When a professional sports team wants to upgrade their stadium, arena, ballpark, or whatever, ... or they want to move to a new city....should taxpayers be asked to foot the bill without compensation other than the 'privileges' of having the team in their city? If they should get some form of compensation, what should it be? ... And why do you feel that way?
2006-08-02 09:04:11 · 4 answers · asked by Terry D 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
This is going on in Sacramento right now with the Kings ( basketball ). The Maloofs, very successful Las Vegas casino operators, want the taxpayers to pay for a new stadium. If they don't, the Maloofs say they will take the team somewhere else. If the taxpayers are going to pay 1/4 cent, we should get a profit from the investment in the form of check to each taxpayer. Our city and county roads are terrible, the schools are falling apart, we need to reinforce and build new levees - do we also need to help multimillionaires finance a new stadium? Okay, then I want the taxpayers to help pay for my new Mercedes that I drive for work, and my new 1 million dollar home that I run my business out of, and my new GQ clothes. The point is, why are taxpayers not getting any return on the investment? I don't go to Kings games because the tickets are too expensive, the beer is $9 per cup, the hot dogs last year were, like $6, parking goes up every year. A sports team does not benefit me directly or indirectly. It doesn't enhance my quality of life. We have many, many more things in our town that are more important to taxpayers than a basketball team owned by rich dudes.
2006-08-02 09:39:21 · answer #1 · answered by commonsense 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not! No more than they should foot the bill for Churches, Synagogues, or Mosques. (To use an analogy) Professional sports is, with the exceptions of the Green Bay Packers, is private enterprise. To support with tax money something that only benefits its owners and employees is wrong. If you argue that fans benefit, may I politely remind you that you have to PAY for that benefit, as well.
2006-08-06 10:18:39 · answer #2 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We just had a vote in one city near me for this very thing. I really did not think it right the tax payers pay for this. In fact some even suggested that the team owners pay for the stadium.
2006-08-02 09:14:59 · answer #3 · answered by taljalea 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
at the start they do no longer "foot the biil"; they subsidize it. approximately sixteen% of NPRs budget is public money (approximately $16m / twelve months). On a governmental scale, that's a drop interior the bucket. Secondly, merely because you do no longer like it or hear to it does no longer advise others do no longer. approximately 27 million human beings music in a week. IMHO, that's a governments accountability to fund the humanities and sciences as a public service.
2016-10-01 09:47:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋