Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums • Hacker News Board

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#261

Post by Shivetya » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #154

drugme wrote: post #152

Elected officials have been played by team owners and sports leagues. The article conveniently neglects to mention one of the more notable examples of a certain very well known official getting "played" in this fashion (for the benefit of a certain hugely unnecessary sports arena on the edge of downtown Brooklyn): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Not even sure it's correct to say elected officials are being played. Quite often they're sitting on the same side of the negotiating table as the team owner without no one there to represent the public. In most cases with a few notable exceptions, the elected officials are as rah-rah for a new stadium as the team owner. Which is why in so many jurisdictions they no longer allow the public to vote on stadium funding.…

the sad part most of them are in it for personal gain as they usually put together deals locking in seats to be used by various city committees or organizations that always seem to insure said politician is at the big games most of the time with their family and friends.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#262

Post by lukas099 » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #222

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…

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.

Regardless, whether it's out of 10,000 or 1 million, that's 1 thousand people having homes that wouldn't have.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#263

Post by ianai » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #106

ianai wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On jobs, I’m unconvinced that stadiums create many jobs. At least at the stadiums I’ve lived near, they seemed to be fully staffed with far fewer people than other social venues - say casinos (though I don’t see a US government making a casino) or even a mall. I’d rather localities invest in community centers, libraries, museums, etc than stadiums.

There will be a lot of jobs during construction, but it's perhaps worth noting that those will not necessarily be for locals. In operation, I agree that thr number of jobs is likely fairly low, and mostly low wage.

Those construction jobs are invalid for inclusion because they’re temporary unless the building is going to be destroyed and rebuilt regularly. The only jobs created that can be included in the decision to build or not are the long term jobs.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#264

Post by toufiqbarhamov » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #220

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe it's a coincidence, but California has twice as many homeless people per capita as the rest of the US. It also has house prices roughly twice as high.

It also has sunny weather that tends to be milder in the winter than most other places, which if you’re sleeping rough must help. Beyond that I’d hesitate to draw too many conclusions based on correlation.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#265

Post by ksdale » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

ken wrote: post #216

ksdale wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very underrated point. I feel like in the abstract, we should be asking how much a city should be willing to pay for a place where tens of thousands of people can gather for a common purpose tens of times a year to attend an activity that tens (or hundreds) of thousands more people really enjoy watching on TV. It seems very plausible that this should be a non zero amount. (Also plausible that it shouldn’t b…

One big difference is that artists pay to use a venue for a performance. Sports teams get the city to pay to build the stadium, and keep the profits. When I go to the theatre or the symphony or the ballet or the opera, the programs and the placards in the lobby always make it clear that most of their funding comes from donations from big companies (in Seattle: always Boeing and Microsoft) and private donors. If we're…

I think this is a question of relative popularity, they could hold a local arts performance at Centurylink and even if it were free, the stadium would still be mostly empty.

The 5th Avenue Theater holds a little more than 2,000 people, it’s not a giant logistical problem to fit an extra 2,000 people into downtown Seattle.

And I’m not trying to defend people’s preference for sports. I’m one of those people who wishes there was more of the arts around, but the demand for sports is enormous compared to the demand for local arts.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#266

Post by ken » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #237

ken wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big difference is that artists pay to use a venue for a performance. Sports teams get the city to pay to build the stadium, and keep the profits. When I go to the theatre or the symphony or the ballet or the opera, the programs and the placards in the lobby always make it clear that most of their funding comes from donations from big companies (in Seattle: always Boeing and Microsoft) and private donors. If we're…

Do you think there is a conspiracy to keep local art off TV? Or maybe the reason that you don't see the Seattle Pops on TV more is because broadcasters can't make money since people won't watch them? Sports are popular. That always seems to be a shock to people in the type of circles that frequent HN, but it is the underlying fact that allows sports teams to get these subsidizes in the first place.

"Conspiracy" is an ugly word, and usually not applicable. Let's not build straw men where none exist.

Go back a step. Why are sports so sought after? Well, they spend many millions of dollars on advertising, for one. That's more than the entire Seattle Symphony budget. How many people even know they play live movie soundtracks to popular movies here? Yet I don't even follow football and I can tell you about a team 2000 miles away which is in the playoffs. It's hard to avoid it. Why do they have that kind of money? Because they were successful in decades past.

I think a much simpler explanation is: a couple of professional sports leagues got big in the middle of the past century, for various reasons, and have used that success to gain a foothold into TV. Note that it isn't sports in general that are popular. There are really only 3 sports leagues that most of America cares about. Try to start a pro cricket league here and you'll just hear crickets.

The rich always get richer. In this case, the rich are getting richer using public money. It's not really about sports. Even the sports fans here aren't pushing to let kids play ball in the stadium when it's empty.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#267

Post by ken » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #265

ken wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big difference is that artists pay to use a venue for a performance. Sports teams get the city to pay to build the stadium, and keep the profits. When I go to the theatre or the symphony or the ballet or the opera, the programs and the placards in the lobby always make it clear that most of their funding comes from donations from big companies (in Seattle: always Boeing and Microsoft) and private donors. If we're…

I think this is a question of relative popularity, they could hold a local arts performance at Centurylink and even if it were free, the stadium would still be mostly empty. The 5th Avenue Theater holds a little more than 2,000 people, it’s not a giant logistical problem to fit an extra 2,000 people into downtown Seattle. And I’m not trying to defend people’s preference for sports. I’m one of those people who wishes…

The last 3 live arts performances I went to had to turn away people because they didn't have the capacity to seat everyone who wanted to attend.

2000 seats isn't 2000 people. Add performers and stage crew and support staff -- and then consider that most of them have to leave town after the buses stop running for the night (and certainly can't afford downtown Amazon-esque rent). Do you think adding hundreds of cars downtown in the evenings isn't a major logistical problem?

In recent history, a significant theatre (not the 5th) was bought and sold under terms which turned out to be completely false. This isn't some libertarian fantasy where we're only giving people what they want. People in power are literally lying and cheating to keep the arts away from citizens.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#268

Post by notSupplied » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

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…

This raises the fundamental question: do people have the inherent democratic right to determine the population density of their own neighborhoods?

If yes, everyone will do as you say and vote to restrict housing supply to maximise their property value.

Democracy works great for deciding if your community wants a nicer dog park or a bigger library, not so great for deciding if your community should consists of single family homes or 4-5 story apartments.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#269

Post by choward » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

capkutay wrote: post #185

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.

> It's 100% financed by the team and was welcomed by residents

NIMBYs tend to welcome things that aren't new housing since they are likely to raise their property value. New housing has the potential to do the opposite.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#270

Post by choward » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #234

rossjudson wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please say "false equivalence" to yourself, as many times as you can. You're going to compare a public park to a stadium? Go to a stadium without a ticket, and see for yourself just how "public" it is. Really, really large numbers of people use public parks. Small, small numbers of people (by percentage, in large metro regions) ever see the inside of a stadium. While I understand that there are many that enjoy profes…

You are missing basically the whole point of my comment. You don't have to enter a stadium or even pay a cent to a sports team to get utility from it. You can watch a game on free over-the-air TV or you can enjoy the communal aspects that other comments in this thread have mentioned. The business is generating positive externalities and therefore it might be appropriate to subsidize it. Also, you might not want your…

> You don't have to enter a stadium or even pay a cent to a sports team to get utility from it.

That is completely not true. But even if it was, why does the stadium have to be brand new and built in a high property value area? What's wrong with existing arenas?

> You can watch a game on free over-the-air TV

There are very few games that are shown OTA. And on top of that, there are commercials so it isn't free. Good luck trying to watch every game without paying money or doing something illegal. I'm willing to bet that this has never been accomplished by any fan in the history of sports.