You're viewing a single thread.
150$ M sounds a bit low.
I agree, I wonder where this number comes from. However, I'd rather spend $2B on public transit rather than $1B on a stadium.
The very idea that public money should be spent on buildings that are entirely for profit by corporate entities is appalling. Moreso, most of these sports lead players to severe injuries and bankruptcy, while incentivizing colleges to put sports ahead of their curricula. The sports are poisoning everything.
So.. I'll start off by saying I'd still rather not have the stadium.. But there is an argument to be made that it helps the economy. The influx of people in the area when games are held can help local businesses and whatnot.
That being said... The influx of people without a mass transit system is messy. The roads suffer, traffic gets worse... So really you need the transit system first.
I have no idea how much a stadium helps the local economy, but I know there is effects. Maybe someone more educated in that area could help us understand why cities do this - whether or not we think it's right or wrong?
Most research has shown that to be false because usually the deal made is horribly lopsided and based on dubious projections.
Thanks!
Stadiums are decent for the local economy.
But public transit is so much better. Stadiums are only good for the area surrounding the stadium and even then, so much of a stadium's footprint is empty parking lot. It's a huge waste of land, contributes to poor drainage and worse heat and is an ongoing expense.
Transit takes cars off the road, making driving better for everyone, it can be profitable for the city, it allows for businesses to flourish with more customers nearby (because they're not forced to rely on being somewhere with parking)... A public transit system is a much better use of tax money than another stadium.
Thank you!
Well it's really not about specific numbers, the joke is they'll act like this even when it's a fraction of the cost compared to a stadium or something
The specific numbers matter a lot though. If a comprehensive transit system is only 15% of the cost of a stadium, the transit system is a no brainer. In reality, that $150M needs to be more like $100B to be remotely realistic (for context, the 11 station Silver Line extension of the DC Metro deep in the Virginia suburbs cost roughly $7B). Doing some super quick back-of-the-napkin math to extrapolate that cost for 11 stations to the total system size of 98 stations, we arrive at $62B for the whole thing if built from scratch today. That $62B is an understatement though because it ignores that construction costs in DC proper will be higher than for the Silver Line extension that ran in the median of a highway in the suburbs.
With a realistic estimate for the cost of the transit system, the decision making changes completely. It's certainly not a no-brainer anymore.
Personally, I'd prefer the stadium. But I'm also not a narcissist and I'd vote for the public transportation to help the public good rather than the stadium for my personal enjoyment.
That statement is really bizarre to me. Isn't the point of voting to vote what you actually want? If you are right and the masses would prefer a transit system.. It would win anyway right?
I think it's more bizarre to want a private stadium built with tax payer money rather than a functional transit system.
I think there's more to voting than just getting what you want. And I think a lot of minority groups have been negatively impacted by such thinking.
I can want a new stadium while also recognizing that saddling the 49% of the population who didn't even want an entertainment building with part of that debt is immoral.
OTOH, a transit system could be a net positive for the city, even if it wouldn't help me personally.