(03-28-2015 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 07:58 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I understand but they play on the emotions of the masses. People get emotionally bonded to their teams and will think with their heart and not with their wallets or future welfare of where they live.

These stadiums should last at least 50 years, built with renovation in mind but at the rate we're going, I'll go back to my old joke about Bender asking for his monument to be destroyed immediately after it was built on Futurama because that's essentially what owners are asking for. It used to be 30-35 years now it's 15-20 years that owners want something brand new.

They prey on people's loyalties and threaten to move as leverage. If they want these palaces built, they should build them pretty much by themselves.

Mayor Reed, who is not running for reelection did it in Atlanta despite overwhelming opposition according to opinion polls.

In Atlanta's case I think Mayor Reed couldn't support both so he picked the Falcons overs the Braves despite the leverage the city had over Arthur Blank.

I see no reason why public funds should be used to support some billionaire's plan.

The city doesn't use public funds to support ordinary people. So why should they use them to support people who are very well able to support themselves?

And if anyone doesn't like the idea, let them fund that rich rectumizer. Any politicians that don't like it should STFU and GTFO.

(03-29-2015 11:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no reason why public funds should be used to support some billionaire's plan.

The city doesn't use public funds to support ordinary people. So why should they use them to support people who are very well able to support themselves?

And if anyone doesn't like the idea, let them fund that rich rectumizer. Any politicians that don't like it should STFU and GTFO.

But, but, but it will revitalize a portion of town and bring concerts and events [that could already be held elsewhere].

That said, in some cases it is legit. The Alamodome and the events it has brought along with the success of the Spurs has very much put the City of San Antonio on the map. The Astrodome, among other things like NASA, put the City of Houston on the map in the 60's.

There is something to be said for how building a stadium and in turn luring a sports franchise or events can put a place on the map. But it makes no sense in an established place like New York, LA or even Miami.

(03-29-2015 11:30 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 11:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no reason why public funds should be used to support some billionaire's plan.

The city doesn't use public funds to support ordinary people. So why should they use them to support people who are very well able to support themselves?

And if anyone doesn't like the idea, let them fund that rich rectumizer. Any politicians that don't like it should STFU and GTFO.

But, but, but it will revitalize a portion of town and bring concerts and events [that could already be held elsewhere].

You mean allow them to tear down that part of town housing the city's poorest people - the ones they'd rather not try to deal with?

That's what it boils down to. They tax the poor, give it to the rich, and then rezone the city, so they can take the poor's land, give it to the same rich folks, who then price it beyond the reach of the poor it used to belong to before Eminent Domain allowed it to be stolen legally.

Well here in Houston, virtually nobody lives Downtown and because Houston's Downtown has traditionally become a ghost town after dark, they decided to build Minute Maid Park next to the old railroad station to "revitalize" that area and Downtown and I can't say for sure if much has changed, especially since the facility is only used 82-93 times, six months out of the year. I mean there's a Home Plate Bar & Grill across the street on Crawford Street I believe that wasn't there before but not much for anyone to say it was worth the investment, at least for so-called revitalization.

Personally I think there should be no tax free bonds, federal, local or state.

(03-27-2015 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Obama wants that money to go toward income redistribution.

Wouldn't be a bad idea, its one area I would approve of for income redistribution. Talk about supporting your home and those around it, rather than raise their taxes and make it more difficult for more businesses and jobs be created.

Anyone that doesn't see this as a Slap against Scott Walker By Obama as Scott prepares to make a Run as a Republican for President isn't looking at the Big picture. Not to sound political but That is where This story takes Roots. Nothing More !

(03-30-2015 05:35 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Anyone that doesn't see this as a Slap against Scott Walker By Obama as Scott prepares to make a Run as a Republican for President isn't looking at the Big picture. Not to sound political but That is where This story takes Roots. Nothing More !

I did think that as well

(03-29-2015 11:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no reason why public funds should be used to support some billionaire's plan.

The city doesn't use public funds to support ordinary people. So why should they use them to support people who are very well able to support themselves?

And if anyone doesn't like the idea, let them fund that rich rectumizer. Any politicians that don't like it should STFU and GTFO.

Agree entirely. Enough with the legal blackmail bull****.

I'm no Obama fan but I agree with this.

There's a guy/nfl fan that did research and eventually wrote a book on this very subject it's called, Against Football - one reluctant fan's manifesto by Steve Almond. He basically said that the nfl teams often pay little or no local taxes and create mostly part time or temporary jobs. Essentially they don't reinvest the wealth into the city, and don't create enough revenue to be lucrative for the city.

I totally support this - why should taxpayers have to subsidize the NFL or other for-profit sports.

I'd rather have lower ticket prices and not as nice a stadium.

(03-27-2015 12:37 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../24845355/

Quote:If President Obama has his way, the nation's taxpayers would not help finance a new arena proposed for the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.

Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area's professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.

An obscure item in the president's new budget would put an end to the long-standing practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.

The proposal comes as many team owners are pressing cities and states for new facilities, with some threatening to move elsewhere if they don't get them. State and local officials are wary of seeing pro teams depart, taking prestige and tax revenue with them. But they are also taxpayer-minded and budget-conscious.

It's about time they stop this cooperate welfare.

(03-30-2015 09:15 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  There's a guy/nfl fan that did research and eventually wrote a book on this very subject it's called, Against Football - one reluctant fan's manifesto by Steve Almond. He basically said that the nfl teams often pay little or no local taxes and create mostly part time or temporary jobs. Essentially they don't reinvest the wealth into the city, and don't create enough revenue to be lucrative for the city.

Not surprising in the least.

(03-30-2015 09:53 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I totally support this - why should taxpayers have to subsidize the NFL or other for-profit sports.

I'd rather have lower ticket prices and not as nice a stadium.

These stadiums are built as a playpen for the rich. The Rockets lower bowl is almost always empty at Toyota Center until the second quarter
and its not all about the traffic on the way to the game but the rich having a good time elsewhere in the arena. It's not about the fans but stroking the owners' ego so that maybe they could get some side women besides their wife to stroke other things.

(03-28-2015 03:45 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Why do this? California has successfully thwarted taxpayer funded facilities for over 20 years. Citizens should elect better representatives if they object to this or recall the ones in office if they subvert the will of the people.

California has markets so lucrative that private financing works. Look at Staples Center. 123 of 365 possible dates taken up by the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings. Plus however many games the WNBA team plays at home. Plus the Grammy awards and a look at their website they have 14 events between now and April 15.

Most markets elimination of public financing would make it harder for them to attract and keep teams.

Now I have no problem with that as long as everyone is playing by the same set of rules and we understand that NYC, LA, Chicago, and maybe Philadelphia will be the only markets where totally private venues are easily viable.

But this actually isn't elimination of public financing, its just elimination of offering tax-free interest to those willing to lend money.

(03-29-2015 11:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no reason why public funds should be used to support some billionaire's plan.

The city doesn't use public funds to support ordinary people. So why should they use them to support people who are very well able to support themselves?

And if anyone doesn't like the idea, let them fund that rich rectumizer. Any politicians that don't like it should STFU and GTFO.

Because enough of the citizen consider having major sports teams a city amenity.

(03-31-2015 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 11:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no reason why public funds should be used to support some billionaire's plan.

The city doesn't use public funds to support ordinary people. So why should they use them to support people who are very well able to support themselves?

And if anyone doesn't like the idea, let them fund that rich rectumizer. Any politicians that don't like it should STFU and GTFO.

Because enough of the citizen consider having major sports teams a city amenity.

Not quite. It's because not enough citizens understand the full implications of what those stadium plans entail. And the people pushing those plans forward like it that way. They get taxpayer funded stadiums which allow them to play their games and grow richer, without having to make such a big investment to do so. Stadiums aren't cheap, and who ever gets one provided free of charge, or nearly so, is way ahead of the game.

At least Jerry Jones had the gonads to put his own money up. I give him credit for that, even though I'm not overly crazy about him. He needs to quit trying to be Al Davis Mark2, and let the personnel under him do their jobs without him hovering over their shoulder.

I thought the City of Arlington funded AT&T Stadium?

And like I said, it's one thing to have taxpayer funded stadiums in a place like DFW or Chicago but these venues do have a way of putting places on the map that people wouldn't think of otherwise if it wasn't for sports. What was San Antonio a quarter century ago?