4 ms·

i hate this anti-sports rhetoric. i agree municipalities should take caution when funding a stadium, but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doe

i hate this anti-sports rhetoric. i agree municipalities should take caution when funding a stadium, but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. we are more than just the direct benefit of what something gives back. if its a matter of only people who use should pay, well there are a ton of stuff on my list that cost me a hell of a lot more that I'd like to get rid of.

adamnemecek 8y ago
> pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. what value do they add? congested roads on game days?
spamizbad 8y ago
> but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. Well, for one, there's not a whole lot of evidence showing that they do add value. But even then, the bigger issue here is that these venues are largely a handout to already wealthy team owners. It would be one thing if more sports team were like the Greenbay Packers, where the team itself has community ownership, but in most cases you have teams that are owned by individuals who are fully capable of financing the whole operation themselves. Owners shake down local municipalities by threatening to walk unless they receive some sort of subsidy that they feel represents the externalized "upside" of a stadium's presence. Anyway, I think this behavior is starting to become a huge turn-off with voters. After a certain point, pissing off your tax base is going to cost you more votes than pissing off a rich team owner and their gaggle of sports fans.. and when that happens the gravy-train is over.
- shaklee3 8y ago
  I've never seen anything say that a sports stadium doesn't add value in the sense that it drives in tourism and dollars into local business. You are probably referring to whether giving them subsidies to build the stadium is worthwhile. That's a completely different question.

adamnemecek 8y ago

> pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. what value do they add? congested roads on game days?

spamizbad 8y ago

> but claiming they should never do it and pretending it doesn't add value is just dishonest. Well, for one, there's not a whole lot of evidence showing that they do add value. But even then, the bigger issue here is that these venues are largely a handout to already wealthy team owners. It would be one thing if more sports team were like the Greenbay Packers, where the team itself has community ownership, but in most cases you have teams that are owned by individuals who are fully capable of financing the whole operation themselves. Owners shake down local municipalities by threatening to walk unless they receive some sort of subsidy that they feel represents the externalized "upside" of a stadium's presence. Anyway, I think this behavior is starting to become a huge turn-off with voters. After a certain point, pissing off your tax base is going to cost you more votes than pissing off a rich team owner and their gaggle of sports fans.. and when that happens the gravy-train is over.

shaklee3 8y ago
I've never seen anything say that a sports stadium doesn't add value in the sense that it drives in tourism and dollars into local business. You are probably referring to whether giving them subsidies to build the stadium is worthwhile. That's a completely different question.