More baseball bullshit, this time from Bouchard
Lucien Bouchard, whose government refrained from financing a new baseball stadium with public money in 1998, is now all gung-ho and is part of a small group now trying to push “l’acceptabilité sociale” of the project.
Ghost of Ginger Baker 12:58 on 2019-10-10 Permalink
In the era of climate change, any public money spent subsidizing the frivolities of the ultra wealthy borders on being a crime against humanity.
We’ve spent nearly $2 Billion just on Olympic Stadium. Now they want land, another stadium, millions of gallons of clean drinking water, cheap hydro-electricity (etc.) – when will it end?
At what point does our society make them realize just how out of touch they are with reality?
We need a baseball team and a new stadium like a massive gaping hole in the head.
How is it socially acceptable to spend money on a new ballpark when the same amount could rapidly expand public transit, potentially getting tens of thousands of cars off the road?
There’s probably no greater example of the perpetual abuse of taxpayers and the needs of the citizenry by the political and economic elites than this baseball bullshit.
Kate 13:11 on 2019-10-10 Permalink
Bravo!
Michael Black 13:17 on 2019-10-10 Permalink
People need bread, and they need roses. You can take anything and use it to claim full attention, but in reality one can’t spend on just one thing. Yes you need healthcare, but arts funding is also important. Yiu can take any cause and find people who think it is the most important thing, but so will some other group. Time oasses and the importance dwindles. There were 500,000 people out in New York City on June 12th, 1982, but virtually nobody talks against nuclear weapons,even though they still exist. Frida Berrigan recently wrote that her motger was planning to do more civil disobedience against nuclear weapons, and I don’t expect it to get press. But people do it because they see tge weapons are wripong, and they don’t need a mass to legitimize their view.
That said, I have no interest in sports so I think slending money on a ball park isn’t worth it. But others might, and they still have to live, even if global warming continues.
Michael
Faiz Imam 14:48 on 2019-10-10 Permalink
Spending money to subsidize business activity is not inherently bad, this includes entertainment and sports. There are cases when it is a net good.
The key here is that we have data, we have analysis that has been done on these topics. We know what forms of investment works and what does not. We literally have government departments whose job it is to decide who to give loans and subsidies to to catalyze activity.
There is a ton of economic data that shows that large investment in auditoriums, stadiums are at best marginal, and often a huge opportunity cost. Spending on festivals, convention centers is better but not huge.
And we know that small amounts of money on local institutions is much better than large amounts on national and global institutions.
we know that money on flexible, multi-use facilities is better than money on limited use ones.
We also know that the part of town they want to build this baseball stadium in does not need “help” getting developed. If the stadium does not happen, a dozen condo towers will take its place. In this way, the opportunity cost of the stadium is the very direct destruction of a potential new neighborhood with thousands of new residences.