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

281–290 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#281

Post by notSupplied »

ksdale wrote: post #100
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…

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…

If people like sports, they should express that preference not by spending tax payer dollars on stadiums, but paying higher prices on tickets to fund the increased cost of the stadium. That way, the market mechanism signals what is the appropriate level of resources society should spend on this kind of thing and instead of some backroom negotiation.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#282

Post by notSupplied »

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…

The problem is using the electoral mechanism rather than the market mechanism to determine how much we as a society should allocate to stadiums.

In an electoral mechanism the 51% can compel the other 49% to spend tremendous resources on something the minority does not want. That is incredibly wasteful and those who want sports should pay for it directly via higher ticket prices instead.

Also a lot of these are a zero-sum contest between cities to attract the teams who demand the new facilities. The economic value is transferred rather than created when two cities are bidding against each other.

Same argument for bidding on Amazon HQ #2. Sports franchises and Amazon are leveraging their negotiating scale against local governments. Since cities cannot conduct "M&A", nor are they designed around the unyielding quest for growth, they will forever be out muscled by large businesses. This kind of subsidy simply needs to be illegal, as most cities are never in a strong negotiating position against private interests.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#283

Post by notSupplied »

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.

It was originally not a terrible idea. You can be a poor family owning a cheap home, and rising property values can push up your property taxes to the point where you suddenly can't afford to stay in your own house.

Sure they could sell the now very valuable home and downgrade, but I find it inhumane to force someone out to "downgrade" from a home they already own.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#284

Post by around_here »

sbuk wrote: post #252
wongarsu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so does math, or public gyms. All without the funneling of even more public money in to already wealthy hands.

You want stadiums? Sure. Public gets the profits with the owner renting the space.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#285

Post by notSupplied »

jm4 wrote: post #190
titanomachy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Because the the best jobs are in SF, so scratching SF off of your list if you're in particular industries is too large of a sacrifice.

The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that creates the problem.

Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be considered a constituent of SF and their voice is as valid as that of a resident.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#286

Post by titanomachy »

notSupplied wrote: post #283
titanomachy wrote: post #175

Earlier 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.

It was originally not a terrible idea. You can be a poor family owning a cheap home, and rising property values can push up your property taxes to the point where you suddenly can't afford to stay in your own house. Sure they could sell the now very valuable home and downgrade, but I find it inhumane to force someone out to "downgrade" from a home they already own .

They could take out a line of credit on their house and still be vastly better off than they were before the housing boom. Sure, they might not be overnight millionaires, but hopefully they didn't buy their homes _expecting_ the value to triple within a decade.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#287

Post by titanomachy »

snapdangle wrote: post #245
flattone wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't understand aggression toward long time residents. Like... On what basis is anyone wanting to move I to an area and opposed to... Exactly what's good about the area. More population density in SF sounds like a deal breaker to me. It's already not worth any money to me to move between SF and mtv. Tried it for years. It's terrible already .

This also boggles my mind. The only ones allowed a say in what happens to a city are.. the people just moving to it? Aka the same ones who are responsible for a majority of the current issues?

Longtime residents of the city also suffer. The ones who weren't wealthy enough to but a house before the boom. Should homeowners be the only ones with a say?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#288

Post by titanomachy »

almost_usual wrote: post #189
titanomachy wrote: post #175

Earlier 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.

I don't live in the bay area and never will. I only travel there for work sometimes.

I think it hurts non-homeowning residents because it eliminates a powerful incentive for densification. Where I live, homes are taxed as if they were developed to their maximum zoned potential. This motivates people to move out of single-family homes so they can be redeveloped into higher density and add much-needed supply to the market.

It's true that the homeowner is worse off, but society does not function unless we prioritize the needs of the many over the few. IMHO. Also, the homeowners usually make an incredible amount of money selling homes that they bought for nearly nothing, so they get some compensation for the trauma of having to move.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#289

Post by titanomachy »

notSupplied wrote: post #285
jm4 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Because the the best jobs are in SF, so scratching SF off of your list if you're in particular industries is too large of a sacrifice. The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that creates the problem. Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be considered a constituent of SF and…

Yeah the city certainly benefits from their presence even if they don't pay property tax. NIMBYs are happy to profit off this as their property values soar, but they don't want to pay any of the cost.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#290

Post by muzz »

capkutay wrote: post #227
irq11 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 traff…

So will the traffic to/from be on private roads?
Post reply on HN