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

251–260 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#251

Post by offsetr »

homero wrote: post #226
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.

Unless you're talking about commercial property, which has more value than residential property.

Where commercial property has more value due to more foot traffic, the closest residential property gets value too.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#252

Post by sbuk »

wongarsu wrote: post #144
LukeShu wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't all of those arguments also apply to libraries and museums?

Libraries and museums serve the purpose of educating the masses, which is something the government should be and is involved in (mainly because an educated populace is crucial for democracy)

And sport doesn’t provide education? Sport teaches self discipline and resilience, surely to traits that are essential to democracy.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#253

Post by dtech »

uber-employee wrote: post #209

The 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.

How is that even possible? It completely disincentives the need to market and sell tickets.

I assume there's rules against this, but take this to the extreme and see how preposterous it is: 365 days a year, 24 1-hour baseball games every day. The city will pay for it.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#254

Post by streichg »

briandear wrote: post #134
streichg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you speak about the new stadium in Zürich. The government actually doesn't pay for the new stadium. The deal is that the city gives investors some land for free, where they can build the stadium. The investors also get some more land where they can build housing to get a return on there spendings. The city itself doesn't spend anything on building or maintaining the stadium.

How can I get public land in Zurich for free to build my private enterprise?

The thing is that owning a stadium is not a for profit enterprise in Switzerland as it may be the case in other countries. The investors that won the contract to build and maintain the stadium are not expected to make any money with it. Also the land that they get for housing is not free but it gets sold to them at lower than market prices (I got that wrong in my earlier comment).

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#255

Post by sgt101 »

snapdangle wrote: post #243
sgt101 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that democracy is actually a driver here. I think that it's possible that the calculation is that "fans" will vote for a representative who backs the stadium where as most other voters will not care about the issue, and will switch off when it's raised as it's a "sports" thing. If you don't back the stadium then your opponent's will and you'll be out! Also I guess this falls into the "any publicity is good"…

Sorry, but that seems a bit confused. If there are not enough votes for a stadium, then there will not be enough votes to throw out a candidate for "not backing" a stadium. Not allowing people a voice in the question and then blaming democracy for it? You can't blame an abstract system of government for sports owners making sweatheart deals that ignore public sentiment.

I think you are thinking that elections are a zero sum game, but the reality is that most people either don't vote, always vote for a party no matter what or vote for the candidate that they know. Politicians are all about influencing the swing vote - get people who never vote to vote for you or alternatively influence some small part of the electorate that does make positive decisions. Most people who don't want the stadium will either not vote or vote the way that they would have anyway, the calculation is that voters who are "fans" will vote positively for the people who stick up for their team. Stir in the "I'll vote for the person who's popular" block (which politicians are hoping that the free exposure in the stadium campaign will grant) and the negative effect of shutting out your opponent (because backing like this is strangely exclusive for some reason).

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#256

Post by mbreese »

foota wrote: post #133
mbreese wrote: post #131

Earlier 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.

That... Sounds like subsidizing the stadium.

The city is paying for expanding general use parking in the downtown area around the stadium. It’s something that will be needed by everyone in that area, as is upgraded traffic infrastructure (lights, etc).

Yes, the enhancements are needed because of the new stadium, but the benefit is not entirely to the MLS team.

And these are nothing like the deals made many years ago where the city/county build stadiums for the Bengals and Reds and covered the entire cost, which is what was alluded to in the parent.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#257

Post by mathattack »

capkutay wrote: post #184
Retric wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not if it confounds homeless problems.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#258

Post by reboog711 »

cududa wrote: post #171
l0b0 wrote: post #45

Although I completely agree about the general premise, it's borderline intellectually dishonest to include a link to your own web site as a reference (the "infrastructure" link). Just include the direct references to third parties, like in the footnote.

Most outlets link to their own prior reporting instead of source material. Drives me nuts

Prior reporting is the one resource they can guarantee will not turn into a dead link.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#259

Post by thomasz »

snapdangle wrote: post #243
sgt101 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that democracy is actually a driver here. I think that it's possible that the calculation is that "fans" will vote for a representative who backs the stadium where as most other voters will not care about the issue, and will switch off when it's raised as it's a "sports" thing. If you don't back the stadium then your opponent's will and you'll be out! Also I guess this falls into the "any publicity is good"…

Sorry, but that seems a bit confused. If there are not enough votes for a stadium, then there will not be enough votes to throw out a candidate for "not backing" a stadium. Not allowing people a voice in the question and then blaming democracy for it? You can't blame an abstract system of government for sports owners making sweatheart deals that ignore public sentiment.

This is not how it works. If there is a number of people who really really really care about a single issue, it might be advisable for a politician to pander to their particular interests on the expense of the majority who cares only mildly about the issue.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#260

Post by treis »

fnordsensei wrote: post #246
ironmagma wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, San Franciscans think housing inhibits quality of life. Talking to a few people for here it’s as though the most important thing about the city is having a nice sunlight during the day, and being able to see some of the sky without looking upwards, not unimportant things like poverty or having properly funded service workers.

Also, if you've bought a home, increased supply might mean that your "investment" (because homes now seem to be primarily investments rather than a place to live) becomes less valuable. No, if you've bought a home, you want ever increasing prices. But people forget that during the first half of life, you generally try to move somewhere bigger each time you move. If prices increase 10% on average, your $500k property…

>However, the house you want to buy, that cost $1m when you bought your current property, now costs $1.1m. So actually, you lost $50k for the standard of living you're looking for, rather than gained it.

I have 50K in cash which I can leverage into 250K worth of mortgage. That gets me more home despite the price increase. In turn, I get to pocket the difference between interest and home value increases when I eventually sell and retire to a place with normal housing cost.

Post reply on HN