Jacksonville City council approves new Jaguars Stadium

[ramssuperbowl99]

22 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

I'm glad you brought up your tax dollars. Your tax dollars do pay for plenty of housing. Federal tax dollars for the housing stipend that service members get, for example.

You can't tell the difference between a football team and a military expense lol I can't believe we got a dumber analogy than the post office one.

22 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Federal tax dollars for the housing stipend that service members get, for example. And while that is obviously going to be more palatable for a lot of people, I have a friend who was in the air force who prior to having kids, was able to save most of his paychecks while stationed overseas (not deployed - stationed) because the stipend was so good. He didn't need it at all. My wife works for the state of Ohio, and for every single state employee they contribute 14% of her pay (coming from my tax dollars) for a retirement better than 99% of people that work in the private sector.

"Honestly guys if we're gonna pay to get the shrapnel out of our soldier's legs we should pay for a stadium too that's the same thing" my god man.

22 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Bootlick? No....I'm just a fan of consistency, and I'm not a fan of holding rich people to a different standard just because they are rich.

Go look at how Google and Amazon end up choosing where to build their data centers and the cost behind those.

Everyone in this thread except you hates companies who do this, including football teams who do this, and wants it to stop.

22 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

If you go down the "but my tax dollars" rabbit hole, there is a lot more to take issue with than a stadium. But people have blind dislike for billionaires and makes them an easy target.

On today's episode of deep thoughts with FranktikRam, the fed isn't particularly efficient with your tax dollars. What oh what will we learn next time.

 

Edited Friday at 05:40 PM by ramssuperbowl99

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

14 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Go look at the number of places that have closed because of minimum wage going up. That's a thing, and not because they're saying they can't. Plenty have actually had to shut down.

Sorry that those businesses can't keep up with the cost of living. There's more than enough businesses out there, and if people can't afford to pay their workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business.

14 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Probably splitting hairs, but I'll give you the renovation aspect being a debate. Building the stadium....the Home Depots of the world get plenty of tax breaks to come to your area, and an NFL team is a lot more rare than a Home Depot. Part of an NFL team even choosing a place to begin with, my first prerequisite would be covering the cost of the stadium if I was an owner. Supply and demand.

I still think the NFL is unique enough where even the renovation makes sense to be covered - the nicer a stadium is, the more likely people are to go. The more people, the better for businesses in and around the stadium and sponsors.

The city can also benefit from concerts, the Super Bowl, etc.

If you want to make that argument then the public should foot the cost as a % based on how often the venue is used for private events vs. public events hosted by the city (IE - concerts). Maybe that's what happened here that resulted in the 55% being funded by taxpayers, who knows.

All I know is that billionaires begging for tax breaks and taxpayer funding and pretending to not be able to afford these business expenses for their side projects is pathetic when they have and make more money than all of us on this forum combined will ever comprehend. Instead of asking the taxpayers to foot the bill, they could just not buy another super yacht for one year to fund the entire renovations.

They absolutely have the money for it. They absolutely can afford it. They absolutely will recoup any "loss" or "investment" in a day or a week. They just choose not to because voters bend over backwards to give billionaires tax breaks and bailouts, for some reason!

[MWil23]

28 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

They absolutely have the money for it. They absolutely can afford it. They absolutely will recoup any "loss" or "investment" in a day or a week. They just choose not to because voters bend over backwards to give billionaires tax breaks and bailouts, for some reason

For some reason is because if they don’t, their owner moves the team to Baltimore/LA/Tennessee/Indianapolis/Las Vegas and takes the team history/tries to with him.

[MWil23]

39 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

On today's episode of deep thoughts with FranktikRam, the fed isn't particularly efficient with your tax dollars. What oh what will we learn next time

Americans are super worried that a mandated retirement account they have to pay into with a -4% historical return will disappear.

[ramssuperbowl99]

21 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Americans are super worried that a mandated retirement account they have to pay into with a -4% historical return will disappear.

Hey, if we want to "avoid a double standard", why don't we merge the Medicaid eligibility and new stadium means testing eligibility rules? If they need aid for their specialized housing, sure. The owner can keep their house and a car and the $20k or whatever the number is now, fed gets the rest.

I'll even volunteer to help repo.

Edited Friday at 06:40 PM by ramssuperbowl99

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Hey, if we want to "avoid a double standard", why don't we merge the Medicaid eligibility and new stadium means testing eligibility rules? If they need aid for their specialized housing, sure. The owner can keep their house and a car and the $20k or whatever the number is now, fed gets the rest.

I'll even volunteer to help repo.

I like how the other 31 owners put it to a vote on whether or not the other billionaire can hold a city hostage and move the team somewhere where it’ll pay for said stadium and they don’t lose branding rights or money. Super fair and legitimate and not at all collusion.

[FrantikRam]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

You can't tell the difference between a football team and a military expense lol I can't believe we got a dumber analogy than the post office one.

"Honestly guys if we're gonna pay to get the shrapnel out of our soldier's legs we should pay for a stadium too that's the same thing" my god man.

Everyone in this thread except you hates companies who do this, including football teams who do this, and wants it to stop.

On today's episode of deep thoughts with FranktikRam, the fed isn't particularly efficient with your tax dollars. What oh what will we learn next time.

 

 

 

I can't tell the difference between a football team and a military expense...? You are the one that complained about tax dollars in the first place. I just pointed out that there are bigger fish to fry if you're going to go down that road. I definitely talked about shrapnel - thank you SO MUCH for responding to my point thoughtfully. I should have realized your bias would be too big to contextualize that - my mistake.

 

"Everyone in this thread except you hates companies who do this" - that...........seems like an easy way to tell that you are on the wrong side of the argument then. Because every company DOES do it....I mean I guess if you just want to hate rich people across the board.....fine, I guess? Seems pretty discriminatory to me though? If every company does it, there is likely a good reason for it - and spoiler, there is.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, MWil23 said:

For some reason is because if they don’t, their owner moves the team to Baltimore/LA/Tennessee/Indianapolis/Las Vegas and takes the team history/tries to with him.

And as shown in a pervious post, the local economy instantly booms once they move away so who really loses that deal? It's certainly not the taxpayers!

[MWil23]

37 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

And as shown in a pervious post, the local economy instantly booms once they move away so who really loses that deal? It's certainly not the taxpayers!

Would you trade a source of entertainment and passion for tax money? That’s the real question.

I guess if you’re fine with Baltimore moving and rebranding in another city, you wouldn’t care…?

[Tugboat]

On 6/27/2024 at 7:05 AM, kgarrett12486 said:

There is a reason that stadium's pricetag ended up where it did lol. I'll share an example of one of the items that did get caught/rectified thankfully. Let's just say that the contractor they hired to pour the concrete footings of the stadium didn't take into account the soil tests that were conducted. They poured the footings way more shallow than plan. They didn't even last a few months, which was a blessing in disguise as would have been a disaster, as they already had crews on site building on them. 

Long story short, they had to completely start fresh on all that. That cost/loss alone was enourmous. 

 

Section.  Not plan.  Is where you identify footing depths.

 

 

If this legitimately happened on a billion dollar stadium, holy jeebus how even?

[incognito_man]

On 6/27/2024 at 8:36 AM, FrantikRam said:

Does having the team at all help the local economy?

What if I told you that many very smart people have asked this exact question long before you just did. And then they set out to answer it. Then they used methods and people who leveraged years of specialized education and training to prepare them to efficiently research the data to answer the question. And that they all discovered the answer turns out to be "no. Not enough to justify the expense".

Would you change your mind about your stance? Or do you think your "common sense" is better than everyone who came before you and spent resources to figure it out?

[FrantikRam]

13 hours ago, incognito_man said:

What if I told you that many very smart people have asked this exact question long before you just did. And then they set out to answer it. Then they used methods and people who leveraged years of specialized education and training to prepare them to efficiently research the data to answer the question. And that they all discovered the answer turns out to be "no. Not enough to justify the expense".

Would you change your mind about your stance? Or do you think your "common sense" is better than everyone who came before you and spent resources to figure it out?

 

 

They all discovered that an NFL team does not boost a local economy? Because you can find quite a few people saying that it does boost the local economy with a quick Google search (and why else would a city even want an NFL team to begin with??)

But beyond that - it is absolutely common sense. 60-100k people, spending money - many of which end up spending money at bars and restaurants not affiliated with the NFL in anyway. Some traveling in from other cities, staying in hotels, etc

[incognito_man]

5 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

They all discovered that an NFL team does not boost a local economy?

Yes. 

I literally quoted you earlier, provided the link AND the germane summary.

I did absolutely everything for you.

[sparkyjoe1]

One way to look at it is, would you rather have your tax dollars be spent (or wasted) on your favorite team or would you rather have them spent (or wasted) on something else? I'd rather have my tax dollars go to a football stadium than a lot of the other things that use my tax dollars.

I just finished a state funded training facility. The original budget was 6.5M. When I got on site, the cost was already at 12M. It's at 19M now, and they are still changing and adding things. One of the big dollar changes was when the decided to go from a regular acoustic tile ceiling to a fancy wood slat ceiling in about half the building. Looks great, but a completely unnecessary 1M added cost. There are reasons that I won't go into on this site as to why this entire project was a "waste" of taxpayers money, far more so than subsidizing a stadium project. In fairness, if I could choose where my tax dollars went, stadiums would be higher on my list than probably my a lot of people's. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:46 PM, MWil23 said:

Would you trade a source of entertainment and passion for tax money? That’s the real question.

I guess if you’re fine with Baltimore moving and rebranding in another city, you wouldn’t care…?

I mean considering I live in a city with no pro sports teams I don't really care that much lol if the Ravens moved from Baltimore I'd still support them.