tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post4269911825499779701..comments2024-02-26T11:57:59.502-06:00Comments on Schultz's Take: Dumb and Dumber: The Folly of Taxpayer Handouts for Professional SportsProfDSchultzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14428175737629801650noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-66391505222888241172011-02-14T20:45:12.227-06:002011-02-14T20:45:12.227-06:00Whenever people criticize you tone instead of your...Whenever people criticize you tone instead of your content, you're on the right track. You make a strong argument, keep it that way.Pudsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05523265351097090606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-39176081443783214782011-02-13T13:53:34.317-06:002011-02-13T13:53:34.317-06:00As a former student, I have to say I agree with mo...As a former student, I have to say I agree with most of what John says in his rebuttal. I am disappointed in the tone of this article. You are such a respected and intelligent professor, you can win on the merits of almost any argument you make. I don't think you need to devolve into Fox News editorials. <br /><br />I'll hand you the economic argument. I've read the pieces that you cite, and I personally believe that the economic impact of a sports stadium is not measurable. <br /><br />As a progressive, isn't there something to be said for community identity? Let's talk about the Top 5 things that identify Minnesotans as Minnesotans. While it is different for everyone, our local sports teams would rank up there if we polled everyone. For me, it's the Twins, Vikings, Mosquitos, Snow, and the U of M. Do you support Congress cutting funding of NPR? It has no 'economic effect', but it has a public good and people rely on it. The legislature recently put $20M into the renovation of a theater in Minneapolis. What about general funding of the arts? I am not "high-class" when it comes to arts and entertainment. It seems to me if we, as progressives, are going to defend NPR, theater, and the arts through public funding; than the funding for public stadiums falls into the same, or similar category.D Larshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02946004505340301537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-61739548918922523152011-02-09T17:26:49.067-06:002011-02-09T17:26:49.067-06:00Not liking the tone here at all. It comes off as s...Not liking the tone here at all. It comes off as smug and condescending. as I mentioned in a previous comment: calling people stupid isn't usually the best way to persuade them.<br /><br />As to your arguments:<br />1. Economic development. Reasonable point that it's unlikely to expand the tax base and "pay for itself". And it's absolutely true that those entertainment dollars spent on football will likely just be spent in other ways. (Whether they'll be spent here is another question I don't have the answer to; will the number of people who travel here for a game be balanced out by other spending? Will more people here spend that entertainment $$$ by travelling to the team's new location?) But good stadium development can be a driver for revitalization of an urban area by serving as a destination magnet. Or do we really believe Target Center didn't have anything to do revitalization of the warehouse District?<br /><br />2. "First-class" city: bad examples. NYC still had the Yankees (easily the dominant team) when the Giants & Dodgers de-camped...60 years ago? the Angels played in LA for 5 years as an expansion team when they moved down the road to Anaheim (not really that far) and the Dodgers were already well-established. The Rams are a better choice, but note that they moved to a city that had LOST a pro football franchise. But again...it's comparing the Twin Cities to LA, which isn't a great comp.<br /><br />3. Profit argument. Fair point again, but your backhanded shot about competition is unrealistic and disingenuous. As if communities and states never subsidize private industry! <br /><br />You may not agree with it, but professional sports teams are considered in many ways to be a public good (in Green Bay it's more literally a public good; should they not spend public money to renovate the facilities there either?). You treat the cultural impact and importance as a topic of little importance or note, which is one of the reasons that football fans get so angry with anti-stadium forces. economists kinda suck at valuing the secondary & trinary economic impacts of professional sports in a broader community, and so they discount them almost completely (you admitted this to me once yourself!).<br /><br />I'm not fairly neutral on the stadium issue. While I'd love to skip public investment in it, I recognize the usual practice and have a little more respect for teams as community and cultural institutions, as well as the fact that stadiums like the Dome have additional utility beyond just use as a football field. I'm hoping that if a deal happens it won't be an outrageous give away.<br /><br />But the conversation about it tends to be really negative and combative and does little to convince anyone of anything. Pro-stadium folks tend to want to do anything that will keep their team (while often hypocritically seeking to avoid personally paying more) and hang the consequences. Anti-stadium folks tend to be highly dismissive to the merits of professional sports, often incredibly insulting and demeaning to fans.<br /><br />It's not productive.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05853174464511326387noreply@blogger.com