Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers?

Moderators: BombsquadSammy, Yuri Vaultin, Tarik Black, Mr. E, bwgood77, Rhettmatic, Duke4life831, KF10, GimmeDat, Knickstape1214, DayofMourning, Capn'O, Dirk, CoreyGallagher, magnumt, ken6199

Should the Public Fund Stadiums?

Yes
19
9%
No
190
91%
 
Total votes: 209

User avatar
INKtastic
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,804
And1: 2,014
Joined: May 26, 2003
Location: Ohio
Contact:
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#101 » by INKtastic » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:36 am

Clemenza wrote:No the public shouldn't fund stadiums.. This more of a bad deal with the NFL where stadiums now cost $1.5 billion on up for only 8 home games and maybe a playoff game. NBA arenas get 40+ home games, concerts, conventions, maybe the nearest D-1 university will play games there, etc. IMO a new arena, public or privately funded, can change an entire area. Staples Center here in LA was ground zero for the transformation of downtown LA which is on a building boom- new bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, condos, etc. The Bucks new arena looks like it might do the same for them in downtown Milwaukee. Golden State wants to do the same when they move across the bay to SF. Football stadiums don't do much in terms of new development surrounding it. You need parking galore for tailgating and whatnot.


you said no, then posted a ton of reasons why the answer should be yes (at least for basketball arenas). I'm sure the OP meant to include basketball arenas.

The impact of a professional sports team to an economy far exceeds the ticket revenue it generates. Building a stadium for a professional sports team is an infrastructure investment to support the local economy.
http://www.inktastic.com/ Custom T-Shirts and more
User avatar
Soupman
Veteran
Posts: 2,858
And1: 394
Joined: Aug 28, 2010
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#102 » by Soupman » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:54 am

That is the main reason why Lebron,Curry,KD and Harden should get way more than $35m per year.
Image
PizzaSteve
Pro Prospect
Posts: 996
And1: 709
Joined: May 05, 2015
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#103 » by PizzaSteve » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:20 pm

Soupman wrote:That is the main reason why Lebron,Curry,KD and Harden should get way more than $35m per year.

They do get more. Player contracts gets them the 35M (capped, but fair based on revenue sharing negotiated in contract with players assoc, which can rise...attract more eyeballs) + no restrictions on personal endorsements (tens of millions more each) + almost no limirs on ability to do other off season work like speaking, investments.

No sure why peopld crying for guys who should approach billionaire status is they are not stupid with their money.

In terms of teams having some kind of multiplier effect, research suggests stadiums are actually a very inefficient use of public capital.

They actually dont bring in very much incremental money. There is almost no incremental lift, as there is an entertainment substitution effect. Tourists still come. Local people will seek alternative entertainment. Almost the same $ will be spent. People go out to eat, park, shop anyway (regardless of whether a game exists or not). Also, stadium venues are not at all efficient at payback vs other entertainment types. Games generate almost no incremental tourists, if you study the numbers.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium vs. The new Levis Stadium (49ers) isnt even close. Levis Stadium cost Santa Clara huge $$$$, has brought in almost no revenue (people drive in, clog the roads with traffic, spend $ only at the ballpark, they leave. A big zero. Hotel taxes are higher due to costs, which discourages visitors 365 days/year for 12 day games and the occasional concert. In contrast, the Monterey Bay Aquarium attracts visitors 360 days/year and created full time jobs vs part time jobs. Aquarium visitors stay longer, they bring kids, they get a hotel, they shop nearby more, they eat at local restaurants in addition to at venues, they buy stuffed otters. Many other types of venues are much, much better investments. A simple park with available soccer field for youth generates as much impact.

To their credit, ballparks due create some construction jobs (and inconvenience headaches) while going in, but so do roads and bridges.
User avatar
realEAST
Starter
Posts: 2,150
And1: 346
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#104 » by realEAST » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:32 pm

Soupman wrote:I think we speak from vastly different positions on one hand and things aren't as simple as you present them on the other hand.

For once no country is or has ever been socialist in the true meaning of the word (and least of them Soviet Union, just to be clear on it).

Closest to it came Sweeden when they had plan to gradually switch to completely publicly owned economy in true sense of the word - not by state but by citizens/workers holding small individual shares of companies they work in.
(see how in the end true, proper socialism, capitalism and democracy all blend into the one thing).
To make the long story short, there wasn't "political courage" to finally make such a move (one great failure by O. Palme), but they opted for further privatization - guess what: they had major economic crisis at the beginning of the 90s.
They are too rich and their public sector is still quite strong, but as privatization takes even greater steps, their economic results are worsening, although still very good (worth noting, there is strong left-green coalition in the seat for a while now, with only one, short period of interuption in eatly 80s that didn't end up well).

Western Europe (including Italy and Spain) itself is quite a bit different from state to state, and we are not even speaking about East Europe.

But todays neoliberal capitalism and socialism can't be farther apart - and in it's most complete, most extreme version, neoliberal capitalism as represent by Republican party even way before Trump and even by bigger, central part of Democrat party (Hilary's circles) - limiting only to USA - can be closely compared and almost equated with corporativism as economic aspect of fasistic regimes. (there are differences, but they are conditioned historically, more than structurally)

It's not limited only to owning means of production (and what would publicly owned mean - by state or by workers - great differance, as I lean towards latter), but also to treatment of basic public goods and services as are education, health system and welfare system, concessions on land etc.

What treatment of public goods,services,etc would you define as corporatist?

I know the main kick on government from neoliberal circles is it's inefficieny, which on one hand is completely false, especially in big, rich countries, as backed by numerous studies in multiple time frames. (and where BDP isn't only and ultimate parametre, although it backs it too in most cases).

$17 trillion in debt. But government is efficient right? They can tax you but that doesn't mean they have to be responsible with your tax money.

On the other hand, governments usually aren't efficient exactly when they have close ties to big business, as they cater policies towards it and not benefit of citizens, apart from "holified" circle - and that is main trait of corporativism.

Limited liability granted by government.Your forced to have health insurance and car insurance.Who benefits from this? Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Lobbyists lobby to alter/create laws to give one business an advantage against other businesses.Who funds the election campaigns of politicians? Who owns the federal reserve? What is with all the former Goldman Sachs employees being appointed to US treasury positions? Follow the money

To answer your questions, they also have two sides: on one hand those measures can't be approved knowing what was the cause of the crash of banking system for ex., but at the same time if say moto industry wasn't subsidized the price wouldn't be paid by owners and manages who ran the companies (and banks for that matter) in the ground, but tebs of thousends of workers who actually built those companies from the ground.


Practice of bank managers to pay themselves huge bonuses after they had been bailed out by hunderds of bilions of dollars speaks enough of their case.

Who bailed them out?

That is an example of state favoring (extremly corrupt) private sector (which in itself is highly problematic), so yes, it could be labeled corporativism.

I think moto industry is a bit more layerd problem, and that call in the end I can understand.

Point is, something isn't corporativist per se, as seen above, or like central banks controling intrest rates, but in which way they are applied is what determines the character.

Who gives the central banks the authority to create US currency? Who gives the central banks the authority to use Quantitative Easing with US currency?

The very notion of democracy is questionable in it's alleged bastion (just see how and why Sanders was prevented from being Democrat candidat at elections; all that happening in basically bi partisian system), let alone in most of the other world.

What is stopping Bernie Sanders from being on all 50 state election ballots? Who controls ballot access? Who controls how electoral college votes are awarded?

Having that in mind and blaiming government for it's inefficiency is a bit hypocrite imo, since ties to big business is exactly what makes it corrupt and inefficiet in first place, yet those same people are spring of neoliberal ideology now days. So I see it as more a means to an end than true belief.
(Interesting marker here are ties between very conservative church organizations and so called neoliberal circles)

Now I went on a writing spree, I hope I covered it all, it is tricky typing it on a cell.
[/quote]

I find it pretty amusing that same liberal business circles who have the greatest benefits from government, which reduces tax rates for the richest and gives them significant tax subsidies, are at the same time those who are loudest in their claims for abolishing the government.

At the same time that same government is only medium the regular people have to confront those forces. Thus Sanders example - you know it is not same to run as independent candidate or be backed by party like Democrats - and you very well know why Hilary got the nod from super delegates (utterly undemocratic institute itself) instead of him (not that he is perfect, but man far and above what currently is offered). Point is, system itself denied people a real choice (because choosing between Trump and Hilary wasn't exactly the great opportunity).

As far as treatment of public services and good - most obvious example is education system being tailored to fit big business needs, not only because it is becoming privatised itself, but also because it produces people who aren't able to think critically, but have only very narrow scope of competences which fit the market needs. And that is as far as it can get from true purpose of education and education system. (only difference in comparison to fascist Italy is that education there was public, but with state having so close ties to corporate system, it basically amounts to the same thing. In fact, it being publicly owned, allowed for it to eventually change for the better back then)

Concerning health system, main benefactors from Obamacare were millions who previously didn't have medical insurance at all, not insurance companies. (again, far from being perfect, and in big part due to Republican opposition, Obamacare was still major step forward). It is not black and white, that is always too simplistic, and usually misses the main point (cause)
New changes proposed after Trump came in the seat are going towards favouring private capital - insurance companies, etc.

You said it yourself, follow the money. You'll see how government has become basically a client for big business. To abolish government as such would only further open doors for big capital holders to further expand their oligarchy, now without any possibility to contain them.
It is reminiscent of populist calls to abandon European Union because "it failed in it's mission" (which would in fact become true only if it falls apart). Those are pretty dangerous tendencies, going towards (further) disintegration.

Regarding budget deficit - it is actually not a bad thing to have budget deficit, as evidenced by periods of biggest american economic growth (New Deal, post WWII) when budget was continuously in deficit - it is not problem as far as that money is invested in infrastructure, education etc which all raises productivity and well being of population, especially in long term.

Problem is when deficit is consequence of imperial policy and is used to buy unnecessary goods from other countries so their economy can be liquid - since they have accepted and implemented capitalistic system, it better work, otherwise it is bad publicity. (ofc, USA businesses get loads of cheap working force and new markets to expand to).
Not to mention starting meaningless wars.
At this point it is pretty obvious how foreign policy corresponds with big business interests and contrary to regular people's interests; and how in turn foreign policy affects domestic policies implemented, to reflect those same interests.

To conclude, just because the government is acting badly, it doesn't mean government as institution is bad (on the contrary, it is the base of representational democracy - problem is that isn't the perfect form of democracy, and all the consequential problems basically stem from here; as well as from the modes the primary capital was accumulated, not only in USA, but in other early capitalist states, and which dictates relations of power up until now).
Political system needs to be changed, allowing for the greater participation of regular people (not in populist version of people, but really, all the people) which are now in big part separated from any major decisions, and just one of the problems with it is consequential lack of motivation among voters.

(Seattle is positive example in that regard)
Clemenza
Pro Prospect
Posts: 859
And1: 476
Joined: Jan 21, 2013
Location: California
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#105 » by Clemenza » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:58 pm

INKtastic wrote:
Clemenza wrote:No the public shouldn't fund stadiums.. This more of a bad deal with the NFL where stadiums now cost $1.5 billion on up for only 8 home games and maybe a playoff game. NBA arenas get 40+ home games, concerts, conventions, maybe the nearest D-1 university will play games there, etc. IMO a new arena, public or privately funded, can change an entire area. Staples Center here in LA was ground zero for the transformation of downtown LA which is on a building boom- new bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, condos, etc. The Bucks new arena looks like it might do the same for them in downtown Milwaukee. Golden State wants to do the same when they move across the bay to SF. Football stadiums don't do much in terms of new development surrounding it. You need parking galore for tailgating and whatnot.


you said no, then posted a ton of reasons why the answer should be yes (at least for basketball arenas). I'm sure the OP meant to include basketball arenas.

The impact of a professional sports team to an economy far exceeds the ticket revenue it generates. Building a stadium for a professional sports team is an infrastructure investment to support the local economy.

Definitely no for a football/NFL stadium but not so bad a deal if a city helped build a new NBA arena.. that is if its a city where the roads, schools, services, etc are in decent shape. If the city is a sh*thole then no.
Agenda42
General Manager
Posts: 9,707
And1: 393
Joined: Jun 29, 2008

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#106 » by Agenda42 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:20 pm

Pro sports teams are scarce. More cities want them than have them. That means there's leverage, so a city should expect keeping a sports team will come with a cost.

It's up to the taxpayers whether that cost is worth it. Subsidizing sports is not particularly different from subsidizing the arts. How many cities build a swanky concert hall? Same kind of deal here, just a different sort of performance.
User avatar
AshyLarrysDiaper
RealGM
Posts: 10,753
And1: 2,217
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Location: Oakland

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#107 » by AshyLarrysDiaper » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:26 pm

Agenda42 wrote:Pro sports teams are scarce. More cities want them than have them. That means there's leverage, so a city should expect keeping a sports team will come with a cost.

It's up to the taxpayers whether that cost is worth it. Subsidizing sports is not particularly different from subsidizing the arts. How many cities build a swanky concert hall? Same kind of deal here, just a different sort of performance.


It's a matter of degrees. Swanky concert halls don't have $500M price tags.

And most public subsidies for stadiums aren't put to a vote. It's usually a 1:1 negotiation between the ownership group and city govt.
Contribute to the "Fire GarPax" billboard here:
https://www.gofundme.com/3v7fc-let-our-voices-be-heard-firegarpax
Agenda42
General Manager
Posts: 9,707
And1: 393
Joined: Jun 29, 2008

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#108 » by Agenda42 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:35 pm

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:It's a matter of degrees. Swanky concert halls don't have $500M price tags.


Well, I grant it's not common, but you can totally spend that money on a concert hall. I think the most expensive concert hall currently in existence is in Hamburg, and cost EU$860M to build, and there are quite a few with $500M price tags.

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:And most public subsidies for stadiums aren't put to a vote. It's usually a 1:1 negotiation between the ownership group and city govt.


This is something of a different question. Obviously I wouldn't support a city spending the money if the citizens don't want it. In my view, floating the bonds for an arena should be put to a vote.
cw3k
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,302
And1: 476
Joined: Nov 18, 2013

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#109 » by cw3k » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:37 pm

Our politicians are up for bought. Soyes, taxpayers will be paying for it in the name of greater good.
User avatar
AshyLarrysDiaper
RealGM
Posts: 10,753
And1: 2,217
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Location: Oakland

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#110 » by AshyLarrysDiaper » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:44 pm

Agenda42 wrote:Well, I grant it's not common, but you can totally spend that money on a concert hall. I think the most expensive concert hall currently in existence is in Hamburg, and cost EU$860M to build, and there are quite a few with $500M price tags.


God bless the Europeans and their love for classical art, but this is Murica. If a US city has spent anywhere near that much on a concert hall, it's news to me. Stadiums, on the other hand, they pay big bucks for routinely -- with or without their constituents' consent (usually without).

The other factor to consider is that orchestras and ballet troups and other artistic orgs that might use a concert hall are usually nonprofits. They could never build a new facility on their budgets (and still, they're expected to contribute to new constructions by running capital campaigns).

NFL and NBA teams are multi-billion dollar companies. In most cases, they get public dollars for arenas because they can, not because they need to.
Contribute to the "Fire GarPax" billboard here:
https://www.gofundme.com/3v7fc-let-our-voices-be-heard-firegarpax
User avatar
INKtastic
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,804
And1: 2,014
Joined: May 26, 2003
Location: Ohio
Contact:
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#111 » by INKtastic » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:30 pm

Clemenza wrote:
INKtastic wrote:
Clemenza wrote:No the public shouldn't fund stadiums.. This more of a bad deal with the NFL where stadiums now cost $1.5 billion on up for only 8 home games and maybe a playoff game. NBA arenas get 40+ home games, concerts, conventions, maybe the nearest D-1 university will play games there, etc. IMO a new arena, public or privately funded, can change an entire area. Staples Center here in LA was ground zero for the transformation of downtown LA which is on a building boom- new bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, condos, etc. The Bucks new arena looks like it might do the same for them in downtown Milwaukee. Golden State wants to do the same when they move across the bay to SF. Football stadiums don't do much in terms of new development surrounding it. You need parking galore for tailgating and whatnot.


you said no, then posted a ton of reasons why the answer should be yes (at least for basketball arenas). I'm sure the OP meant to include basketball arenas.

The impact of a professional sports team to an economy far exceeds the ticket revenue it generates. Building a stadium for a professional sports team is an infrastructure investment to support the local economy.

Definitely no for a football/NFL stadium but not so bad a deal if a city helped build a new NBA arena.. that is if its a city where the roads, schools, services, etc are in decent shape. If the city is a sh*thole then no.


Why not there, you just pointed out how a team can help revitalize a city. Based on that, it's even more important for those kinds of cities to invest in infrastructure to support the local economy, which a basketball arena certainly qualifies as.
http://www.inktastic.com/ Custom T-Shirts and more
SDANNIE
Ballboy
Posts: 37
And1: 18
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#112 » by SDANNIE » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:39 pm

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:
And most public subsidies for stadiums aren't put to a vote. It's usually a 1:1 negotiation between the ownership group and city govt.


Granted I don't have a lot of knowledge about this issue but this is not my experience. San Diego just lost the Chargers because the citizens said no to subsidizing a new stadium.

My hometown OKC has been more than willing to support temporary sales tax hikes to fund capital improvements, including a sports arena which later was further improved (with taxpayer support) to house the Thunder when they came to town.

Can you give examples of citizens funding stadiums without their approval? I would be interested in reading those stories.
User avatar
Soupman
Veteran
Posts: 2,858
And1: 394
Joined: Aug 28, 2010
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#113 » by Soupman » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:15 pm

realEAST wrote:
Soupman wrote:I think we speak from vastly different positions on one hand and things aren't as simple as you present them on the other hand.

For once no country is or has ever been socialist in the true meaning of the word (and least of them Soviet Union, just to be clear on it).

Closest to it came Sweeden when they had plan to gradually switch to completely publicly owned economy in true sense of the word - not by state but by citizens/workers holding small individual shares of companies they work in.
(see how in the end true, proper socialism, capitalism and democracy all blend into the one thing).
To make the long story short, there wasn't "political courage" to finally make such a move (one great failure by O. Palme), but they opted for further privatization - guess what: they had major economic crisis at the beginning of the 90s.
They are too rich and their public sector is still quite strong, but as privatization takes even greater steps, their economic results are worsening, although still very good (worth noting, there is strong left-green coalition in the seat for a while now, with only one, short period of interuption in eatly 80s that didn't end up well).

Western Europe (including Italy and Spain) itself is quite a bit different from state to state, and we are not even speaking about East Europe.

But todays neoliberal capitalism and socialism can't be farther apart - and in it's most complete, most extreme version, neoliberal capitalism as represent by Republican party even way before Trump and even by bigger, central part of Democrat party (Hilary's circles) - limiting only to USA - can be closely compared and almost equated with corporativism as economic aspect of fasistic regimes. (there are differences, but they are conditioned historically, more than structurally)

It's not limited only to owning means of production (and what would publicly owned mean - by state or by workers - great differance, as I lean towards latter), but also to treatment of basic public goods and services as are education, health system and welfare system, concessions on land etc.

What treatment of public goods,services,etc would you define as corporatist?

I know the main kick on government from neoliberal circles is it's inefficieny, which on one hand is completely false, especially in big, rich countries, as backed by numerous studies in multiple time frames. (and where BDP isn't only and ultimate parametre, although it backs it too in most cases).

$17 trillion in debt. But government is efficient right? They can tax you but that doesn't mean they have to be responsible with your tax money.

On the other hand, governments usually aren't efficient exactly when they have close ties to big business, as they cater policies towards it and not benefit of citizens, apart from "holified" circle - and that is main trait of corporativism.

Limited liability granted by government.Your forced to have health insurance and car insurance.Who benefits from this? Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Lobbyists lobby to alter/create laws to give one business an advantage against other businesses.Who funds the election campaigns of politicians? Who owns the federal reserve? What is with all the former Goldman Sachs employees being appointed to US treasury positions? Follow the money

To answer your questions, they also have two sides: on one hand those measures can't be approved knowing what was the cause of the crash of banking system for ex., but at the same time if say moto industry wasn't subsidized the price wouldn't be paid by owners and manages who ran the companies (and banks for that matter) in the ground, but tebs of thousends of workers who actually built those companies from the ground.


Practice of bank managers to pay themselves huge bonuses after they had been bailed out by hunderds of bilions of dollars speaks enough of their case.

Who bailed them out?

That is an example of state favoring (extremly corrupt) private sector (which in itself is highly problematic), so yes, it could be labeled corporativism.

I think moto industry is a bit more layerd problem, and that call in the end I can understand.

Point is, something isn't corporativist per se, as seen above, or like central banks controling intrest rates, but in which way they are applied is what determines the character.

Who gives the central banks the authority to create US currency? Who gives the central banks the authority to use Quantitative Easing with US currency?

The very notion of democracy is questionable in it's alleged bastion (just see how and why Sanders was prevented from being Democrat candidat at elections; all that happening in basically bi partisian system), let alone in most of the other world.

What is stopping Bernie Sanders from being on all 50 state election ballots? Who controls ballot access? Who controls how electoral college votes are awarded?

Having that in mind and blaiming government for it's inefficiency is a bit hypocrite imo, since ties to big business is exactly what makes it corrupt and inefficiet in first place, yet those same people are spring of neoliberal ideology now days. So I see it as more a means to an end than true belief.
(Interesting marker here are ties between very conservative church organizations and so called neoliberal circles)

Now I went on a writing spree, I hope I covered it all, it is tricky typing it on a cell.


I find it pretty amusing that same liberal business circles who have the greatest benefits from government, which reduces tax rates for the richest and gives them significant tax subsidies, are at the same time those who are loudest in their claims for abolishing the government.

A government is given a monopoly on taxation.Corporations can't force you to pay them.A government can force you to pay them or you will go to jail.Corporations can pass the cost of higher taxation on to customers or hire lobbyists to lobby congress to alter the tax code to their advantage. Corporations should not get ANY subsidy from government.None.

At the same time that same government is only medium the regular people have to confront those forces.I disagree. Thus Sanders example - you know it is not same to run as independent candidate or be backed by party like Democrats - and you very well know why Hilary got the nod from super delegates (utterly undemocratic institute itself)Yeah that was a travesty and should not have happened. Totally undemocratic. instead of him (not that he is perfect, but man far and above what currently is offered). Point is, systemWho controls ballot access? itself denied people a real choice (because choosing between Trump and Hilary wasn't exactly the great opportunity).

As far as treatment of public services and good - most obvious example is education system being tailored to fit big business needs,Like what? not only because it is becoming privatised itselfWhy do you think that is that bad?, but also because it produces people who aren't able to think critically,When is that the case? but have only very narrow scope of competences which fit the market needs. And that is as far as it can get from true purpose of education and education system. (only difference in comparison to fascist Italy is that education there was public,but you just said privatizing schools is bad. Which is it? but with state having so close ties to corporate system, it basically amounts to the same thing.???? In fact, it being publicly owned, allowed for it to eventually change for the better back thenPublic schools are not subject to competition and are guaranteed tax money even if they are failing.A private school would go out of business if they keep failing students and had low scores and are they are subject to competition.(simply go to another better private school))

Concerning health system, main benefactors from Obamacare were millions who previously didn't have medical insurance at all, not insurance companies.Why are businesses forced by government to provide healthcare? What is wrong with universal healthcare that is funded voluntarily? (again, far from being perfect, and in big part due to Republican opposition, Obamacare was still major step forward). It is not black and white, that is always too simplistic, and usually misses the main point (cause)
New changes proposed after Trump came in the seat are going towards favouring private capital - insurance companies, etc. Who do you think wrote Obamacare/ACA? Who benefits financially from it? Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. Notice congress didn't repeal it. Who benefits financially from "Trump care"? Same thing. Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. Change the name win the game...

You said it yourself, follow the money. You'll see how government has become basically a client for big business.Guess we should decentralize and minimize government size and influence To abolish government as such would only further open doors for big capital holders to further expand their oligarchy, now without any possibility to contain them. Corporations love big government. They can lobby to create laws to give themselves an advantage over their competition.They are given bailouts and subsidies.Regulations that price out the competition.Very minimal government would really complicate that process.
It is reminiscent of populist calls to abandon European Union because "it failed in it's mission" (which would in fact become true only if it falls apart). Those are pretty dangerous tendencies, going towards (further) disintegration.

Regarding budget deficit - it is actually not a bad thing to have budget deficit, as evidenced by periods of biggest american economic growth (New Deal, post WWII)when budget was continuously in deficit - it is not problem as far as that money is invested in infrastructure, education etc which all raises productivity and well being of population, especially in long term.

Problem is when deficit is consequence of imperial policy and is used to buy unnecessary goods from other countries so their economy can be liquid - since they have accepted and implemented capitalistic system, it better work, otherwise it is bad publicity. (ofc, USA businesses get loads of cheap working force and new markets to expand to).
Not to mention starting meaningless wars.Who initiates the meaningless wars?
At this point it is pretty obvious how foreign policy corresponds with big business interests and contrary to regular people's interests; and how in turn foreign policy affects domestic policies implemented, to reflect those same interests. Foreign policy of whom? Domestic policy of whom

To conclude, just because the government is acting badly, it doesn't mean government as institution is badResponsible for 262 million casualties in the 20th century.Communism,Fascism, WMD (on the contrary, it is the base of representational democracy - problem is that isn't the perfect form of democracy, and all the consequential problems basically stem from here; as well as from the modes the primary capital was accumulated, not only in USA, but in other early capitalist states, and which dictates relations of power up until now).
Political system needs to be changed, allowing for the greater participation of regular peoplewho controls the elections? (not in populist version of people, but really, all the people) which are now in big part separated from any major decisions, and just one of the problems with it is consequential lack of motivation among voters.

(Seattle is positive example in that regard)[/quote]
Image
Agenda42
General Manager
Posts: 9,707
And1: 393
Joined: Jun 29, 2008

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#114 » by Agenda42 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:38 pm

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:God bless the Europeans and their love for classical art, but this is Murica. If a US city has spent anywhere near that much on a concert hall, it's news to me. Stadiums, on the other hand, they pay big bucks for routinely -- with or without their constituents' consent (usually without).

The other factor to consider is that orchestras and ballet troups and other artistic orgs that might use a concert hall are usually nonprofits. They could never build a new facility on their budgets (and still, they're expected to contribute to new constructions by running capital campaigns).

NFL and NBA teams are multi-billion dollar companies. In most cases, they get public dollars for arenas because they can, not because they need to.


All of this is a reflection of social priorities. America doesn't have a $500M concert hall mostly because America hasn't built a major concert hall in 40 years. All of the big venues are seriously old, with the most recent well known one being Radio City Music Hall in 1978. Artistic orgs in America are non-profit because profit is not a thing you can do with the arts in America. We like sports, not arts.

Certainly I agree NFL and NBA franchises could fund their own arenas. They take the money they can get, and it's hard to blame them for it.
User avatar
AshyLarrysDiaper
RealGM
Posts: 10,753
And1: 2,217
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Location: Oakland

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#115 » by AshyLarrysDiaper » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:04 pm

SDANNIE wrote:
AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:
And most public subsidies for stadiums aren't put to a vote. It's usually a 1:1 negotiation between the ownership group and city govt.


Granted I don't have a lot of knowledge about this issue but this is not my experience. San Diego just lost the Chargers because the citizens said no to subsidizing a new stadium.

My hometown OKC has been more than willing to support temporary sales tax hikes to fund capital improvements, including a sports arena which later was further improved (with taxpayer support) to house the Thunder when they came to town.

Can you give examples of citizens funding stadiums without their approval? I would be interested in reading those stories.


There are lots, but the recent examples that come to mind are the Raiders stadium subsidy in LV, the 200M the City of Oakland was prepared to pay to keep the Raiders, and the Vikings' $1B stadium in Minneapolis. All of that money flowed without a public vote.
Contribute to the "Fire GarPax" billboard here:
https://www.gofundme.com/3v7fc-let-our-voices-be-heard-firegarpax
JGOJustin
Sophomore
Posts: 124
And1: 89
Joined: Feb 04, 2015
 

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#116 » by JGOJustin » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:55 am

Reading this thread has been very informative for me.

I just want to say that No, taxpayers shouldn't be funding stadiums in any way, shape or form. But NFL stadiums in particular, are so useless, and house so little games during the regular season, that they honestly just aren't worth it.
JGOJustin
Sophomore
Posts: 124
And1: 89
Joined: Feb 04, 2015
 

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#117 » by JGOJustin » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:59 am

Taxpayers shouldn't be funding arenas, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't see tangible real benefits economically from what STAPLES Center has brought to downtown Los Angeles.

I mean I remember what it was like pre staples center and to see it now as the anchor of LA Live has been an incredible 180 in a decade's worth of time. (I say decade because by 2010,LA Live was flourishing) When you factor in the versatility of arenas and what comes with having an arena in your city, you could justify it I suppose.

Stadiums though...the way the NFL holds cities hostage with Stadiums is reason #3458763238 why I hate the NFL and hope that it's abolished in 20 years. (Fantasy I know but still)
Pennebaker
Senior
Posts: 676
And1: 413
Joined: Nov 02, 2013

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#118 » by Pennebaker » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:18 am

There is no right or wrong answer. But a good thing is that it's entirely up to the taxpayers.

Return to The General Board