Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums • Hacker News Board

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#291

Post by suddenstutter » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 11:44 AM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #235

tylersmith wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people wouldn't lose health coverage if they had enough value to afford it from their own labor. If they don't make enough to afford health care then who benefits from them being healthy/alive? I don't find the fact that they'll whine and burn things down a convincing reason to subsidize their lives. Eventually they'll burn out and without healthcare they'll stop being a problem.

You're advocating that sick people who cannot show value through their own labor should die. That is disgusting. And since a generous interpretation dictates that you are clearly trolling, it's also a hoot. Your first sentence implies a universe in which 0) catastrophes don't happen 1) people are generally aware of their true value 2) value and opportunity are perfectly paired, or at least paired more often than not…

[flagged]

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#292

Post by masonic » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

  while saying yes to more jobs

How do local residents have any say in local job offerings?

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#293

Post by davvolun » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

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.

That sounds crazy, I can't find any information to back up that statement. Need source.

I'm finding something back in the 90s/early 2000s that might be related; the city was handling marketing and ticket sales, so maybe there was something there (if the city fails to sell so many tickets, they have to pay). But from what I'm seeing, that hasn't been true for about 15 years.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#294

Post by notSupplied » Wed, Jan 09, 2019, 6:31 AM UTC

masonic wrote: post #292

notSupplied wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

while saying yes to more jobs How do local residents have any say in local job offerings?

By fighting high density projects that are residential ("It brings too much traffic! It'll shade this nearby park!") but not when they're for commercial use. See recent SOMA mixed use construction in SF. Office to residential square footage ratio is completely skewed towards offices.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#295

Post by imjustsaying » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #70

imjustsaying wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Democracy doesn’t really have easy shortcuts The easy shortcut is IQ and education cannot improve it.

If you believe smart people never vote against their own interests then you're mistaken.

We'd be in agreement, and I don't believe I suggested otherwise. IQ is a predictor of success, it's not a measure of success. Groups and individuals with higher IQs tend to have better outcomes and there's about a hundred of years of research backing this up. Their involvement in successful democracies is no exception.

Re: Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

#296

Post by jrnichols » Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

masonic wrote: post #208

jrnichols wrote: post #72

" Stadiums add little or nothing to the local economy." I think that AT&T Stadium (Arlington, TX) may be a good example of one that's helped. One article from 2015 says "WrestleMania — the Super Bowl of pro wrestling — is coming to Arlington’s AT&T Stadium in April, and it could pack a financial wallop for local businesses." The new Rangers stadium nearby has benefited, and so has nearby Six Flags & Hurricane Harbor.…

AT&T Stadium may be a good example of one that's helped How many days out of the year does it actually host events?

13 separate multi-day events, such as motocross and professional bull riding and that's not including the Cowboys games or other football games or other concerts. It's not active 365 days of the year, but it usually has a decent amount of events going on.