Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #51
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2017 10:14 AM by MplsBison.)
10-07-2017 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,047
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 176
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #52
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-07-2017 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
Public parks, trails, and libraries are "nice things" that are practically free to the public after they are built. So everyone can use them.

Stadiums that charge $5,000 for "seat licenses" that are only used 8 times a year are "nice things" for the wealthy.

Even though I'm one of those wealthy people, I don't think it's appropriate to spend tax dollars on playthings that are only used by the wealthy.
10-08-2017 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #53
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-08-2017 05:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-07-2017 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
Public parks, trails, and libraries are "nice things" that are practically free to the public after they are built. So everyone can use them.

Stadiums that charge $5,000 for "seat licenses" that are only used 8 times a year are "nice things" for the wealthy.

Even though I'm one of those wealthy people, I don't think it's appropriate to spend tax dollars on playthings that are only used by the wealthy.

But this thread is specifically about SD St's effort to get a new stadium built on the land, designed for 40k seats.

They'd gladly almost give tickets away to get 40k people in the door, who actually care about Aztec football.

So that argument doesn't hold water here.
10-08-2017 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,153
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 106
I Root For: USC, UA, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #54
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-08-2017 09:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 05:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-07-2017 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
Public parks, trails, and libraries are "nice things" that are practically free to the public after they are built. So everyone can use them.

Stadiums that charge $5,000 for "seat licenses" that are only used 8 times a year are "nice things" for the wealthy.

Even though I'm one of those wealthy people, I don't think it's appropriate to spend tax dollars on playthings that are only used by the wealthy.

But this thread is specifically about SD St's effort to get a new stadium built on the land, designed for 40k seats.

They'd gladly almost give tickets away to get 40k people in the door, who actually care about Aztec football.

So that argument doesn't hold water here.

And with the NFL team leaving the city does want some form of big time football to remain.
10-09-2017 08:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.