in other good news, 3 cities reject funding new stadiums

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank goodness. Stadiums are basically free money handed out to corporations with no tangible benefits to the city's residents.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Cities (or when not them directly, other local or state governments - or even the federal government now, with this new BIF monstrosity) somehow always find money for bullsh*t megaprojects that involve building fancy new stadiums, or malls, or enlarging the 12-lane highway into a 16-lane highway, but never for amenities that would actually help regular people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I oppose governments outright funding new stadiums for pro sports teams, but if they have a big parcel of derelict land in need of redevelopment, I am okay with them handing it over for redevelopment into an entertainment district.

Would be cool if they used it to build low-rent public housing instead. You know, the thing all American cities are in desperate need of.

Development costs money. A sports team developing a stadium on derelict land doesn't directly cost taxpayer money. As part of the deal, you can ask the sports team to help fund a public transit extension to the stadium or community amenities.

Cities (or when not them directly, other local or state governments - or even the federal government now, with this new BIF monstrosity) somehow always find money for bullsh*t megaprojects that involve building fancy new stadiums, or malls, or enlarging the 12-lane highway into a 16-lane highway, but never for amenities that would actually help regular people.

You won't see me defending taxpayer funding of stupid projects. But when you need to redevelop entire neighborhoods, you need private sector partners who are able to generate economic activity and attract people to the neighborhood. Maybe as part of the redevelopment, you could build some low-rent housing in the new neighborhood, but building large amounts of public housing in the same place is about the worst thing you could do. The buildings will fall into disrepair, there will be crime all over the place, and the parks will be filled with drug addicts.

Of course they shouldn't be all in the same place - spreading them out in different parts of the city is clearly the right thing to do even if a few posh NIBYs will protest. And I'm not saying there's no role for the private sector, but the point is building things the city actually needs, as opposed to glitzy attractions that present a nice façade for the city but invariably end up as useless money sinks.