Comment 56690

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted January 17, 2011 at 14:18:00

lawrence >> If a bldg means something to a city, oh let's just say the AGH for instance, sometimes you have to put some money in it to freshen it up a bit and modernize it

How is that different from saying the city should subsidize your neighbourhood's favourite restaurant? Both the AGH and the restaurant deliver a product that some people like, but not 99% of residents and yet, only the restaurant is expected to pay their own way, why is that?

What if I start an art exhibition store that makes $10,000 a year in profits after tax. Shouldn't I get tax money to expand my store? Why should the AGH, which is selling the art lifestyle, get subsidies, while I do not?

As for the stadium, which is designed for both observing and playing sports, how is that any different than a local gym, or fitness club, etc? They don't get subsidies and yet they are in the business of selling fitness and sports to people. I bet there are many people who would like a discount on their gym membership, dental care, haircuts, car payments, so why not have the city pool taxpayer funds and subsidize these as well.

Here's the best idea. We all buy food. So let's have City Hall pay grocers across the city to subsidize bread, milk and fruits/veggies. At least food would have greater usage then will a stadium.

Why is a stadium a public good when a lower percentage of people will use it than food, clothes, gasoline, T.V.'s, homes, etc?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools