Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums by notSupplied on Sunday January 06, 2019 @10:11PM (#18842474)

Because the the best jobs are in SF, so scratching SF off of your list if you're in particular industries is too large of a sacrifice.

The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that creates the problem.

Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be considered a constituent of SF and their voice is as valid as that of a resident.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums by titanomachy on Sunday January 06, 2019 @11:00PM (#18842667)

Yeah the city certainly benefits from their presence even if they don't pay property tax. NIMBYs are happy to profit off this as their property values soar, but they don't want to pay any of the cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums by masonic on Monday January 07, 2019 @09:01PM (#18852408)

  while saying yes to more jobs

How do local residents have any say in local job offerings?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums by notSupplied on Wednesday January 09, 2019 @01:31AM (#18862764)

By fighting high density projects that are residential ("It brings too much traffic! It'll shade this nearby park!") but not when they're for commercial use. See recent SOMA mixed use construction in SF. Office to residential square footage ratio is completely skewed towards offices.

[ Parent | on HN ]