Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums • Hacker News Board

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#221

Post by kodablah » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:24 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #119

ajross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sure. That works if these things are unpopular. They're not. That's the problem. Lost in the discussion of how many hundreds of million dollars St. Louis lost in its relationship with the Rams is the fact that the city loved that team and the stadium construction was a huge deal and a big political victory. The underlying flaw in the reasoning here is that it's all based on a personal feeling that "My governmen…

> That works if these things are unpopular. They're not. I don’t have a comprehensive statistic, but almost every time I read about stadium subsidies being put to a vote (or a poll), the funding is rejected [1][2][3][4]. [1] http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/golocal-statewide-poll-j... [2] https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/28/poll-finds-... [3] https://www.ktnv.com/news/political/ktnvrasmussen-poll-vote…

Hrmm, most of the time I've seen them on ballots locally they are approved.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#222

Post by alasdair_ » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:31 AM UTC

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…

Current estimate of homeless people in SF is a bit over 7000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci...) 1000 condos would be a massive boon.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#223

Post by dionidium » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:39 AM UTC

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…

Nobody is confused about this point when the thing in question is highbrow (e.g. the symphony, opera, museums). We don’t get a lot of hot takes about how those are bad economic investments.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#224

Post by emiliobumachar » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:47 AM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #150

mr_toad wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By "plenty informed", do you mean no more than a tiny minority thought they were buying far more economic stimulus than it would be realistic to expect? If everyone knew they were just using government to buy entertainment in bulk, them you are right, but things are often not like that.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#225

Post by emiliobumachar » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:58 AM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #223

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…

Nobody is confused about this point when the thing in question is highbrow (e.g. the symphony, opera, museums). We don’t get a lot of hot takes about how those are bad economic investments.

That's because we don't get many outright lies about how those are good economic decisions. They're usually framed honestly as "let's buy some culture".

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#226

Post by homero » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:03 AM UTC

pgreenwood wrote: post #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-p…

Land value rises? I would think noise and traffic decreases it.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#227

Post by capkutay » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:12 AM UTC

irq11 wrote: post #217

capkutay wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are very few empty plots in the Mission. The few that exist are slated for development, or vacant for a reason. Try to find one, other than the gas station by 16th street BART (which I almost guarantee is what you’re talking about, and is an exception, not a rule.) You’re also overstating the support from “local residents”: the fact is that the city council gave a prime plot of redevelopable land (in a city wit…

It was PRIVATE land, zoned for OFFICES, owned by SALEFORCE, then sold to the Warriors. And 50% of the land is still being used for corporate offices (Uber HQ will occupy it).

Not sure what closed doors you're talking about.

The Warriors stadium is literally a gold standard and a model that other sports teams should follow. Not only did they pay out of pocket, but they donated millions to the city to help manage traffic in the area.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#228

Post by Animats » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

irq11 wrote: post #217

capkutay wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are very few empty plots in the Mission. The few that exist are slated for development, or vacant for a reason. Try to find one, other than the gas station by 16th street BART (which I almost guarantee is what you’re talking about, and is an exception, not a rule.) You’re also overstating the support from “local residents”: the fact is that the city council gave a prime plot of redevelopable land (in a city wit…

While the city of San Francisco put too much city money into the ballpark, that really was a run down warehouse area at the time.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#229

Post by rexpop » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:25 AM UTC

pgreenwood wrote: post #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-p…

Very few Americans own land, and very few would benefit from such a land value rise.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#230

Post by ui-explorer12 » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

pgreenwood wrote: post #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-p…

What you're describing is how property taxes already work. If the land value rises (however unlikely that is) most property taxes are based on assessed value which would increase your tax bill.