Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Actually the fact that a private entity is the primary beneficiary of a publicly subsidized stadium is the deciding factor. Museums, libraries, etc are public goods, in that they aren't privately viable but still considered to be in the public interest. Or where museums and libraries may be privately viable we make the decision to open them up and make them non-exclusive for anyone to use because that's an optimal public outcome. That means there's a case for the public to support it.
No one answered my question though. What about the taxpayers that aren't hockey fans that would be virtue of public subsidy be paying for the private gain of a business that they have no interest in supporting or using? Is it fair to burden that taxpayer with the costs?
|
What about taxpayers who have no interest in subsidizing artists and the arts? The average person can't afford their works, and yet they pay for them to live that lifestyle.
What about taxpayers who have no interest subsidized post secondary education? Particularly when the outcome isn't a career required for society, such as education, healthcare, engineering, law or accounting? The average person sees no benefit from someone else's Social Science, Fine Arts, Humanities, or Communications degrees...or worse, non-University diploma level versions of those. Yet, we pay to the tune of 70% of the tuition per student.
What about taxpayers who have no interest in bilingualism? Most provinces have less than 10% francophone speakers, and would be better served funding programs to help new Canadians learn English, or to fund Spanish or Mandarin immersion schools, languages with far more foreign commercial/trade value, and in many cases, more native speakers than French in Canadian provinces.
Point is, society works because we don't listen to every dissenting voice when there are reasonable policy arguments.
Why does Calgary (or Edmonton) need a fancy world class Arena/Stadium? The same reason we needed a designer pedestrian bridge instead of a cheap concrete version, or a world class National Music Centre instead of a small cheap venue, or a grand Central Library (likely to have an International architect I'm sure) instead of keeping the existing one and building a couple cheap ones in the suburbs. Because it makes us special. Its the dick waving that any City that wants to be special does. Is it a waste of money? Sure, but so are many other things that others may value.
It attracts attention (and usually tourists), they attract non-sporting events, it improves quality of life and it adds an aspect that promotes workers to call a city home. This is a problem places like Calgary and Edmonton face when so many migrant workers from other provinces and countries come here. World class cities spend on world class luxuries. Stadiums are near the top of that list.
Does it really make it so bad that someone might make money? Stadiums and their host teams create a ton of tax revenue. If governments took that money and put it aside for when teams came calling, I'm sure you'd find ample amounts for new facilities.