Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
20. The argument is that while we are...
Sat May 18, 2013, 03:16 PM
May 2013

subsidizing shopping malls, research parks and other commercial ventures, the construction and other jobs pay a large part of the cost. And, besides, if we don't do it the team will move to some place that will.

This is, of course nonsense. Many of the other subsidized commercial ventures end up losing money for the local government even when they have good prospects, and owners use the competition to drive better deals. Mercedes even admitted they were being given much more than they needed, or even wanted, when they opened that plant in Alabama-- they actually gave some of it back.

Besides, when are cities going to stand up and say they don't give a damn if the team moves? Usually, the only people who care enough to talk about it are the fans, so it seems like there's a huge outcry. But if you look at school budget fights, you'll think that maybe the average citizen might not want to subsidize multi-million dollar salaries for sports "heroes" if they got the facts.

Not only do I agree that sports teams should get no subsidies since they can pay for everything they need, including stadiums, should they have to, but I question the ability of some hack mayor to properly negotiate with an organization that has made billions negotiating deals.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

LTTE: Smoking at Vikings Stadium? [View all] MineralMan May 2013 OP
Well said MineralMan. russspeakeasy May 2013 #1
I agree olddots May 2013 #2
Surely the solution is to stop smoking, Nye Bevan May 2013 #3
Surely that is not the point of my post. MineralMan May 2013 #4
Perhaps a better answer etherealtruth May 2013 #8
That's how the taxes on tobacco products started out. MineralMan May 2013 #14
Yet accidents and abuse caused by alcohol consumption is ignored. glinda May 2013 #21
Hey, there is no smoking at C-Link field in Seattle... Wounded Bear May 2013 #5
Yes, well. A lot of people are forced to pay for MineralMan May 2013 #7
I'm still a bit ambivalent about how they financed the CLink... Wounded Bear May 2013 #10
Well, that at least makes some sense. It taxes MineralMan May 2013 #12
B-but... you said "Smoking!" dogknob May 2013 #11
Yes. It's interesting, I think, to see the responses. I knew it MineralMan May 2013 #13
Spot on. glinda May 2013 #22
There is logic expressed in your letter etherealtruth May 2013 #6
It would be stupid to allow smoking in a building with a clear roof. bluedigger May 2013 #9
A very interesting question you've raised about public expenditure of money to support corporations. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #15
Yes, your conundrum is a valid one. MineralMan May 2013 #16
Whaddya know MM...we agree on something!! Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #17
Oh, I'm betting we agree on more than you think. MineralMan May 2013 #18
We had the same "deal" when I was an Oregonian when they built The Rose Garden Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #19
The argument is that while we are... TreasonousBastard May 2013 #20
He doesn't own the Stadium does he? I thought it was the City. glinda May 2013 #23
I'm still pissed at all the non-smokers who expect me to pay for poor kids' health care. Comrade Grumpy May 2013 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»LTTE: Smoking at Vikings ...»Reply #20