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

181–190 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#181

Post by JamisonM »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #168
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

Shoving people who need other supports into housing won't help homelessness for the people that need those other supports, but creating more affordability for people who need less serious interventions or are simply priced out of the market with help homelessness for them - whether those people make up the "majority" of the homeless or not.

Solving the entire problem is more complex than more housing supply, that doesn't mean that more housing supply isn't an important part of the solution.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#182

Post by admiralEyebrows »

partiallypro wrote: post #177
jtlienwis wrote: post #174

I watch some of the video generated by the Maddon football video game, and find it almost as realistic as the real games. Someday, some entrepreneur is going to figure out that you can have realistic pro games generated by software. It will save a lot on player salaries etc. Then when the people at home start watching those instead of the real games (maybe they will all be online, and not blocked by the networks), th…

That takes away any real "chance," and wouldn't be enjoyable at all. People might watch others play a video game...and there is a market for that, but that will never replace the actual thing.

Maybe you're right, "fake" football will never be able to replace the real thing. But if the computer generated version is visually indistinguishable from the real thing, I don't see any reason why it can't be in a similar market as WWE. The events are scripted before hand, but fans still won't know what will happen. I think people are more ready to suspend their disbelief for entertainment than you realize.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#183

Post by lsiebert »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #168
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

What statistics are those? Can you cite your sources?

Because I've never seen anything that suggests that a majority of homeless people have addiction/mental illness problems. A higher percentage of such issues then the housed population, sure, but not a majority.

AFAIK, you can find a direct correspondence between increased rental prices and increased homelessness, and that's the main contributor. https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordabil...

I mean unless you go back to the 1970's before the U.S. Government literally decimated it's housing budget (https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/the-rise-of-homel...)

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#184

Post by capkutay »

Retric wrote: post #116
kippinitreal wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zoning is up to the city so it chose this. SF does not need public housing, even 1 million dollar condos in a high rise would help.

should cities not have entertainment venues that are welcomed by local residents?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#185

Post by capkutay »

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.

Chase Center is a pretty sorry scapegoat for SF housing problems. It's 100% financed by the team and was welcomed by residents. You can instead blame the thousands of acres of property in SF zoned for single family residences and all the empty plots in the Mission near BART.

There's nothing wrong with building entertainment venues in cities if they're financed without tax payer money.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#186

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #116
kippinitreal wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zoning is up to the city so it chose this. SF does not need public housing, even 1 million dollar condos in a high rise would help.

[deleted]

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#188

Post by hedora »

titanomachy wrote: post #175
PaulHoule wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also people who don't have their taxes go up when real estate values go up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

First I'm hearing of this. That's royally fucked up. I guess the only solution is to wait for all those people to die so that the homes will change hands and trigger re-assessment.

Nope. They can pass them to their kids, and it won’t trigger reassessment. > 60% of houses like that in the LA area are rented out for tax arbitrage reasons by the kids that inherited them.

They can buy multiple houses rent them out, and then let the kids live in them when they grow up.

Also, businesses can own multiple properties and sell them without reassessment (there is a well-known loophole involving shell companies that makes this possible).

Basically the only people that get hit by prop 13 reassessments this are young working families that need to upgrade, or want to buy into a stable housing situation to raise their kids.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#189

Post by almost_usual »

titanomachy wrote: post #175
PaulHoule wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also people who don't have their taxes go up when real estate values go up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

First I'm hearing of this. That's royally fucked up. I guess the only solution is to wait for all those people to die so that the homes will change hands and trigger re-assessment.

Why is it royally fucked up? Where are you from and how long have you lived in CA to not know this? Because the guy working at UPS who grew up here depends on these laws so he doesn’t get priced out of his neighborhood.

If you move somewhere especially the Bay Area be prepared to pay the transplant tax.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#190

Post by jm4 »

titanomachy wrote: post #173
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…

There are people who are on the margin of being able to afford a rental. Increase in supply could slightly lower prices and allow those people to afford to rent a home. You're right of course that the poorest people would still be unable to afford homes. Building more homes would reduce homelessness but not eliminate it.

Someone on the margin of affording a rental in SF isn’t homeless. They live someplace else that costs less. Why should taxpayers foot the bill to build more homes with the goal of making SF marginally more affordable when there are plenty of other good places to live? How is that better than some dumb stadium idea? And how long does it keep housing costs down? Those new homes will be gobbled up immediately and then the available inventory on the resale market will be back to about the same level as before.
Post reply on HN