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

141–150 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#141

Post by prostoalex »

hammock wrote: post #26
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…

>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.

Los Angeles has a new stadium planned for Inglewood with all of the risk borne by developers who then get to enjoy a cut of the future tax earnings

https://www.welikela.com/proposed-inglewood-football-stadium...

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#142

Post by prostoalex »

blakeley wrote: post #20
jimhefferon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Museums aren't free to enter.

Perhaps they should be.

Libraries are, but in larger cities like LA or SF they tend to evolve into coworking spaces for the homeless, at which point they cease to be public spaces that people feel comfortable taking their families to.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#143

Post by [deleted] »

kodablah wrote: post #124
jrnichols wrote: post #72

" 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.…

And it was all subject to a vote and is just a slight increase on local sales tax. I too think it is a model example of a community voting for what they want and getting it, even if some newspaper tells them otherwise. Subsidizing entertainment should be the local populace's right despite the external guilt others want to heap on. Of course I think the same about communities and tax abatements for businesses too so I…

[deleted]

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#144

Post by wongarsu »

LukeShu wrote: post #126
ahallock wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something really wrong with that. The government is taking on concerns outside its core responsibilities. Sports are non-critical entertainment and that's something the government should not be creating. We can discuss regulations, zoning, and other ways government could be involved, but a lot of people don't use these stadiums, and I'm sure they'd prefer their tax money and gov resources be spent on more cr…

Don't all of those arguments also apply to libraries and museums?

Libraries and museums serve the purpose of educating the masses, which is something the government should be and is involved in (mainly because an educated populace is crucial for democracy)

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#145

Post by mattchew »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #64
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 i…

You can always make up a story where your project brings intangible but wonderful benefits that no decent person could be against. This is normal.

If you can paint a rosy picture of community, or the happiness of children, or the safety of the vulnerable, it is indeed very hard to argue against. Saying the glowing vision is exaggerated or fabulated just makes you look like a grouch and a jerk.

In my town, the new stadium has a VIP area. Important people are specifically shielded from contact with bricklayers. Just saying.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#146

Post by mr_toad »

briandear wrote: post #134
streichg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you speak about the new stadium in Zürich. The government actually doesn't pay for the new stadium. The deal is that the city gives investors some land for free, where they can build the stadium. The investors also get some more land where they can build housing to get a return on there spendings. The city itself doesn't spend anything on building or maintaining the stadium.

How can I get public land in Zurich for free to build my private enterprise?

It’s a lot like dating.

You start with a common interest. Like golf. Then you invite them to party on your super-yacht. Before you know it you’ll be taking limousines to all the same $10,000 per plate charity events together and showering their non-profit-campaign-fund in ‘gifts’.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#148

Post by tylersmith »

samstave wrote: post #128
tylersmith wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are roads politics?

do i have to use the stadium to get to work? or provide commerce, police or medical coverage?

What does that have to do with politics? None of those things you mention are any more political than sports. I don't care about you getting to work or receiving medical care any more than you care about my sports.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#149

Post by prostoalex »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #47
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libraries provide dozens of services to those in low-income areas. Lots of people utilize the library for internet service.

As it turns out, homeless people can't easily keep laptops on them and afford to hang out at Starbucks all day. Public libraries give them and other low income people opportunities to develop skills and education, and electronic resources to find a long-term career that can take them out of poverty.

If that is truly a massive trend (and it seems like it would be reasonably easy to measure), the current setup of libraries is not that conducive to employment preparation (mine still features books on Macromedia Flash and Office XP).

One can probably run it more efficiently as an Internet access room at a local community center, with access to printing/faxing/tutoring/resume building and other services.

And, just as you said, some zip codes will benefit from this setup more than others.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#150

Post by kodablah »

mr_toad wrote: post #139
kodablah wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it was all subject to a vote and is just a slight increase on local sales tax. I too think it is a model example of a community voting for what they want and getting it, even if some newspaper tells them otherwise. Subsidizing entertainment should be the local populace's right despite the external guilt others want to heap on. Of course I think the same about communities and tax abatements for businesses too so I…

If no-one tells the voters that what they’re voting for doesn’t make economic sense, then where are they supposed to find out? Vested interests and popularist politicians have no interest in the facts, and are why we need newspapers ‘telling them otherwise’.

I think you're confusing telling voters what they're voting for and telling voters whether it's good or bad. Arts and entertainment are too subjective for these journalists to objectively proclaim they are bad deals. In the instance with the new Cowboys' stadium and the new Rangers' stadium, the electorate was plenty informed.
Post reply on HN