Posted on 12/16/2004 1:51:17 PM PST by B Knotts
Don’t forget counties and states. They often contribute too. Why would they do such a thing. Oh yea, large numbers of their residents benefit.
Defining widely a public good results in public dollars being used for private moneymaking.
Highway contractors that build roads make money. Truckers that drive over public roads make money. That doesn’t mean roads aren’t a public good. If a large, dare I say I say majority, of the population benefits, it’s a public good.
These stadiums are rarely moneymakers for cities. .
Who said they were? Neither are city halls. Governments aren’t supposed to “make money”. They are supposed to use their taxing and spending authority wisely to benefit the citizenry. Sewers are not socialism. Neither are stadiums.
Your arguments of 'rich traditions' and 'history' and how this is 'not a new concept' boil down to the fact that you want money taken from some people and given to others. You just happen to like it this time.
Pretty much the definition of a tax. The question is: who benefits? Is it a large and stable majority of the population cutting across lines of age, race and gender and income? Not every expense everywhere for stadiums is justified. If you look at the history, however, you will find very few examples of public regret for investments in stadiums. Milwaukee’s stadium for the Brewers and Arizona’s stadium for the Diamondbacks are the only ones that come to mind. In nearly every instance, the ninnys such as yourself stand on their soapboxes and give their “we must feed the children” arguments. Then, wiser people prevail in the end. The facility is built and becomes a centerpiece of civic life and a jewel on the skyline. (See Seattle, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, New England, Denver, Miami…) The critics melt away like the snow in the spring. The investment is trivial compared to the overall budget. A good time is had by all.
I do like sports.
Really though, why don’t you stick to your sacred conservative principals and refuse to watch or support any sports taking place in a facility paid for with your stolen money. While you are at it refuse to drive on public roads for the same reason.
Nonetheless, I happen to think you're far overexaggerating to say 75% of men would be 'very negatively affected,'
You are right. Probably more like 85%.
and even if they are, when is caring for the fragile psyche of the populace supposed to be the job of local government? I thought that people wanted water and power and sewer and cops and schools and fire protections and roads and parks. I don't remember anyone saying the standard function of cities is to make sure guys feel good on Saturday
How condescending can you be? “Look at those foolish sports fans. They actually think their silly little games are important. What rubes they are. If they were enlightened like me they would understand that sewers are what really matter in life, not making the playoffs.” Have you ever witnessed dancing in the streets after a championship? I supposed you would object to the victory parade through town because city streets and police are not to be used for such frivolity. Besides it’s all illegitimate because the stadium was built with stolen money.
If your entire argument is 'I like sports, this is for something I like,' 'it's been done before, a lot,' and 'people like sports,' well, gosh, I guess we better do it. People in San Francisco like bathhouses. They've been there a long time. They've been built before. So have city pools. Gays think maybe they should build them on the public dollar. We'll just check it by your logic...and...yep, free bathhouses on the public dollar!
Probably the lamest analogy in the history of analogies. Just how many citizens benefit from bathhouses? Just how many will care if the proprietor moves his “team” to another city? Just how many sports fans become fatally ill by attending a game? How many bathhouses events are broadcast on free local TV and radio for the enjoyment of the masses?
As usual, people trying to do 'good' refuse to recognize that when everyone gets everyone else to do 'good' with other people's money, pretty soon that billion dollar stadium and million-a-week in unemployment and billion-a-month in AFDC start adding up. "Oh, it's just a little bit. It'll pay for itself over time." Sure, but in the meantime, it comes out of everyone's pockets in the form of property, sales, gas, and whatever other taxes locals can dream up.
It’s all about priorities. The civic minded among us always have something to do with public funds. The Twin Cities recently spent over a billion on a train from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America because former governor Ventura thought trains were cool. It has done nothing but snarl traffic. For that price the valuable legacy of both the Vikings and Twins could be assured for the next fifty years. Instead they both play in a piece of crap the nobody wants to go. The Metrodome was extremely cheap to build and was paid for long ago. It’s been difficult to get anything done because of the self righteous “feed the children” types. The same thing happened with the local hockey team ten years ago. Instead of making a small investment to keep a team viable, the state of hockey let the North Stars move to Dallas. Large numbers of taxpayers were devastated. I know you think they should have just gotten over it, but they didn’t. Instead they fought for years to get a team back. This effort included a gleaming new gem of a stadium in downtown St. Paul heavily financed by both the city and the state. The same old song and dance was heard from the con side. The stadium was build anyway and now is the centerpiece of what was a dying downtown. The new team, while temporarily out of action, is a fixture of life in the state. Every game has been sold out. Nobody even remembers what all the fuss was about. The financing was a drop in the overall bucket. The naysayers have moved on to the Vikings/Twins debate, completely forgetting what asses they made of themselves just a few years ago on the same issue.
… the team could still just up and leave even if your city does pony up a bunch. It's happened in Baltimore. Happened in Cleveland. Happened in LA.
Great examples there. What’s happened in both Baltimore and Cleveland. Baltimore was so overcome with remorse that they paid a kings ransom to steal Cleveland’s team. Cleveland was so overcome with remorse that they paid an emperor’s ransom to get a team back. Both would have been far better off if they had just done what was necessary to keep the team they had. LA will soon have a team. Probably the Vikings if sanity doesn’t soon prevail in Minnesota.
Great conservative thinking there, Roosevelt.
Whatever.
Good. DC is a horrible place for a baseball team. Time would bear that out, I assure you.
Anything someone like Mayor Anthony Williams lobbies for so diligently MUST be inherently bad.
Love your tag line.
When I want to annoy a liberal, I tell them that "I want my son to grow up to become an upstanding American citizen, a Boy Scout, and a devout Christian like Ken Starr, John Ashcroft, and President Bush.
It's worth it just to see the looks on their faces.
And I'm dead serious about what I said.
Thanks. Glad you like it.
When I really want to annoy a liberal, I ask them questions that make them get completely flustered and they quickly lose their ability to form complete sentences.
I'm a linguist and I have a succinct command of the English language (among others) - if I do say so myself.
I tie them completely in knots in a matter of seconds.
Then I kick them square in the nuts and I walk away feeling much better.
Aw, come one, you have to give me an example! ;)
But my prediction was based on the fact that only 10,000 season tickets had been sold so far. For the new team to break even and have the stadium pay off, they need sellouts for the first couple years. This means 45,000 a game.
And the race of the local populace has nothing to do with it. Camden Yards was sold out for years, and it was in a marginal area too when erected.
10,000 is a long way from 45,000. That's why I made my prediction.
Don’t forget counties and states. They often contribute too. Why would they do such a thing. Oh yea, large numbers of their residents benefit.
---Gosh, so does the federal government. You must be right AGAIN! Why are you here? Do you really believe that the only restriction for government action is if 'large numbers of residents' benefit from a government program? Government should do it if a lot of people want it? How can you possibly describe yourself as a fan of limited government with that as your mantra?
Highway contractors that build roads make money. Truckers that drive over public roads make money. That doesn’t mean roads aren’t a public good. If a large, dare I say I say majority, of the population benefits, it’s a public good.
---Hey, look, it's the same argument Ventura made! How can you not support your intellectual twin?!?! At the Cato luncheon, expecting consent, the Governor Ventura asked rhetorically whether transportation was a proper role for government. He was obviously flustered by the "No!" that rang out from the libertarian audience. "Who built the roads you drive on?" the governor responded, prompting further grumbling and guffaws from the audience and further demonstrating his lack of libertarian principle.
Roads are part of a transit infrastructure and building and maintaining roads is a "public good" and a proper function of the state. Building and maintaining roads meets the basic requirements of a public good. It is non-selective; that is, a public road system is free for all to use and has benefits for all. People who use the roads pay for them through gasoline taxes and vehicle license fees. When they use the public road system, they do so in private vehicles. The state's proper function is providing the infrastructure to facilitate private transportation, not provide the transportation itself. The state's proper function is providing the infrastructure, i.e., private property rights and low property taxes, to allow entertainment like sports to flourish, not provide venues for or provide for the sports themselves. You wouldn't be arguing that the city should build movie theaters, yet sports are somehow 'different,' because you're a fan.
I'm surprised to find that you aren't out there pushing for the Big Dig or the Texas master plan or some other grand governmental planning effort in the name of 'public good,' when the public has never spoken in favor of any such decision or passed any referendum in favor of such a move, and of course, the taxes to pay for it are something they didn't get a chance to vote for, either. But you are happy because in your perception, 'the majority benefits,' even if the majority never said so and there's only a clear tangible benefit to political donors. What ought to be the questions for a conservative are
A) is it permissible under the binding document that the people drafted and approved to do this (i.e., do the Constitution or any other guiding legal document ALLOW it)? and
B) do ALL the people benefit from this action, and consent to be taxed in this fashion for this purpose?
Who said they were [moneymakers]? Neither are city halls. Governments aren’t supposed to “make money”. They are supposed to use their taxing and spending authority wisely to benefit the citizenry. Sewers are not socialism. Neither are stadiums.
---Again, there's that 'benefit the citizenry' argument. You want government to do things you think are good, that you perceive as beneficial. But the problem is YOU decide this, not a plebiscite or a public referendum, and you don't even look to the city to see if the public purpose is one that benefits all the public! You do understand that the public should be deciding on that and on any such bond or tax issue, as opposed to just passing these through the city or county or state or feds, right? You do understand that government wasn't instituted so that we could get the Colts to move to Indianapolis, right? You sound like most socialist utilitarians in that you think government is about doing the most good for the most people. That's not at all the same thing as conservative.
[Your arguments of 'rich traditions' and 'history' and how this is 'not a new concept' boil down to the fact that you want money taken from some people and given to others. You just happen to like it this time.]
Pretty much the definition of a tax.
---Not even close. A tax is a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. But legitimate public purposes to conservatives should be extremely limited. You're just so used to redistributionism that you think it's standard practice, and it benefits your interest, so you grab onto it here.
The question is: who benefits? Is it a large and stable majority of the population cutting across lines of age, race and gender and income? Not every expense everywhere for stadiums is justified.
---Yes, but to you, it doesn't matter, as long as a majority want that stadium. Of course, it might just be that you view the stadium as something that is 'justified' so long as you approve of it.
If you look at the history, however, you will find very few examples of public regret for investments in stadiums.
---You will find very few examples of public regret for MOST government actions, simply because people get used to them.
Milwaukee’s stadium for the Brewers and Arizona’s stadium for the Diamondbacks are the only ones that come to mind. In nearly every instance, the ninnys such as yourself stand on their soapboxes and give their “we must feed the children” arguments.
---You think I am arguing about feeding the children? I'm arguing about keeping money away from government, you dolt! Just because you feel guilty about not spending the money on feeding the children don't impute that aim to everyone who isn't in your little lockstep stadium-building club. Is the concept of limited government completely foreign to you?
Then, wiser people prevail in the end. The facility is built and becomes a centerpiece of civic life and a jewel on the skyline. (See Seattle, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, New England, Denver, Miami…) The critics melt away like the snow in the spring. The investment is trivial compared to the overall budget. A good time is had by all.
---Right. 'Wiser people' run things. And then the sports team says, build it bigger. And then the city give the sports team a bigger stadium or tax rebates. And 'wiser people' say yes, again. A good time is had by all donors and special interests feeding at the public trough. In the meantime, the public takes it in the poop chute. But at least 'the wise' like yourself are well fed.
Really though, why don’t you stick to your sacred conservative principals and refuse to watch or support any sports taking place in a facility paid for with your stolen money. While you are at it refuse to drive on public roads for the same reason.
---Oh, gosh, and I'm the condescending one. Could you be any more ridiculous? Every human being makes rational choices. If the roads or the stadium are built and I'll benefit from them, why would I not take advantage of them--especially when I'm going to get taxed for it anyway?
[Nonetheless, I happen to think you're far overexaggerating to say 75% of men would be 'very negatively affected.']
You are right. Probably more like 85%.
---Right, I'm sure that 85% of the male population would curl up like a child and cry themselves to sleep. And again, the government is supposed to pat them on the back and say, there, there, it'll all be okay, little boy. Nanny state city.
How condescending can you be? “Look at those foolish sports fans. They actually think their silly little games are important. What rubes they are. If they were enlightened like me they would understand that sewers are what really matter in life, not making the playoffs.”
---Just because I don't think that the government should be dipping into people's pockets to pay for my team I hate sports and look down on people who root for them...riiiiiight. I'm the condescending one here? I'm sorry, you have my emotions on this issue confused with someone else's. Someone who thinks, "Oh, look at those people who don't want the stadium. They think there are better things than a cold beer and a playoff game. What fools these mortals be!" Wait--here it comes:
Have you ever witnessed dancing in the streets after a championship? I supposed you would object to the victory parade through town because city streets and police are not to be used for such frivolity. Besides it’s all illegitimate because the stadium was built with stolen money.
---Yeah, again, we have the irrelevancy of winning a championship compared to the question here, which is, "What is appropriate for government to take money from the public for?" It's not about sewers over stadiums! If it's not appropriate for a private company to take money away from you to build its own building, it's not appropriate for government to take money away from you to build a building for a private company's use. Not that you see that at all.
Probably the lamest analogy in the history of analogies.
---Only to someone blinded to the fact that what he's advocating is simple redistributionism.
Just how many citizens benefit from bathhouses? Just how many will care if the proprietor moves his “team” to another city? Just how many sports fans become fatally ill by attending a game? How many bathhouses events are broadcast on free local TV and radio for the enjoyment of the masses?
---Gosh, I don't know. Ask your buddies and find out. But in San Francisco, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's a 'large number, dare I say a majority' of citizens that benefit. That's all you need to do it, in your logic.
---But let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that all of them will care if the bathhouse industry shuts down. And let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that the same number of sports fans will become fatally ill as bathhouse users. And let's also assume that the bathhouses sell out like the stadiums, and their events are broadcast in San Fran too. Would it then be okay with you to pay for bathhouses?
---Yes, it would. It would be a-okay with you.
It’s all about priorities. The civic minded among us always have something to do with public funds.
---'Civic minded' meaning RINOs like you, and your Rat buddies, who want your place at the trough.
The Twin Cities recently spent over a billion on a train from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America because former governor Ventura thought trains were cool. It has done nothing but snarl traffic.
---I bet Ventura thought the majority of people would benefit from the trains like you think they'll benefit from stadiums. And he sounded a lot like you at the Cato Institute.
For that price the valuable legacy of both the Vikings and Twins could be assured for the next fifty years.
---I bet he made statements like "The valuable legacy of the Mall of America will be not only assured, but the number of people benefitting from it will be increased, too."
Instead they both play in a piece of crap the nobody wants to go. The Metrodome was extremely cheap to build and was paid for long ago. It’s been difficult to get anything done because of the self righteous “feed the children” types. The same thing happened with the local hockey team ten years ago. Instead of making a small investment to keep a team viable, the state of hockey let the North Stars move to Dallas. Large numbers of taxpayers were devastated. I know you think they should have just gotten over it, but they didn’t. Instead they fought for years to get a team back. This effort included a gleaming new gem of a stadium in downtown St. Paul heavily financed by both the city and the state. The same old song and dance was heard from the con side. The stadium was build anyway and now is the centerpiece of what was a dying downtown. The new team, while temporarily out of action, is a fixture of life in the state. Every game has been sold out. Nobody even remembers what all the fuss was about. The financing was a drop in the overall bucket. The naysayers have moved on to the Vikings/Twins debate, completely forgetting what asses they made of themselves just a few years ago on the same issue.
---Gosh, I don't know what you're talking about. /sarcasm St. Pete built a stadium on the assurances of MLB that a team would be coming soon, and the teams just instantly moved there. Oh, wait, they didn't. The stadium just languished while the taxpayers paid for it. And no matter how much they WANTED a team there, the private company benefitted more than they did, because teams all over the country threatened to move and stole money from other taxpayers in a quest to improve their owners' wallet width. The lesson you learned from the North Stars is "pay up." What you should have learned is that private companies will make a decision based on money, no matter how loyal a fan base they have. Instead you're blinded by your loyalty to sports, again. And you decide that since you want the private company there, you decide to have goverment provide that money, no matter who has to put it up and no matter that local government wasn't instituted just to get private companies to move to your area.
Great examples there. What’s happened in both Baltimore and Cleveland. Baltimore was so overcome with remorse that they paid a kings ransom to steal Cleveland’s team. Cleveland was so overcome with remorse that they paid an emperor’s ransom to get a team back. Both would have been far better off if they had just done what was necessary to keep the team they had. LA will soon have a team. Probably the Vikings if sanity doesn’t soon prevail in Minnesota.
---"Far better off" in the minds of fans like yourself. Not far better off in the pocketbook or far better off in the sense of socialism--it's far worse off because the public paid for that private company and everyone will have to pay for it, and there are people like you think that "As long as a bunch of people benefit, it's all good." But a lot of people will always benefit from screwing over another group. Government is about delivering services that would be impossible to profitably deliver otherwise to people--what's good for everyone, not for a bunch of groups that have political clout, not for the greatest good to the greatest number. That it's branched out to "doing good for large numbers of people" is a dream come true for the socialists. Utopian socialists like yourself focus on general welfare rather than individualism. Smith has a conception of a social good, which should not be, or cannot be provided by the market, but your perception of what a social good is includes 'what major sports teams want.' That's not a social good as much as it is a direct subsidy, but your further argument is "because the average guy benefits.' Could you just say "for the good of the proletariat" and get it over with? Why you're here on a conservative site, I don't know.
I lived in Seattle during the building of Safeco field. Why should I as a private citizen have to pay for a sporting team? All sports teams are corporation -- just like a televsion network, a grocery store, or any other corporation. It is NOT the responsibility of a citizen to pay for a PRIVATE Corporation's headquarters! As a citizen of SEATTLE I had to pay for that waste of space called Safeco (the bonds for the previous home of the Mariners -- a dome have still not been paid OFF). I was taxed for something I recieved NO BENEFIT FOR!
I say SCREW the baseball owners. SCrew the sports owners! Screw the PLAYERS IF they want to put out a product -- it is my right to choose to purchase it or not. I SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT!
IF the busineses around the stadium will benefit than and they want a team then LET THEM help pay for the team not the average joe!
ALL SPORTS TEAMS ARE -- Are businses NOTHING MORE!
Nope. The simple fact is that people have a certain entertainment budget, and if they don't spend it on sports they spend it on something else. Thus, stadiums only redistribute a fixed pie.
Virginia has already rejected it, both on the municipal level (they tried to put it in Arlington; Arlington told them to get lost) and on the state level (after they did a fast shuffle to get a tax hike to cure a non-existent deficit, the politicians are keeping their heads down).
Well, then, let them pay for it -- privately finance the stadium, and charge enough for tickets to pay back the loan.
Because corrupt politicians* like getting paid off (free skyboxes). Duh.
*Corrupt politicians are the ones who give the other 5% a bad name.
Just ask Pittsburgh. Two new taxpayer funded stadiums, and the city now hovers on the brink of bankruptcy.
I'd add the New Jersey Meadowlands to that mix. The original sports complex (completed in the mid-1970s) included Giants Stadium and the Meadowlands Racetrack. The Brendan Byrne Meadowlands Arena was completed in 1981. The original financial plan was to have the arena basically break even, while the stdium's losses (as I mentioned in an earlier post, a football stadium is bound to lose money because it sits idle about 350 days every year) would be covered by excess revenue from the racetrack.
Unfortunately, they were relying on the racetrack for all this revenue just as horse racing began a long decline in the face of competition from other forms of gambling (primarily casinos in Atlantic City). And the arrangements they made to get the stadium built were nothing short of a government-sponsored racket. For the stadium to succeed they needed a new interchange built on the New Jersey Turnpike, so the Turnpike extracted a concession from the sports complex in the form of access rights to something like one-half of all the luxury boxes in Giants Stadium.
The New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority floated hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to finance the complex. The New Jersey Turnpike Authority floated tens of millions of dollars in bonds for the new roadwork. And because these are both considered "quasi-public" agencies, none of these bond issues ever went before the voters despite New Jersey's law that requires all public debt to be approved via public referendum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.