Why is California the toughest, hardest, most difficult state to build a Stadium, Sports Venue or Arena, why? how come? (Sacramento: car rental, rentals)

[Fontucky]

I won't. I don't know which I despise more, the game of football or crowded stadia.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

This thread actually is a great example of why it is so difficult to get pro stadiums and arenas built in California.

Folks here aren't that supportive of these facilities, and can vote down any tax proposals.

This thread is actually pretty representative of the overall attitude out in California. You wouldn't see the same type of attitudes in places like Pennsylvania or Ohio.

True, at least of Ohio. I've got family in the Midwest and they're all crazy sports obsessed. Sports just don't have that institutional presence out here like they do there. Fine by me. I'd rather have a nice park to play Frisbee with my dog in than a tax-sponsored arena for some billionaire to make more money on his bussinosport venture in.

[hoffdano]

I like sports, but not so much pro sports. I think California voters are often nuts, but choosing not to vote for stadiums is smart and I applaud them. The "impact to the economy" arguments are always BS.

I would however not built art museums either with taxpayer money. Just like pro sports teams and their owners should pay for stadiums, art afficionados should pay for their museums.

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Because California provides the option for folks to place a referendum for voter approval, before any tax increase whatsoever is established to fund these facilities.

Other states don't put those taxes to full public vote.

I don't think that's a good thing. Not saying this is your position, but in general, you cannot always let "the people" make the decisions about important issues because many times their decision will be petty and fail to look at the big picture. Sacramento is a good example of this with all the petty, small thinking people here.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by sacramento916

I don't think that's a good thing. Not saying this is your position, but in general, you cannot always let "the people" make the decisions about important issues because many times their decision will be petty and fail to look at the big picture. Sacramento is a good example of this with all the petty, small thinking people here.

You have just stated that a totalitarian government is better..... Interesting.

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

You have just stated that a totalitarian government is better..... Interesting.

Yes I did. Sometimes IT IS.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

You have just stated that a totalitarian government is better..... Interesting.

Nonsense, what happens in other states is that the elected representatives can actually do their jobs.

If not elected, you'd have a point, but they are subject to frequent "job evaluations" by the voters.

[.highnlite]

you cannot always let "the people" make the decisions about important issues because many times their decision will be petty and fail to look at the big picture.

If you do not let "the people" make decisions, you are giving the task to whom?

[Ihatespoiledbrattypeople]

was the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium built with taxpayer money, public funding?

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

There is NOTHING keeping these billionaires from building the new stadiums they want. The kicker being they want it for free.

The owners want it.......and most likely they will get it.

Myself personally, I do not give a rats *ss about footbaskbaseretardoball, they can all pack up and leave for all I care.

But the drums are getting beaten with increasing frequency and intensity......the politicians want to create a frenzy among sportstards......so that no matter what...........the overpriced stadiums get built.