U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-01-2014, 05:12 PM
 
Location: West Los Angeles
1,057 posts, read 1,534,349 times
Reputation: 820

Advertisements

There seem to be different perspectives on this. On one hand, there is the notion that billionaire owners should be paying for stadiums/arenas themselves, as they reap the profits. On the other hand, there is the benefit to the city as a whole that new venues can generate. Of course, new stadiums are used as a mechanism to keep a team from moving (where the owners hold the city hostage).

Was your favorite team's stadium paid for with public dollars? If so, was it a somewhat unanimous vote or was it rather contentious?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2014, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Sugarmill Woods , FL
6,235 posts, read 5,905,458 times
Reputation: 13647
If it isn't a good enough investment for the owners why is it good enough for tax payers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2014, 05:23 PM
 
12,300 posts, read 15,202,635 times
Reputation: 8108
A football stadium only used for 20 games a year seems a waste. Hopefully the city gets to use it for many other events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2014, 06:37 PM
 
3,803 posts, read 2,018,418 times
Reputation: 3270
Fine by me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2014, 07:51 PM
 
Location: West Los Angeles
1,057 posts, read 1,534,349 times
Reputation: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yippeekayay View Post
Fine by me!
Interesting, that is an opinion that most people don't share online. I usually read that people are against taxes, but of course they love their football team and would do anything to keep them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2014, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,720 posts, read 25,545,205 times
Reputation: 9216
I am 100% against them. The economic case for them is smoke and mirrors. Taxpayers are the victims.

The sport - whether owners, the league, sponsors - should pay for them since they are the primary beneficiary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2014, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
21,323 posts, read 21,900,953 times
Reputation: 33502
should be required for all communities, I can't stand seeing dumpy old stadiums when I watch TV sports. And, build bigger, better and more roads, not light rail that doesn't go where I want to go. Otherwise charge an appropriate fare to make those riders pay for the construction and upkeep instead of me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 01:12 AM
 
Location: The North
5,083 posts, read 9,098,164 times
Reputation: 4056
Its all about politics anyways. The cities/counties/states pay for them because in the end they only cost net a few dollars per taxpayer a year and create community spirit covering the most popular community event. If spending $20 million a year on an performing arts complex created increased pride and interest in millions of people you'd hear of major symphony and dance acts demanding a new facility with club seating too or else they would be heading out of town. But since that doesn't happen politicians funnel the money to those who do generate such interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 03:37 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,955,483 times
Reputation: 18050
Like any other public funded entertainment; it depends on the income money that it generates for local economy. No matter if arts; museum etc it all entertainment to someone.

Last edited by texdav; 11-28-2014 at 03:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2014, 05:09 PM
 
32,470 posts, read 26,347,895 times
Reputation: 19111
the problem is what happens when the team that got the government to build them a stadium decides to move? what does the city do then with an empty stadium, hope that a new franchise moves in?

these days stadiums are expensive to build, and most teams dont have the money to build them, and cities are put on the hook if they build the stadium and no team uses it. the best alternative would be a partnership between the team and the city where both invest in the stadium, so both have skin in the game.

a proper contract can require the team remain in the stadium for say 25 years, or they have to pay a penalty equal to the city's investment in the stadium in one lump sum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top