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

101–110 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#101

Post by tylersmith »

village-idiot wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #22

> 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…

I’d bet that if we did the same for roads you would be very upset.

Why would you make that assumption?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#102

Post by redshirtrob »

csense wrote: post #49

Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns, moved the team to Baltimore right after the taxpayers built them a new stadium. Even though these events happened in the mid-90's and Modell died in 2012, his name is still considered a curse word in Cleveland.

This is basically wrong, except that Modell's name is a curse word in Cleveland.

Modell announced the move, and _the_ _very_ _next_ _day_ Cleveland voters approved funding to remodel Cleveland Municipal Stadium. It didn't work, Modell still wanted to move the team. The city of Cleveland sued Modell and a bunch of other entities with the result being Cleveland retained the Browns legacy and the franchise was considered dormant for three years [0].

The upshot of the whole affair was the passage of The Art Modell Law [1] which Save The Crew supporters invoked when Precourt Sports Ventures tried to pull the same trick on the Columbus Crew.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_co... [1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ohio-art-modell-law-sav...

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#104

Post by [deleted] »

mathattack wrote: post #89

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.

[deleted]

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#105

Post by skellera »

tylersmith wrote: post #93
adventured wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You’re entitled to your opinion but maybe try to state it in a less inflammatory way.

You seem to have lived a privileged life if you cannot see the value in helping those who cannot afford it. The cost of healthcare in the US prices those people out. I hope you are never in a position to require help to get out of a bad situation. As someone who used the various programs to pull myself out of a bad situation to now making a very good living, I just can’t understand how people of your mindset don’t see that there are people like me who needed those programs to finally be able to return value to society.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#106

Post by GordonS »

ianai wrote: post #62
paulie_a wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There will be a lot of jobs during construction, but it's perhaps worth noting that those will not necessarily be for locals. In operation, I agree that thr number of jobs is likely fairly low, and mostly low wage.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#107

Post by mschuster91 »

The reason why politicians decide to subsidize stadiums and other sport venues / events (esp. the tax break deals given to UEFA/FIFA!) is imho relatively clear cut and dates back to the Roman Age: panem et circenses, aka "bread and games".

Basically, to keep the population happy, provide them with food and games for entertainment. And try to have your city team the best in league. For international events (Olympic Games, soccer Euro Cup/World Cup, Formula 1) in addition international prestige for the hosting country comes to play in decision making. Every country that hosted soccer EC/WC or Olympic Games in the near past has made, sometimes vast, economic losses. Lot of F1 race tracks have closed for F1 as it's not profitable any more, and public support is dwindling, but politicians still want to have the photo job opportunity at opening and irate their electorate.

(Am on mobile so if anyone wants sources, reply and I'll update tomorrow, but everything should be 1 Google search away anyway)

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#108

Post by redshirtrob »

Probably the thing that annoys me most about these deals is how one-sided the tenancy is. For example, an NFL team can play eight games a year in a publicly financed stadium, but if a game doesn't "sell out", then the local broadcast is blacked out. AFAIK only the NFL does this, but that's probably a function of the number/timing of games more than anything else.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#109

Post by kippinitreal »

mathattack wrote: post #89

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.

FWIW the Chase Center is 100% privately financed. SF is actually benefitting from private investment into public transportation to/from the arena. Public housing is great, but it’s not like the city chose this instead of that.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#110

Post by sureshv »

mathattack wrote: post #89

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.

IIRC the Warriors stadium is privately financed. Not sure if there are any subsidies offered by the city.
Post reply on HN