6 ms·

One component of the total picture also is that many of these stadiums/arenas are being funded by the public / tax payer often by tax breaks etc. and the politi

One component of the total picture also is that many of these stadiums/arenas are being funded by the public / tax payer often by tax breaks etc. and the politicians / lobbies are using their relationship to monopolize that public good. IMO every event at an area should go through a public auction / RFP of who is the ticketer for that event (maybe artist gets right of first refusal to pony up the difference for their preferred ticketer?)

cogman10 4mo ago
This sort of thing is a strong argument (IMO) that these stadiums, arenas, theaters should be owned by the municipality they reside in. Fine, we can call it a public good which is why they have nice tax incentives. But why stop there? If its truly a public good then why shouldn't the public simply own it? Why isn't the city operating these venues and using the ticket prices to offset tax burdens? It might be harder to do this with a sports arena as there's a bunch of issues around the monopolies that are the MLB/NBA/etc. But when it comes to a theater style venue, I'd think most artists would be ecstatic to deal with a city rather than ticketmaster. It truly isn't the case that ticketmaster is providing almost anything of value for their venues. And for very large events they have to coordinate with the city anyways.
- lokar 4mo ago
  Check who owns vs manages shoreline amphitheater :(
- maerF0x0 4mo ago
  FWIW I actually prefer we simply tell private businesses that it's their responsibility to provide the environment/setting their employees work in. By that I mean if ticket master wants a monopoly they should have to build the stadiums too. No taxpayer money, incentives, land, or other interest group perks given.
  - cogman10 4mo ago
    I'm ok with either. Though I tend to think public ownership makes more sense because a city can only support so many venues in general.
    - maerF0x0 4mo ago
      Most cities have lots of venues of various sizes, I like a market place of them rather than a publicly owned monopoly. (Hence why I dont like Canada healthcare either)
      - trumpdong 4mo ago
        ¿Por qué no los does? The city owns a few venues, so private venues have to be better than the city ones to make any money.
        maerF0x0 4mo ago
        For sure, a mix is good too. Just not a monopoly :)
        cogman10 4mo ago
        I'd argue that the city owning the venue can't be a monopoly as the next city over is a different owner. That might be different if we were talking about the county or state taking ownership. IMO, these things shouldn't be state or federally ran. But otherwise, yeah I'm happy if their is private competition with the city. I just give more priority to the city owning venues as the people in the city have the ability to vote out the politicians running the venue if they displease them.

cogman10 4mo ago

This sort of thing is a strong argument (IMO) that these stadiums, arenas, theaters should be owned by the municipality they reside in. Fine, we can call it a public good which is why they have nice tax incentives. But why stop there? If its truly a public good then why shouldn't the public simply own it? Why isn't the city operating these venues and using the ticket prices to offset tax burdens? It might be harder to do this with a sports arena as there's a bunch of issues around the monopolies that are the MLB/NBA/etc. But when it comes to a theater style venue, I'd think most artists would be ecstatic to deal with a city rather than ticketmaster. It truly isn't the case that ticketmaster is providing almost anything of value for their venues. And for very large events they have to coordinate with the city anyways.

lokar 4mo ago
Check who owns vs manages shoreline amphitheater :(
maerF0x0 4mo ago
FWIW I actually prefer we simply tell private businesses that it's their responsibility to provide the environment/setting their employees work in. By that I mean if ticket master wants a monopoly they should have to build the stadiums too. No taxpayer money, incentives, land, or other interest group perks given.
- cogman10 4mo ago
  I'm ok with either. Though I tend to think public ownership makes more sense because a city can only support so many venues in general.
  - maerF0x0 4mo ago
    Most cities have lots of venues of various sizes, I like a market place of them rather than a publicly owned monopoly. (Hence why I dont like Canada healthcare either)
    - trumpdong 4mo ago
      ¿Por qué no los does? The city owns a few venues, so private venues have to be better than the city ones to make any money.
      - maerF0x0 4mo ago
        For sure, a mix is good too. Just not a monopoly :)
        cogman10 4mo ago
        I'd argue that the city owning the venue can't be a monopoly as the next city over is a different owner. That might be different if we were talking about the county or state taking ownership. IMO, these things shouldn't be state or federally ran. But otherwise, yeah I'm happy if their is private competition with the city. I just give more priority to the city owning venues as the people in the city have the ability to vote out the politicians running the venue if they displease them.