NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your take on stadiums being owned by private corporations as opposed to public property? Please help, I need a reference with some intelligence so I have to do less work. Thanks.

As an anarcho-communist, I advocate communal ownership of stadiums. Governments and corporations are both hierarchial institutions and cannot be expected to manage them to the benefit of the people.

Thanks, but I need more from more people! PLEASE!!!!

Wipe out the stadium. It's not like it actually brings anything to society.

Wipe out the stadium. It's not like it actually brings anything to society.

What about concerts, they are fun

As an anarcho-communist, I advocate communal ownership of stadiums. Governments and corporations are both hierarchial institutions and cannot be expected to manage them to the benefit of the people.

listen,that never works out.It's been tried,it creates warlords who fight forever.

bump. I really need help here

Wipe out the stadium. It's not like it actually brings anything to society.
what about enjoyement and joy into the every day lives of the poor working class?

and without stadiums,where would I stage public excutions?

What's your take on stadiums being owned by private corporations as opposed to public property? Please help, I need a reference with some intelligence so I have to do less work. Thanks.
It totaly depends on lots of.........stuff.

Why should they be public property?

Stadiums are useless. A steriod-using asshole should be killed. And with his fourtune you could build a stadium. So everybody wins!

Stadiums are useless. A steriod-using asshole should be killed. And with his fourtune you could build a stadium. So everybody wins!

Oh that's brilliant, bumpkin.

What's your take on stadiums being owned by private corporations as opposed to public property? Please help, I need a reference with some intelligence so I have to do less work. Thanks.I live in a city where the stadium was completely privately financed and I've got to say, that's the way to go in my opinion. SBC Park in San Francisco is gorgeous, and the taxpayers are making the Giants owner richer only in the sense that they're selling out every game and buying a shitload of hotdogs. Tax money didn't go into the stadium, from what I understand, so people who don't watch baseball live don't get stuck with the bill, and in the meantime, it's revitalized the waterfront south of the Embarcadero.

It's been my experience that team owners who get taxpayers to fund stadiums always oversell the fiscal benefits and screw over the city that funds it. I'll never vote to approve a situation like that, no matter where I live, no matter how much I love the team.

there yah go.

are you after legitimate references or just informed opinions?

in any case, one of the things that pisses me off a lot about professional sports is the way that quite often the team owners get the government to subsidize their stadium construction or repairs. if you are going to have these things be privately owned (and therefore the profits go to private stockholders), then they damn well better be privately paid for instead of making me pay for it through taxes. these corporations, like most corporations, get the government to do most of the work and cover a large chunk of the start-up costs - clearing the land, kicking out the poor people who live there, building the roads to get there, etc - so that they can make money for themselves. and then when things go badly they get the government to bail them out. all at our expense.

besides, who needs stadiums when you've got perfectly good public parks?

As an anarcho-communist, I advocate communal ownership of stadiums. Governments and corporations are both hierarchial institutions and cannot be expected to manage them to the benefit of the people.

I live in a city where the stadium was completely privately financed and I've got to say, that's the way to go in my opinion. SBC Park in San Francisco is gorgeous, and the taxpayers are making the Giants owner richer only in the sense that they're selling out every game and buying a shitload of hotdogs. Tax money didn't go into the stadium, from what I understand, so people who don't watch baseball live don't get stuck with the bill, and in the meantime, it's revitalized the waterfront south of the Embarcadero.

It's been my experience that team owners who get taxpayers to fund stadiums always oversell the fiscal benefits and screw over the city that funds it. I'll never vote to approve a situation like that, no matter where I live, no matter how much I love the team.

Thank you for giving me two very important positions on this, it's helping believe it or not. Your posts were actually very useful, so again, thanks.

listen,that never works out.It's been tried,it creates warlords who fight forever.

Which would be much less preferable to the everlasting global peace that we all currently enjoy, yes?

I should note that the above example was for a baseball only stadium. There are no concerts there that I know of, although the ancillary buildings are rented out for weddings and conventions, etc. But it's a private building, and the owner is going to be damn glad when he gets that puppy paid off, because it's all cream from there.

I also lived near New Orleans for much of my life, and we had a publicly owned stadium--the Superdome--which the Saints rented from the state until recently and is used for conventions, concerts, and the like. It was funded with a tax on hotels, so tourists paid for most of it, and until the Saints owner started making noises like he wanted to move, it was a mutually beneficial arrangement. In the last few years, the state has given away the store in order to keep the Saints around (although after today's performance against Arizone, who would want them is beyond me), so the situation has changed away from the state's favor on the contract.

So I guess here's my take on it. If it's a multi-purpose stadium, and the state isn't limited in how it can use the facilities by one overpowerful tenant, then public ownership can work. But if it's essentially a giveaway to a rich tem owner, then the state is better off making the owner finance it himself.

Which would be much less preferable to the everlasting global peace that we all currently enjoy, yes?

heh

Finished my paper, thanks too Letila, Incertonia and Free Soviets. If I missed someone who did a reasonable post, I'm sorry. Thanks again, very helpful. Now I'm drawing a visual aid of "Microsoft Stadium" Home of the Washington Windows. It'll be funny.

What's your take on stadiums being owned by private corporations as opposed to public property? Please help, I need a reference with some intelligence so I have to do less work. Thanks.
What stadiums are owned by private corporations, besides the ones owned by the team owners?

What stadiums are owned by private corporations, besides the ones owned by the team owners?

That's what I mean by private ownership here.