At least a stadium has some kind of use. I wish I could get my 2B back for the completely aesthetic suspension on the new bay bridge.
Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
201–210 of 296 posts
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#202I 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.
Don’t bring Cincinnati into this! Cincinnati learned these lessons the hard way with their stadium deals in the 90s. For the new MLS stadium being built here, the stadium is being privately financed. Public money is going to be used for a parking facility and other supporting infrastructure like streets, etc.
MLS has a bogus non-profit status, just like the NFL.
That’s a huge subsidy. The lost property taxes on the developed stadium alone are huge
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#203> 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.
I would, because the majority of people drive on roads. 86% of people commute by personal car. If you don't understand the difference between spending public money on something the vast majority of people use, versus spending it on something a small minority use, I can't help you.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t bring Cincinnati into this! Cincinnati learned these lessons the hard way with their stadium deals in the 90s. For the new MLS stadium being built here, the stadium is being privately financed. Public money is going to be used for a parking facility and other supporting infrastructure like streets, etc.
So the profitable part is owned by the private financiers, and the city only pays for all the externalities?
Yeah, but the city doesn’t need to deal with the burden of owning the intellectual property, like the team name, etc.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why? Do homeless people eat children?
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Guy working at UPS who grew up here depends on these laws so he doesn’t get priced out of his neighborhood.
Leaving aside how these laws led to the dire situation for the UPS guy in the first place, what if he has children? The firstborn maybe gets the place for cheap but others are essentially forced to "pay the transplant tax".
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#207There 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…
Awesome comment, and I legitimately have never heard this point of view before. You're right, the closest it ever gets is "don't you like [sports team]??" I'm far more inclined to change my view on this issue.
We (San Diego) recently had a protracted fight for our sports team. They wanted a new stadium, the city didn't, they moved away. I voted against it. I probably still would have, just because I think the NFL is dead in the long run from all the TBI stuff.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#208" 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.…
AT&T Stadium may be a good example of one that's helped
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#209The biggest abuse of this was definitely with the A’s stadium in Oakland. If a game doesn’t sell out, the city pays for the empty seats. Your tax dollars at work.
Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums
#210> 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.
The article is arguing from a perspective that amenities such as stadiums should be user-pays. There's an alternative viewpoint though; it could be a principle beneficiary-pays. Who benefits? Well for example the land values in the surrounding area are likely to rise, benefiting land owners through no effort of their own. If a portion of this windfall gain could be captured via say a land value tax, then that tax could partially fund the stadium in a fair way. But I agree with the author that subsidies through income tax seems unfair.