Publicly Funded Baseball Stadiums

[DragonfromTO]

Yes, but that isn't exactly the point. I mean, if I vote for one party and the other party wins by a slim majority do I get to live under the losing party's policies?

Also, those votes are usually to pass bonds or tax increases to pay for stadiums, not direct "should we pay for Team A's new stadium" votes.

I don't really see how either of these things makes what I said inaccurate ("fans are willing to let government force everyone to pay for them"). You actually seem to agree with me in the first part that that's exactly what's happening here, but saying that as long as 51% (or whatever percentage) is OK with it then it suddenly becomes fine.

Am I interpreting the second part wrong, or is it basically "Oh, we didn't pass something forcing all of you taxpayers to fund a stadium for a private business. We passed something putting all of you taxpayers on the hook for taxes and bonds which are in turn going to pay for a stadium for a private business. That's totally different!" ? If a politician tried to say that he'd be (rightfully) torn to pieces for it. You'd be standing on the side that supported him? Maybe I'm wrong, but based on how I know you I doubt that you would.

 

[DragonfromTO]

That's how all referendums work dude. Why should this one be different?

I think he's saying that these specific ones shouldn't be happening in the first place (and I agree with him).

If there were a referendum on whether your family should be tortured and killed in public for no reason and for everyone's amusement their murders wouldn't be OK just as long as the referendum passed. Less extreme circumstances here obviously, but same logic.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I don't really see how either of these things makes what I said inaccurate ("fans are willing to let government force everyone to pay for them"). You actually seem to agree with me in the first part that that's exactly what's happening here, but saying that as long as 51% (or whatever percentage) is OK with it then it suddenly becomes fine.

Am I interpreting the second part wrong, or is it basically "Oh, we didn't pass something forcing all of you taxpayers to fund a stadium for a private business. We passed something putting all of you taxpayers on the hook for taxes and bonds which are in turn going to pay for a stadium for a private business. That's totally different!" ? If a politician tried to say that he'd be (rightfully) torn to pieces for it. You'd be standing on the side that supported him? Maybe I'm wrong, but based on how I know you I doubt that you would.

Who said I was ever disagreeing? I was just saying a lot of the time these initiatives are put to a vote and the vote passes. They also fail sometimes - thus my Miami example, since the Dolphins had a vote for public funding to reno their stadium fail just last year.

Of course, I would make the argument that that new tax revenue should be used for something less sexy like infrastructure replacement but new non-poisonous water pipes don't lead to victory parades so...

 

[soxfan1468927]

I think he's saying that these specific ones shouldn't be happening in the first place (and I agree with him).

If there were a referendum on whether your family should be tortured and killed in public for no reason and for everyone's amusement their murders wouldn't be OK just as long as the referendum passed. Less extreme circumstances here obviously, but same logic.

To be less extreme, if you owned a piece of land and the county voted to acquire that land to turn it into a world class Wiffle Ball Stadium (in order to bring in revenue from the Wiffle Ball World Cup), would it be okay if the majority voted for it?

It's a violation of your right to property and it needs to be protected at every level.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Who said I was ever disagreeing? I was just saying a lot of the time these initiatives are put to a vote and the vote passes. They also fail sometimes - thus my Miami example, since the Dolphins had a vote for public funding to reno their stadium fail just last year.

Of course, I would make the argument that that new tax revenue should be used for something less sexy like infrastructure replacement but new non-poisonous water pipes don't lead to victory parades so...

Yes they are put to a vote, however the point being made that even if the vote does pass, it doesn't make the act justified if it violates ones right to property (which this always does)

 

[DragonfromTO]

Who said I was ever disagreeing? I was just saying a lot of the time these initiatives are put to a vote and the vote passes. They also fail sometimes - thus my Miami example, since the Dolphins had a vote for public funding to reno their stadium fail just last year.

Of course, I would make the argument that that new tax revenue should be used for something less sexy like infrastructure replacement but new non-poisonous water pipes don't lead to victory parades so...

I apologize, I thought that by bringing up referendum votes at all you were supporting their legitimacy for this type of thing.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I apologize, I thought that by bringing up referendum votes at all you were supporting their legitimacy for this type of thing.

Oh god no, this is thievery. If you go back to some NHL threads earlier this year you'll see me calling Dash crazy for thinking the Flames' new barn and the subsequent demand for $$$ is beneficial for anybody except the Flames.

I'm just waiting for Rogers to go knocking on the city's door looking for money to re-do Skydome any day now.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Yes they are put to a vote, however the point being made that even if the vote does pass, it doesn't make the act justified if it violates ones right to property (which this always does)

Justified? No.

Legal? Yes, and that's all that matters in these cases.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

What gets me even more than the donating of funds to billionaires is that many jurisdictions will waive property taxes on these stadiums. With so many of these being built in flourishing downtowns these days that's a disgrace.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Justified? No.

Legal? Yes, and that's all that matters in these cases.

I don't even think it's that. But you know what they say, "you can't fight city hall".

 

[soxfan1468927]

Justified? No.

Legal? Yes, and that's all that matters in these cases.

Well I think the original poster was looking for a discussion on the topic, and therefore the legality of the practice isn't the only thing that matters to me.

And it highlights how crucial it is to have representatives at the city and state level who argue against the legality of this.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Well I think the original poster was looking for a discussion on the topic, and therefore the legality of the practice isn't the only thing that matters to me.

And it highlights how crucial it is to have representatives at the city and state level who argue against the legality of this.

To me neither, and I agree with the importance.

But, like dragon said re: fighting city hall. And I don't know how it is where you are, but city councillors here almost never get unseated. Machine politics is alive and well.

 

[soxfan1468927]

To me neither, and I agree with the importance.

But, like dragon said re: fighting city hall. And I don't know how it is where you are, but city councillors here almost never get unseated. Machine politics is alive and well.

I've only been in this town for a few years so I can't say. And that's largely due to people not focusing enough on local elections, and instead are distracted by the presidential race. Essentially getting a pro-Liberty candidate to be a serious presidential candidate is akin to attempting a trip to the moon in a box tied to balloons. The movement isn't close yet, but light years from where it was.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

No tax dollars should ever go towards a sports stadium. The money these teams make and pay their players should allow for them to pay for their own stadiums.

I live in a city getting not one, but 2 brand new stadiums and neither of the ones getting replaced are much over 20 yrs old.

I tend to agree, theoretically...but the reality is we, (going to back to the Roman gladiator days) need an outlet and depending on your income, we're willing to go to great lengths to entertain ourselves...aside from paying for the roof over our heads, we work mostly to entertain ourselves, so an extra .01 on the dollar to build a stadium seems like a small price to pay.

I'm okay with it....IF ownership also has a sizeable financial stake in the construction...otherwise...f-off....leave if you want...I really don't care anymore.

As mentioned...what does suck is there's always a party that voted no.

Falcons...I'm all for it because the owner is funded the lionshare AND cost overruns...public was a travel tax essentially, plus the city will easily make back that money and more with the national events that dome will draw.

Braves...in many ways I don't blame them...the city of ATL made promises (to invest in revitalizing the area around Turner Field) they really had no intention of fulfilling until the Braves finally said we're moving. Cobb county was anxious to get into big league sports so they quickly voted to approve the funding.

 

[JohnU]

Ballparks should be built with public money and managed by local government. If you think otherwise, you are not really interested in how big-market sports is run. The old privately owned ballparks of the 1940s and 1950s were a joke.

 

[calsnowskier]

Ballparks should be built with public money and managed by local government. If you think otherwise, you are not really interested in how big-market sports is run. The old privately owned ballparks of the 1940s and 1950s were a joke.

AT&T in SF begs to differ...

 

[JohnU]

AT&T in SF begs to differ...

Slight variation on the theme, is all.

 

[The Q]

Giving these billionaires all this money seems kind of absurd.

But how much different is it than how cities and states bend over backwards for other big corporations.

Hell, CT is on the verge of giving Bridgewater (aka the biggest hedge fund in the world) a huge amount of money to build a new office building.

 

[JohnU]

The alternative to ballparks in cities is often brownfields or abandoned warehouses. Either way, you get what you pay for.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Oh, add this to the list:

http://deadspin.com/cobb-county-needs-to-raise-taxes-to-pay-for-public-park-1780832038