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

151–160 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#151

Post by tylersmith »

skellera wrote: post #138
tylersmith wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to have lived a privileged life if you cannot see the value in helping those who cannot afford it. I was asking what that value is and afaict you are not answering it. But I'm sincerely asking, how does each individual tax payer benefit from you making a good living now such that they should have been forced to pay for you? I was very much in a bad situation with my health while not having insurance. I cou…

I am returning in taxes much more than I ever received. It is a net gain for all who benefit from anything paid for by taxes. There are also gains in value being provided to the economy by spending. Also the money I’ve donated. And those are all monetary. It doesn’t only help me, it helps my family and the people around me. So multiply this out to every person who turns their situation around and it’s much more than…

My point was not that if I can do it so can they; I don't wish that on anybody. My question is what value tax payers realize from helping me? I suggest that there is none and if that's correct then they had no interest in helping. Forcing them to have paid for my care would have no benefit to anyone but me and the hospital that got paid.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#152

Post by drugme »

Elected officials have been played by team owners and sports leagues.

The article conveniently neglects to mention one of the more notable examples of a certain very well known official getting "played" in this fashion (for the benefit of a certain hugely unnecessary sports arena on the edge of downtown Brooklyn):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#153

Post by CamperBob2 »

mattchew wrote: post #145
CamperBob2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Saying the glowing vision is exaggerated or fabulated just makes you look like a grouch and a jerk.

Yep. Unfortunately, the people who want to treat stadiums as public works projects have 2000+ years of history on their side going back to classical Rome and Athens. I've concluded that it's not a battle worth fighting, if only because my lack of appreciation of team sports makes me a bad judge of how important they are to society.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#154

Post by Mountain_Skies »

drugme wrote: post #152

Elected officials have been played by team owners and sports leagues. The article conveniently neglects to mention one of the more notable examples of a certain very well known official getting "played" in this fashion (for the benefit of a certain hugely unnecessary sports arena on the edge of downtown Brooklyn): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Not even sure it's correct to say elected officials are being played. Quite often they're sitting on the same side of the negotiating table as the team owner without no one there to represent the public. In most cases with a few notable exceptions, the elected officials are as rah-rah for a new stadium as the team owner. Which is why in so many jurisdictions they no longer allow the public to vote on stadium funding. With the elected officials on board, why would the team owners ever want the public to have a voice?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#155

Post by arcticbull »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #121
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.

If SF needs housing then they can just build into oakland and use BART to get into SF. Oakland is a very underdeveloped piece of real estate.

But then... SF still wouldn't have housing, Oakland would. It's in another county. Come on, there's no reason to limit buildings to as short as they are right now. It's as if the city of SF has given up on change entirely.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#156

Post by autokad »

i hate this anti-sports rhetoric. i agree municipalities should take caution when funding a stadium, but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest.

we are more than just the direct benefit of what something gives back. if its a matter of only people who use should pay, well there are a ton of stuff on my list that cost me a hell of a lot more that I'd like to get rid of.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#157

Post by adamnemecek »

autokad wrote: post #156

i hate this anti-sports rhetoric. i agree municipalities should take caution when funding a stadium, but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. we are more than just the direct benefit of what something gives back. if its a matter of only people who use should pay, well there are a ton of stuff on my list that cost me a hell of a lot more that I'd like to get rid of.

> pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest.

what value do they add? congested roads on game days?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#158

Post by stevehawk »

redshirtrob wrote: post #108

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.

NFL dropped the blackout rule three years ago. The loss in tv ad revenue outweighed the "gain" of full attendance.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#159

Post by paulcole »

redshirtrob wrote: post #108

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.

You’re incorrect about NFL blackouts. Since 2015 there has been no active blackout policy in the NFL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_telev...

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#160

Post by samstave »

tylersmith wrote: post #148
samstave wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Politicians pass bonds and laws which force people to allocate a portion of their tax revenues to sports stadiums. That should not happen.

Taxes pay for roads - which is a critical infrastructure for all aspects of a modern society. This is an appropriate use of tax funds.

Stadiums are not critical infrastructure, and should not be paid for with public money.

I cannot fathom how this confuses you.

Post reply on HN