of that money in the government's local economy anyways. If someone flew from out of state, then all their dollars are dollars you weren't going to see without the event.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's sloppy language to call it "socialism" but it has socialistic properties. The worst of socialism mixed with the worst of capitalism presented under both terms so people from both sides will agree.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#96I only need one reason why taxpayers should never fund stadiums: Stadiums are not politics.
Are roads politics?
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#97Earlier 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…
This is such an absurd comment I have to counter it. The library near me is wonderful, and my wife regularly goes there just because of how peaceful it is and how broad their e-book collection is for her bus rides. I'm in a normal no-name township, nothing particularly wealthy. Same goes for the library where I grew up, and from visits back, it's in about the same state. Volunteer work there was integral to my growin…
My first job was in a superb suburban library in the Midwest which was open from 9am-9pm (except on sundays which was noon-5pm).
However I now live in NYC, the city that never sleeps, and can’t believe that local libraries in Manhattan are generally open 10am-6pm making them hard for students to visit if they have extra-curricular activities and nearly impossible for anyone working to ever take advantage. The hours alone seem to indicate the libraries are mostly for the retired or unemployed.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#98> The bottom line here is very simple: The cost of building and maintaining these facilities should be borne by the people who attend these events via their ticket purchases, and not the people of an entire state and/or metropolitan region, the vast majority of whom will never set foot inside these enormously costly structures. We shouldn’t subsidize subways and rail transit for the exact same reason. Indeed, more pe…
Except, there are lots of reasons to subsidize subways, for example to encourage ridership which in effect can then decrease public roadway congestion. Thus, even the people who don't directly ride the subway still benefit. It also can reduce pollution as well has have local economic benefits. All of which benefits others, not just the riders. Source: https://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats... wh…
Then allow people that care about roadway congestion or pollution help pay for it. No need to take money from people with better uses for it than cleaning your air or clearing up your traffic. ("You" being the hypothetical benefactor, not you the poster)
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#99The very definition of taxes is taking from one group of people and giving it to another.
Taxes themselves are a sign of weakness and pure favoritism.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#100There 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…
This is a very underrated point. I feel like in the abstract, we should be asking how much a city should be willing to pay for a place where tens of thousands of people can gather for a common purpose tens of times a year to attend an activity that tens (or hundreds) of thousands more people really enjoy watching on TV.
It seems very plausible that this should be a non zero amount. (Also plausible that it shouldn’t be in the billions...)
A lot of people think sports are not a worthy use of government funds, which I totally understand. But looking past the relative pointlessness of most sports, it really is an exceptional experience to be in a packed stadium whether it’s for a football game or a concert or whatever.