Let me tell you something. Downtown San Diego near the Port of SD was absolute shit until Petco Park opened. Downtown San Francisco near the end of the train line was shit until AT&T Park opened. This happens all the time near big new stadiums for popular teams. Stadiums bring in revenue beyond the stadium itself.
Stadiums also usually host a lot of other events than sports games. They’re generally very profitable for the city, which is why we subsidize them.
It’s fine to not like sports, but don’t pretend that it makes you smarter than everyone else.
They’re not profitable for cities, they’re profitable for people who bought land in the area before the development of the stadium. Look into who is pushing for the “revitalization”. It’s usually property developers who just bought cheap land in the area.
They get subsidized improvement of their property, and can sell at a profit or make some minor “improvements” (paint and landscaping) and rent it for a lot of money. I’m not saying that developing these properties is bad, but cities usually don’t make back the money they spent on the stadium. They lose money and property developers gain (and donate to local politicians).
Cities should never give companies or developers lower taxes in exchange for “revitalization”. No developer will invest in a project unless it’s already profitable. If you don’t make them pay taxes, there’s no way to make it up in “jobs”. Companies that can be lured with tax breaks will leave as soon as they get a better deal somewhere else. It’s not sustainable.
Scholarly economic reviews of publicly subsidized stadiums are almost unanimous that they do not promote employment or per capita growth. Yes, you’ll find news articles to the contrary, but youll be hard pressed to find a published article in a reputable economic journal based on empirical evidence stating using public funds for a stadium actually helps the community economically. Do we get bread crumbs in a couple of sandwich shops and better transport to the stadium? Sure, but that’s hardly worth the public funds IMHO.
Side note I love formula 1 but I’d throw a shitfit if my state, county or city wanted to use public fund for a track.
Let me tell you something. Downtown San Diego near the Port of SD was absolute shit until Petco Park opened. Downtown San Francisco near the end of the train line was shit until AT&T Park opened. This happens all the time near big new stadiums for popular teams. Stadiums bring in revenue beyond the stadium itself.
Stadiums also usually host a lot of other events than sports games. They’re generally very profitable for the city, which is why we subsidize them.
It’s fine to not like sports, but don’t pretend that it makes you smarter than everyone else.
They’re not profitable for cities, they’re profitable for people who bought land in the area before the development of the stadium. Look into who is pushing for the “revitalization”. It’s usually property developers who just bought cheap land in the area.
They get subsidized improvement of their property, and can sell at a profit or make some minor “improvements” (paint and landscaping) and rent it for a lot of money. I’m not saying that developing these properties is bad, but cities usually don’t make back the money they spent on the stadium. They lose money and property developers gain (and donate to local politicians).
Cities should never give companies or developers lower taxes in exchange for “revitalization”. No developer will invest in a project unless it’s already profitable. If you don’t make them pay taxes, there’s no way to make it up in “jobs”. Companies that can be lured with tax breaks will leave as soon as they get a better deal somewhere else. It’s not sustainable.
Scholarly economic reviews of publicly subsidized stadiums are almost unanimous that they do not promote employment or per capita growth. Yes, you’ll find news articles to the contrary, but youll be hard pressed to find a published article in a reputable economic journal based on empirical evidence stating using public funds for a stadium actually helps the community economically. Do we get bread crumbs in a couple of sandwich shops and better transport to the stadium? Sure, but that’s hardly worth the public funds IMHO.
Side note I love formula 1 but I’d throw a shitfit if my state, county or city wanted to use public fund for a track.
Same could be said for building a park. How much money does a park bring in for a city?
Therefore cities spending money on parks is a waste of money. Cities shouldn’t build anymore parks.
What if we just funded infrastructure directly instead, rather than doing a weird stadium middle-man?
We do both.