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

271–280 of 296 posts

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#271

Post by choward »

ndnxhs wrote: post #130
redshirtrob wrote: post #108

Probably the thing that annoys me most about these deals is how one-sided the tenancy is. For example, an NFL team can play eight games a year in a publicly financed stadium, but if a game doesn't "sell out", then the local broadcast is blacked out. AFAIK only the NFL does this, but that's probably a function of the number/timing of games more than anything else.

Its slightly better in South Australia. If the game sells out then the broadcast is live but if it does not it is delayed by adverts in between

That's pretty terrible. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't watch a game when I'm getting alerts on my phone in real time.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#272

Post by notSupplied »

dwighttk wrote: post #125
TulliusCicero wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that because of the stadium, though? You have to look at the big picture of lots of different cases, rather than just looking at one example, to avoid the correlation == causation trap. The other thing to look at would be, "what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater…

>"what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater economically beneficial impact. Not in Arlington. It's a driving city between Ft. Worth and Dallas. No one is going to go visit Arlington because of robust public transit. They'd at best drive through to get to the Cowboys or…

It could be a transfer of economic activity from larger neighboring areas, not necessarily creation of economic activity.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#273

Post by masonic »

Animats wrote: post #228
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…

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.

What city money?

Pacific Bell Park was wholly privately financed, much of that from seat licenses. And the ballpark was key to the redevelopment of the entire China Basin area -- look at aerial photographs of the region before 1999.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#274

Post by masonic »

choward wrote: post #270
slg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  There are very few games that are shown OTA.
All NFL games are broadcast OTA to the participating teams' home regions.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#275

Post by slg »

choward wrote: post #270
slg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are just factually wrong here. The NFL mandates that every game that is sold out (nearly 100% of the games in the NFL) must be broadcast in the local market on free OVA TV.

And the reason why the stadium need regular upgrades is to attract the team in the first place. If a team doesn't have a new stadium like the St Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, or Oakland Raiders they will move to a market that either offers them subsidies or would simply be more profitable. That is the fundamental cause of all these problems.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#276

Post by masonic »

existencebox wrote: post #16
ams6110 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But how would you draft that such that it wouldn't eliminate libraries and museums Maybe we should. These days, public libraries are little more than homeless shelters. I haven't been to one in at least 5 years for that reason, and printed books are largely irrelevant in today's world anyway. Museums could be operated by private non-profits and foundations. No need to have taxpayers directly finance their construct…

This is such an absurd comment I have to counter it. The library near me is wonderful, and my wife regularly goes there just because of how peaceful it is and how broad their e-book collection is for her bus rides. I'm in a normal no-name township, nothing particularly wealthy. Same goes for the library where I grew up, and from visits back, it's in about the same state. Volunteer work there was integral to my growin…

  I'm in a normal no-name township
... which generally means it attracts fewer homeless.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#277

Post by choward »

slg wrote: post #275
choward wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are just factually wrong here. The NFL mandates that every game that is sold out (nearly 100% of the games in the NFL) must be broadcast in the local market on free OVA TV. And the reason why the stadium need regular upgrades is to attract the team in the first place. If a team doesn't have a new stadium like the St Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, or Oakland Raiders they will move to a market that either offers t…

Oh. I didn't realize this. None of the teams I'm a fan of are in my local area.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#278

Post by dwighttk »

notSupplied wrote: post #272
dwighttk wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater economically beneficial impact. Not in Arlington. It's a driving city between Ft. Worth and Dallas. No one is going to go visit Arlington because of robust public transit. They'd at best drive through to get to the Cowboys or…

It could be a transfer of economic activity from larger neighboring areas, not necessarily creation of economic activity.

Yes, they are transferring the economic activity that comes with Cowboys and Rangers games (which are going to be played, new stadium or no) to Arlington... Directly from Irving in the Cowboys case and indirectly from wherever the Rangers might move. Also they have a bunch of other events in Cowboys stadium... not sure about the Ballpark.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#279

Post by Retric »

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?

Focusing on local residents tends to be a sum optimal. Focus on what’s best for all city residents and you avoid a lot of local maxima in favor of a global one.

Remember, people often have limited understanding of impacts focusing on a small percentage of what’s going on. Aka sound byte politics, a stadium is only half the story rarely used, low density parking can be a larger issue.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#280

Post by lsiebert »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #194
lsiebert wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What statistics are those? Can you cite your sources? Because I've never seen anything that suggests that a majority of homeless people have addiction/mental illness problems. A higher percentage of such issues then the housed population, sure, but not a majority. AFAIK, you can find a direct correspondence between increased rental prices and increased homelessness, and that's the main contributor. https://www.zillow…

Depending on your source it ranges from ~33% to over 50%. SAMHSA stats out it over 50%, others like this out it lower around 48%: https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-pop... https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mental... In January 2015, the most extensive survey ever undertaken found 564,708 people were homeless on a given…

I don't think you can just add the Sahmsa data, as they may be separate questions. I looked for, and couldn't find the original report.

https://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/ lists housing and poverty as the major factors contributing the homelessness, and under other contributing factors says that, "Approximately 16% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe and persistent mental illness"

I could go through and argue these step by step, but I think my larger point is that homelessness is an economic issue. Drug addiction rates haven't increased over time (see https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/chart-s... ) It's harder to talk about mental health rates, since so many mental health issues are untreated and increased mental health treatment can be mistaken for new rates, but I've seen nothing suggesting that rates have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Homelessness however, increased dramatically. So I don't think you can place addiction or mental illness as the main contributor.

Getting to your statement on housing first initiatives, even if homelessness was 100% addiction and mental illness related, a stable location allows better continuity of care, provision of treatment, followups etc. Certainly sticking someone in a house isn't enough, but it can be a meaningful start, even if the person suffers from addiction or mental illness. It also reduces street victimization, infectious disease spread, hypothermia, etc.

Also, I'd note that homelessness is not just a single person issue. Many families become homeless, the National Center on Family Homelessness estimates 1 in 30 children are homeless (https://www.air.org/center/national-center-family-homelessne...). Housing first helps kids and families. Incidentally domestic violence is one of the biggest causes of women and families being homeless :-(.

I believe treating homelessness as merely as mental health/addiction/public health issue and not an economic consequence to reductions in affordable housing, housing assistance, and lower real wages for low income workers misses the point.

We've probably strayed a bit far from talking about stadiums, so I'll leave it be.

Post reply on HN