|
The deal involving the public funding was focused around a raise in hotel taxes. There's nothing that says the local government would've agreed to the same tax increase for something that wasn't a stadium, because they could've already done it and they hadn't. So it's not true that all the money is coming out of "the pot." A lot of it wasn't in the pot to begin with, so it's not like school funding is going to feel the impact of that.
Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Mar 27, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
whiteyfats posted:My baseball team has never won the Series, and plays in the same division with the Yankees and Red Sox. Why hello there third Rays fan on the forum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Why hello there third Rays fan on the forum. There's so many? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The deal involving the public funding was focused around a raise in hotel taxes. There's nothing that says the local government would've agreed to the same tax increase for something that wasn't a stadium, because they could've already done it and they hadn't. So it's not true that all the money is coming out of "the pot." A lot of it wasn't in the pot to begin with, so it's not like school funding is going to feel the impact of that. I feel like there's probably a bigger question there about why tax rises to fund the pet projects of multi-millionaires is ok but funding essential public services isn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
People vote for their perceived self-interest, and while only some a minority of people have kids in public schools at any given time, most people needs sports to distract them from the drudgery of their lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I feel like there's probably a bigger question there about why tax rises to fund the pet projects of multi-millionaires is ok but funding essential public services isn't There is an even bigger philosophical question here. I have been asked: "how can you spend money on luxuries and entertainment, while people elsewhere in the world literally starve? Isn't it basically immoral to let others suffer while you relax and enjoy yourself?" The same argument has been used to say that spending money on X is wrong, because issue Y, which we both agree is more important, is currenly underfunded. But these arguments rely on a fallacy; that the primary or only obstacle to solving world hunger or more generally solving Y, is that we've spent all our money or easted all our food on less I.portant options. In reality, there is more than enough food produced on earth to feed everyone, and there is enough money to fully fund most things we'd consider as values for Y. The real obstacles are political. There is not a consensus for how to address Y, and in the meantime, spending money on X isn't actually robbing it from Y. You can spend money on fancy excessive luxuries without feeling as though you are literally making someone somewhere else starve by doing so, because the forces at play that cause poor people to starve are mostly political, religious, or ethnic conflicts. It is mostly oppression by terrible regimes, theft of resources by the powerful, and threats or actual violence between entrenched factions in impoverished countries that leads to starvation and misery for large swathes of people. It's not the uneaten food you let spoil in your fridge while you wnt out for a nice steak dinner. Similarly, to the extent that folks in Las Vegas - or anywhere else in America - are lacking adequate funding for things like health care, education, housing, infrastructure, etcetera, those deficiencies are not really because we overspent on sports. They're because of entrenched differences in political philosophies, disagreement on basic facts about human behavior, deeply divided tribalism between two warring political factions, and so on. A stadium finded by tourism taxes just is not the thing keeping Las Vegas from having good schools or better homeless programs or whatever. Go ahead and advocate for those things, that's cool and worthwhile, but it's unhelpful to get angry at sports fans for choosing to focus on something other than the wearysome neverending political war between regressive vs. progressive spending priorities to spend what is, against the full financial might of a major American city not actually that much money, on a sports stadium. If the Raiders stayed in Oakland, there would not suddenly be more political will to raise taxes and spend money on schools in Vegas. Doing one thing does not mean necessarily not doing another. Your town's lovely approach to funding schools is an entireley separate issue from it's willingness to raise a hotel tax for the Raiders deal. I generally think spending taxpayer money on NFL stadiums is stupid, because the NFL is rich enough to buy their own loving stadiums. But the Vegas deal is not allocating existing fuds away from higher priorities towards a stadium and nobody is pretending that the stadium is going to stimulate economy to trickle down money to everyone. They're taxing tourists to pay for a tourist attraction. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
eat the rich
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Source your bad analogies. Or are you sincerely comparing personal ethics to public policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:People vote for their perceived self-interest, and while only some a minority of people have kids in public schools at any given time, most people needs sports to distract them from the drudgery of their lives. Well the people of Vegas didn't actually vote for it. There was no public referendum and instead it got rammed through city council This is a terrible deal for Vegas especially because they have to make up any short falls in funding for this stadium that's only going to be finished in like 4 years. So it ties the local government even more to tourist revenue at a time when we're probably at ~40% chance we hit a recession within the construction timeline of this stadium There's a decent chance that this turns out so poorly Adun fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Adun posted:Well the people of Vegas didn't actually vote for it. There was no public referendum and instead it got rammed through city council Elected officials would have severed their support if a majority of their constituents mad it clear that their re-elections were imperiled by their support. I'm not aware of any marching in the streets or widespread public outcry, maybe I missed that. King Hong Kong posted:Source your bad analogies. The two are not the same, but I felt a comparison could be useful, yes. I think both in personal ethics and public policy, it's an oversimplification to assume that every decision is part of a zero-sum game where doing anything that isn't solving the world's ills is necessarily adding to the world's ills. I don't expect people to be universally happy with spending tax money on a gift to a conglomeration of wealthy individuals and corporations, but it's not correct to describe the Raiders deal as taking food from the mouths of the hungry, or whatever, any more than you failing to give away everything you own is taking food from the mouths of the hungry who aren't recieving your money. We are a wealthy society with enough resources to take care of each other, educate our children, etc. and also enjoy luxuries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Adun posted:This is a terrible deal for Vegas especially because they have to make up any short falls in funding for this stadium that's only going to be finished in like 4 years. So it ties the local government even more to tourist revenue at a time when we're probably at ~40% chance we hit a recession within the construction timeline of this stadium Yeah the guarantees are pretty bad. Businesses should not be protected from all business risk while simultaneously enjoying exclusive rights to all profits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Elected officials would have severed their support if a majority of their constituents mad it clear that their re-elections were imperiled by their support. I'm not aware of any marching in the streets or widespread public outcry, maybe I missed that. That's not how it works in local government because after you get voted out you can get a sweet gig working for the people who just built the stadium you approved. Especially in a place like Vegas
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The two are not the same, but I felt a comparison could be useful, yes. I think both in personal ethics and public policy, it's an oversimplification to assume that every decision is part of a zero-sum game where doing anything that isn't solving the world's ills is necessarily adding to the world's ills. Regardless of the "zero-sum" problem, you've missed the more exigent point by conflating two distinct issues. The first is what individuals may be ethically obligated to do in response to problems that can't adequately be addressed at the individual level. But that has nothing to do with using government, which could reasonably act in the local public interest, to instead enrich private interests at potential public risk by carrying a large debt load for several decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
look what you fucks did, you got Leperflesh all over the goddamn thread, do you know how hard that poo poo is to clean off
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Miami is getting royally hosed on their stadium and it should have been a warning to every other municipality
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Alaois posted:look what you fucks did, you got Leperflesh all over the goddamn thread, do you know how hard that poo poo is to clean off I miss his ...traps... avatar. And now I want to figure out what's happened with dwarf fortress over the last 3 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Adun posted:That's not how it works in local government because after you get voted out you can get a sweet gig working for the people who just built the stadium you approved. Well look, if you're saying that representative democracy at the local level literally isn't democracy, that's an interesting question but probably well beyond the scope of any argument about the Las Vegas Raiders. King Hong Kong posted:Regardless of the "zero-sum" problem, you've missed the more exigent point by conflating two distinct issues. The first is what individuals may be ethically obligated to do in response to problems that can't adequately be addressed at the individual level. But that has nothing to do with using government, which could reasonably act in the local public interest, to instead enrich private interests at potential public risk by carrying a large debt load for several decades. Yeah, I can see that there's an important difference. I'm sorry if my analogy was crap in that respect. I am only taking on the presumption in the word "instead" that there are always only binary choices. Alaois posted:look what you fucks did, you got Leperflesh all over the goddamn thread, do you know how hard that poo poo is to clean off Whenever there is a lovely argument about politics ready to derail a thread, I will be there, ready to weigh in with three thousand words of bloviation. It's just how this works. Grittybeard posted:And now I want to figure out what's happened with dwarf fortress over the last 3 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
I just still can't believe they're planning on playing THREE lame duck seasons. I mean, really? There's not a high school field you could use or something instead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I just still can't believe they're planning on playing THREE lame duck seasons. I mean, really? There's not a high school field you could use or something instead? I really don't see the problem with them playing in Sam Boyd a couple years if the Chargers can at StubHub, which seats like 5000 fewer people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Ragnarok the Red posted:I really don't see the problem with them playing in Sam Boyd a couple years if the Chargers can at StubHub, which seats like 5000 fewer people. One team doing a stupid thing doesn't mean two should
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Ragnarok the Red posted:I really don't see the problem with them playing in Sam Boyd a couple years if the Chargers can at StubHub, which seats like 5000 fewer people. They were talking about renovating Sam Boyd to meet NFL regulations, but I have no idea what the regulations are if StubHub qualifies. Like "has grass" or some poo poo. Maybe they got an exemption for StubHub since they all knew the Chargers leave was going to be ugly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
The Los Angeles Chargers have sold out all their season tickets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:They were talking about renovating Sam Boyd to meet NFL regulations, but I have no idea what the regulations are if StubHub qualifies. Like "has grass" or some poo poo. Maybe they got an exemption for StubHub since they all knew the Chargers leave was going to be ugly. My guess would be that if the Stubhub Center thing works for the Chargers that the Raiders would head to Vegas a season or two early.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/846422969047965696 Welp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
The measure passed 31-1, only Miami voted no. Las Vegas Raiders official
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
I wonder why Miami voted no
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Sorry Oakland fans. Here's hoping the Raiders can maybe manage to get a Super Bowl sometime in the next couple years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
We've got confirmations all over the place. It's real. The Las Vegas Raiders are a thing. https://twitter.com/SteveSisolak/status/846422857248780288
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
We need all the Fallout New Vegas fanart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
I know why it didn't happen, but 30-1 with one abstaining vote would have been the ultimate Al Davis tribute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
So they stay in Oakland for 3 more years? This is just to not poach fans from LA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
The Mojave War Boys are a reality
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
there's gonna be some fun stories when the a's and padres play each other
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
I was going to say the NFL sucks for letting two teams move in the last year. Then I remembered the Chargers moved. The NFL really sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
I think honestly the NFL would have preferred if Davis had sold to someone with actual money and the Raiders stayed in Oakland. But there's no way for them to make that first thing happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Fukushima kami-krazy war boys
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
The Dolphins are cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Thanks to all the Oakland fans for being awesome and sticking by the team all these years. I can only hope the black hole in Vegas will be half as entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Not renewing my season tickets. I wonder how many others are following suit. Also, i blame Luniz who sang the line "from the bay to LA to Las Vegas"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:I was going to say the NFL sucks for letting two teams move in the last year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:45
|
|