Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those stadiums are used for far more than just sporting events. They become community expo centers. They attract big events to the city, which are immediate economic boosts. Taxpayers indeed reap the benefits.
Call Bernie Sanders and add major sports stadiums to his list of Federally funded infrastructure jobs plan. Funded by central new money creation a mere $B is chickenfeed. Of course the system would have debt to pay off, but the burden is not on the local taxpayer.
While I am unsure of my opinion on this (I can make a pro and con argument simultaneously), I did some searching and found this interesting article from 2 yrs ago... turns out, every American has helped subsidize the building of the Dallas Cowboys new stadium.
While I am unsure of my opinion on this (I can make a pro and con argument simultaneously), I did some searching and found this interesting article from 2 yrs ago... turns out, every American has helped subsidize the building of the Dallas Cowboys new stadium.
They lose $4 billion in subsidies to the plutocrats. Like I said, Dallas' economy is going to benefit more than $1 billion over the life of that stadium. If the World Cup ends up in Texas Stadium (which it very well may in the future), it makes that back overnight.
Whether people like it or not.. stadiums are infrastructure. Nonessential infrastructure, but still infrastructure.
So your argument is reduced to the economic data is "faulty" because you say so...
If a stadium cost $1 billion and exists for 50 years, it has to have a $1 billion net economic benefit to taxpayers to be a positive "investment." That's easy.
Those stadiums are used for far more than just sporting events. They become community expo centers. They attract big events to the city, which are immediate economic boosts. Taxpayers indeed reap the benefits.
NO! It is NOT the role of government to provide venues for professional sports.
In a free market, investors would build the facilities and do what it takes to make a profit.
I have a real problem with a business that can afford to pay their employees millions of dollars a year cannot afford to build their own places of employment, but need the taxpayer to give them goodies.
You, as a liberal leftist, should be opposed to subsidies to the rich. Your position tells me that you are a member of the largest special interest group in America - professional sports fans !!
They lose $4 billion in subsidies to the plutocrats. Like I said, Dallas' economy is going to benefit more than $1 billion over the life of that stadium. If the World Cup ends up in Texas Stadium (which it very well may in the future), it makes that back overnight.
Whether people like it or not.. stadiums are infrastructure. Nonessential infrastructure, but still infrastructure.
There is inconsistency to how this is done across the US.
The voters on Long Island voted against a new Nassau Coliseum a few yrs ago, which is terrible shape, in a state of disrepair actually. The Islanders' owner ended up moving the team off LI (starting next year I think) and they'll play at the brand new Barclay's Center in Brooklyn.
So why do LI'ers have an opportunity to vote on this, but other cities, like Dallas, get it done with using tax subsidies from the US Gov't?
Do you support using taxpayer funds to build sports stadiums?.
No, but in the liberal Seattle area that doesn't matter. When a majority of the people vote NO on it the politicians do it anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.