5 ms·

Those things don't receive anywhere near the amount of funding that stadiums and arenas do.

dionidium 8y ago
Based on what? Just grabbing the numbers for one institution I happen to be familiar with, the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District: > During its history, the zoo-museum district - officially known as the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District - has raised about $1.3 billion, stabilized five once-struggling institutions and helped some of them develop international reputations. Source: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/zoo-museum-tax-district-shows-age-after-years/article_c0180fa4-08ff-581d-bd15-79649684d0dd.html https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/zoo-museum-tax-dis... So that's $1.3. billion in tax dollars raised specifically to fund the museums and zoo in the largest park of one mid-sized U.S. city. That tax raises 35 times the $5 million per year the city pays on the bond for the old Rams stadium, which generates a lot of articles like this one: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rams-los-angeles-st-louis-taxpayers_us_5696955ee4b0778f46f7c330 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rams-los-angeles-st-lou... Of course, HuffPo doesn't write any articles about the zoo tax, because literal rams in cages is a more noble use of money than figurative Rams throwing a football, one presumes. The number here also dwarfs the direct public subsidy for Busch Stadium, also in St. Louis, which also got a ton of ink and public scrutiny. More info on that subsidy here: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+the+public+paid+for+the+Cardinals%27+stadium%3A+the+media+never+told...-a0165692019 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+the+public+paid+for+the+...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "So that's $1.3. billion in tax dollars raised specifically to fund the museums and zoo in the largest park of one mid-sized U.S. city." That's divided amongst 5 public organizations. Not all going to one billionaire. "That tax raises 35 times the $5 million per year the city pays on the bond for the old Rams stadium" Stadium for one purpose, for a team owned by a billionaire, who also left town. The cost to the city was also far more than just $5 million a year; the total amount the city put behind the stadium was $280 million. "Of course, HuffPo doesn't write any articles about the zoo tax, because literal rams in cages is a more noble use of money than figurative Rams throwing a football, one presumes." Or maybe it's because NFL teams, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers, are owned by billionaires who could easily afford to build their own stadium. And I've never seen a zoo threaten to leave town unless the city agreed to pay for a new elephant habitat.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    This is moving the goalposts, to choose an apt metaphor. The point is twofold: 1) We spend money on other types of cultural amenities all the time and nobody cares; and... 2) That spending is of an amount that lodges it appropriately within this conversation.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      Paying taxes to sponsor nonprofits that don't charge for admission is a bit different from paying taxes to sponsor private enterprises that charge hundreds of dollars for tickets and pay multi-million dollar salaries.
      - dionidium 8y ago
        Yes, there are differences. For example, another difference is that the people in museums don't wear jerseys, but athletes do. The question isn't whether there are differences; it's whether those differences matter. I don't think they matter. More specifically, I don't think they're relevant to the objections here, which are largely cultural in nature. In fact, what the high salaries in sports reveal to me is that the public wants sports a lot more than they want museums.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      No, I don't believe it's moving any goalposts. The fact of the matter is, the stadiums are for teams owned by billionaires who could easily build their own stadium, and they get far more in subsidies than the other things you mentioned. $1.3 billion was raised in your article, but it was split between several different things.
      - dionidium 8y ago
        I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. You looked at the same numbers and drew a wildly different conclusion (for reasons I think I know). So I guess that means we're at an impasse.

Based on what? Just grabbing the numbers for one institution I happen to be familiar with, the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District: > During its history, the zoo-museum district - officially known as the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District - has raised about $1.3 billion, stabilized five once-struggling institutions and helped some of them develop international reputations. Source: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/zoo-museum-tax-district-shows-age-after-years/article_c0180fa4-08ff-581d-bd15-79649684d0dd.html https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/zoo-museum-tax-dis... So that's $1.3. billion in tax dollars raised specifically to fund the museums and zoo in the largest park of one mid-sized U.S. city. That tax raises 35 times the $5 million per year the city pays on the bond for the old Rams stadium, which generates a lot of articles like this one: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rams-los-angeles-st-louis-taxpayers_us_5696955ee4b0778f46f7c330 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rams-los-angeles-st-lou... Of course, HuffPo doesn't write any articles about the zoo tax, because literal rams in cages is a more noble use of money than figurative Rams throwing a football, one presumes. The number here also dwarfs the direct public subsidy for Busch Stadium, also in St. Louis, which also got a ton of ink and public scrutiny. More info on that subsidy here: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+the+public+paid+for+the+Cardinals%27+stadium%3A+the+media+never+told...-a0165692019 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+the+public+paid+for+the+...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"So that's $1.3. billion in tax dollars raised specifically to fund the museums and zoo in the largest park of one mid-sized U.S. city." That's divided amongst 5 public organizations. Not all going to one billionaire. "That tax raises 35 times the $5 million per year the city pays on the bond for the old Rams stadium" Stadium for one purpose, for a team owned by a billionaire, who also left town. The cost to the city was also far more than just $5 million a year; the total amount the city put behind the stadium was $280 million. "Of course, HuffPo doesn't write any articles about the zoo tax, because literal rams in cages is a more noble use of money than figurative Rams throwing a football, one presumes." Or maybe it's because NFL teams, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers, are owned by billionaires who could easily afford to build their own stadium. And I've never seen a zoo threaten to leave town unless the city agreed to pay for a new elephant habitat.
- dionidium 8y ago
  This is moving the goalposts, to choose an apt metaphor. The point is twofold: 1) We spend money on other types of cultural amenities all the time and nobody cares; and... 2) That spending is of an amount that lodges it appropriately within this conversation.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Paying taxes to sponsor nonprofits that don't charge for admission is a bit different from paying taxes to sponsor private enterprises that charge hundreds of dollars for tickets and pay multi-million dollar salaries.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      Yes, there are differences. For example, another difference is that the people in museums don't wear jerseys, but athletes do. The question isn't whether there are differences; it's whether those differences matter. I don't think they matter. More specifically, I don't think they're relevant to the objections here, which are largely cultural in nature. In fact, what the high salaries in sports reveal to me is that the public wants sports a lot more than they want museums.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No, I don't believe it's moving any goalposts. The fact of the matter is, the stadiums are for teams owned by billionaires who could easily build their own stadium, and they get far more in subsidies than the other things you mentioned. $1.3 billion was raised in your article, but it was split between several different things.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. You looked at the same numbers and drew a wildly different conclusion (for reasons I think I know). So I guess that means we're at an impasse.