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

161–170 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#161

Post by arcticbull »

tylersmith wrote: post #151
skellera wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is nobody should have to. You're making a mistake in looking at a single person or single entity and demanding to know why using that one data point a broad, sweeping, generalized policy is justified. It's not. Now if we step back and look at society as a whole the math is totally different.

Socialized medicine allows: (1) individuals to take bigger risks like starting a business without fearing they'd die in the process (2) afford basic care so they can go back into the workforce and continue producing value (3) treating preventable illnesses early meaning the costs are lower -- and they dont spread to more of the population (4) money isn't wasted on marketing, administration and a claims denial department lowering the total cost for everyone (5) reduction in absurd drug prices by using the collective bargaining power of state or federal entities to reduce costs for everyone (6) so many more things you could find out with some research. Not to mention you've totally disregarded the value of human life, decency and suffering. You've made a simultaneously cold, callous and invalid argument.

It's like a fire station. Why socialize fire protection? Well, fires spread.

Look it sucks what happened to you, and in a reasonable country, it wouldn't have. It's time to bring America up to the standard enjoyed by the rest of the world, not tear everyone else down to America's level.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#162

Post by jm4 »

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.

You think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land as a basketball arena? Several hundred? Maybe a thousand condos? That’s like spitting in the ocean. And then what? Give them away to the homeless? It’s not like they’re going to pay for them just because you made a few more available.

Housing is expensive in big cities because there are jobs, amenities and entertainment for a diverse group of people. That entertainment includes sports.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#164

Post by redshirtrob »

paulcole wrote: post #159
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...

I missed that change. Probably because I lived outside the market for my preferred team for so long.

I don't think this changes my assertion that the agreements are very one-sided in favor of the teams. The very fact that the NFL can make that determination for publicly financed stadiums supports my point. I have no doubt they'd flip the switch again if they thought it was financially beneficial or gave them sufficient leverage, i.e. my main point.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#165

Post by redshirtrob »

stevehawk wrote: post #158
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.

As I mentioned in another reply, I totally missed that change. I think your assessment is spot on though. They did a cost-benefit analysis and realized it made more sense to lift the blackouts. It's not like they ceded the right to do so.

My preference is they should not have that right for publicly financed stadiums. Privately financed (meaning 100% private, don't ask for infra changes or anything else), then they can do what they want. Make it PPV for all I care.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#166

Post by spamizbad »

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.

> but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest.

Well, for one, there's not a whole lot of evidence showing that they do add value.

But even then, the bigger issue here is that these venues are largely a handout to already wealthy team owners. It would be one thing if more sports team were like the Greenbay Packers, where the team itself has community ownership, but in most cases you have teams that are owned by individuals who are fully capable of financing the whole operation themselves. Owners shake down local municipalities by threatening to walk unless they receive some sort of subsidy that they feel represents the externalized "upside" of a stadium's presence.

Anyway, I think this behavior is starting to become a huge turn-off with voters. After a certain point, pissing off your tax base is going to cost you more votes than pissing off a rich team owner and their gaggle of sports fans.. and when that happens the gravy-train is over.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#167

Post by the_cat_kittles »

jm4 wrote: post #162
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.

You think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land as a basketball arena? Several hundred? Maybe a thousand condos? That’s like spitting in the ocean. And then what? Give them away to the homeless? It’s not like they’re going to pay for them just because you made a few more available. Housing is expensive in big…

housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#168

Post by toufiqbarhamov »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #167
jm4 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land as a basketball arena? Several hundred? Maybe a thousand condos? That’s like spitting in the ocean. And then what? Give them away to the homeless? It’s not like they’re going to pay for them just because you made a few more available. Housing is expensive in big…

housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea.

housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea.

I think it’s more likely that mental illness and addiction are bigger factors, along with an absence of good interventions and an abuse of the prison system. Statistics showing a majority of American homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both certainly support that view over yours, and reveals the deep complexity of solving the problem. You can’t just shove someone from the streets into a house and call it a day, they need far more support than that.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#169

Post by shaklee3 »

spamizbad wrote: post #166
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.

> but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. Well, for one, there's not a whole lot of evidence showing that they do add value. But even then, the bigger issue here is that these venues are largely a handout to already wealthy team owners. It would be one thing if more sports team were like the Greenbay Packers, where the team itself has community ownership, but in mos…

I've never seen anything say that a sports stadium doesn't add value in the sense that it drives in tourism and dollars into local business. You are probably referring to whether giving them subsidies to build the stadium is worthwhile. That's a completely different question.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#170

Post by thefounder »

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.

Homesless people don't eat much at restaurants and usually they are bad for business. They are an entire different issue. Housing alone won't bring them back in the econommy
Post reply on HN