More important to EVERYONE--what you spend money on as a city comes out of my pocket and everyone else's.
Because life with the NFL,MLB,NHL and NBA is better than life without for a large segments of the population; the taxpaying part. If that isn't a public good, what is? It's not like publicly owned stadiums for sports teams is some kind of new concept. Many cities and states across the nation have rich histories and traditions tied to their professional teams, nearly all of which have played for their entire history in publicly financed stadiums and arenas.
Defining widely a public good results in public dollars being used for private moneymaking. These stadiums are rarely moneymakers for cities. 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.
If you don’t like sports, good for you. I don’t like hanging out in city parks. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exist. It's all about the most benefit to the most people. A large majority of the public enjoys pro sports to some degree, even if its once a year at their neighbor’s Super Bowl party. Stadiums that keep teams in the black and in town are indeed a public good. Very few people are affected if the local bolt factory leaves town. 75% of men and perhaps half of all women are very negatively affected if an NFL team moves away to some other city willing to pay the price.
I do like sports. Nonetheless, I happen to think you're far overexaggerating to say 75% of men would be 'very negatively affected,' 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. If that's now a function of government, I'm gonna hit the Chicken Ranch and bill my hometown right now!
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!
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.
You should be ashamed for taking that money out of the hands of people that might really need it for THEMSELVES, just so you feel better about your chances of watching some ball. And it is so you FEEL better, because hey, 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 conservative thinking there, Roosevelt.
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.