I have made my donation, to the National Lawyers' Guide (the people who defend Occupy protesters) puny as it is, and posted the following comment to the story (which includes a video interview with the protester):
In comments, I read continued sympathy for KJ (Kevin Johnson, Sacramento's mayor, on the receiving end of a protest pie), and condemnation of the pie thrower. Hippie punching never seems to go out of style.
Let's consider the context, though. KJ managed to get a quarter-billion-dollar subsidy for the Kings' stadium. Far from being an economic asset, the Kings themselves are (according to the Bee's cited economics studies) as big a liability as an asset.
Even though their value may be a wash, the structure of the transaction itself favors Vivek Ranadive and the merry band of plutocrats who own the Kings. The City owns the stadium--so no tax revenue, and they have a white elephant if the Kings decide to leave.
Since professional sports enjoys an exemption from anti-trust prosecutions, they can extort monopoly rents if the City has no say in their location. In other words, owning a stadium, but no stake in the Kings means the City can have yet another stadium extortion in its future. Heck, Al Davis, the Oakland Raiders owner, has extorted stadiums from Oakland *and* Anaheim.
Forbes Magazine estimates the value of the Kings team itself has roughly doubled thanks to KJ's efforts. Has the value of the City's investment doubled? (Hint: are you kidding?)
Worth remembering: 75% of George W. Bush's net worth came from a stadium deal in Arlington TX. That's the "liberal" KJ's compadre.
I've actually heard incoming Mayor Darrell Steinberg pat himself on the back for making sure the City has the "asset" of the Kings. I'd say it's more like he's helped implant a tapeworm in the body politic, but whatever...
Meanwhile, I'd say donation to Thompson's representation (the National Lawyers Guild) are in order. Maybe it's not too soon to start a "Sean Thompson for Mayor campaign, too....
...
Afterthought comment:
One more bit of context: One City Councilman reports the City spends as much as $40 million on the homeless (though the official line item is $11 million), county police and emergency room visits. Homeless advocates cite other cities' experience (e.g. Salt Lake City) in saying these costs can be reduced by half to 80% if public policy houses those out on the street.
To do that would require more initial spending for those later savings, and would probably require more be done to insure the region has more affordable housing.
When the City considered charging a building fee to make that affordable housing happen, rather than the "inclusionary zoning" ordinance that required affordable housing be part of any new development, housing advocates said $6 - $11 per square foot should be the fee equivalent to the previous inclusionary zoning. The City proposed $2.25, and after much begging settled on $2.50.
So, just to review, we've got a quarter billion dollars in bonds underwritten by Goldman Sachs that will ultimately cost two or three times that much when repaid, to fund a stadium, but no control or stock in the Kings...at the drop of a hat....Yet when it comes to the homeless, 25¢ is the level of compassion to which one can appeal.
Pies, anyone?
I have made my donation, to the National Lawyers' Guide (the people who defend Occupy protesters) puny as it is, and posted the following comment to the story (which includes a video interview with the protester):
In comments, I read continued sympathy for KJ, and condemnation of the pie thrower. Hippie punching never seems to go out of style.
Let's consider the context, though. KJ managed to get a quarter-billion-dollar subsidy for the Kings' stadium. Far from being an economic asset, the Kings themselves are (according to the Bee's cited economics studies) as big a liability as an asset.
Even though their value may be a wash, the structure of the transaction itself favors Vivek Ranadive and the merry band of plutocrats who own the Kings. The City owns the stadium--so no tax revenue, and they have a white elephant if the Kings decide to leave.
Since professional sports enjoys an exemption from anti-trust prosecutions, they can extort monopoly rents if the City has no say in their location. In other words, owning a stadium, but no stake in the Kings means the City can have yet another stadium extortion in its future. Heck, Al Davis, the Oakland Raiders owner, has extorted stadiums from Oakland *and* Anaheim.
Forbes Magazine estimates the value of the Kings team itself has roughly doubled thanks to KJ's efforts. Has the value of the City's investment doubled? (Hint: are you kidding?)
Worth remembering: 75% of George W. Bush's net worth came from a stadium deal in Arlington TX. That's the "liberal" KJ's compadre.
I've actually heard incoming Mayor Darrell Steinberg pat himself on the back for making sure the City has the "asset" of the Kings. I'd say it's more like he's helped implant a tapeworm in the body politic, but whatever...
Meanwhile, I'd say donation to Thompson's representation (the National Lawyers Guild) are in order. Maybe it's not too soon to start a "Sean Thompson for Mayor campaign, too....
...
Afterthought comment:
One more bit of context: One City Councilman reports the City spends as much as $40 million on the homeless (though the official line item is $11 million), county police and emergency room visits. Homeless advocates cite other cities' experience (e.g. Salt Lake City) in saying these costs can be reduced by half to 80% if public policy houses those out on the street.
To do that would require more initial spending for those later savings, and would probably require more be done to insure the region has more affordable housing.
When the City considered charging a building fee to make that affordable housing happen, rather than the "inclusionary zoning" ordinance that required affordable housing be part of any new development, housing advocates said $6 - $11 per square foot should be the fee equivalent to the previous inclusionary zoning. The City proposed $2.25, and after much begging settled on $2.50.
So, just to review, we've got a quarter billion dollars in bonds underwritten by Goldman Sachs that will ultimately cost two or three times that much when repaid, to fund a stadium, but no control or stock in the Kings...at the drop of a hat....Yet when it comes to the homeless, 25¢ is the level of compassion to which one can appeal.
Pies, anyone?
In comments, I read continued sympathy for KJ (Kevin Johnson, Sacramento's mayor, on the receiving end of a protest pie), and condemnation of the pie thrower. Hippie punching never seems to go out of style.
Let's consider the context, though. KJ managed to get a quarter-billion-dollar subsidy for the Kings' stadium. Far from being an economic asset, the Kings themselves are (according to the Bee's cited economics studies) as big a liability as an asset.
Even though their value may be a wash, the structure of the transaction itself favors Vivek Ranadive and the merry band of plutocrats who own the Kings. The City owns the stadium--so no tax revenue, and they have a white elephant if the Kings decide to leave.
Since professional sports enjoys an exemption from anti-trust prosecutions, they can extort monopoly rents if the City has no say in their location. In other words, owning a stadium, but no stake in the Kings means the City can have yet another stadium extortion in its future. Heck, Al Davis, the Oakland Raiders owner, has extorted stadiums from Oakland *and* Anaheim.
Forbes Magazine estimates the value of the Kings team itself has roughly doubled thanks to KJ's efforts. Has the value of the City's investment doubled? (Hint: are you kidding?)
Worth remembering: 75% of George W. Bush's net worth came from a stadium deal in Arlington TX. That's the "liberal" KJ's compadre.
I've actually heard incoming Mayor Darrell Steinberg pat himself on the back for making sure the City has the "asset" of the Kings. I'd say it's more like he's helped implant a tapeworm in the body politic, but whatever...
Meanwhile, I'd say donation to Thompson's representation (the National Lawyers Guild) are in order. Maybe it's not too soon to start a "Sean Thompson for Mayor campaign, too....
...
Afterthought comment:
One more bit of context: One City Councilman reports the City spends as much as $40 million on the homeless (though the official line item is $11 million), county police and emergency room visits. Homeless advocates cite other cities' experience (e.g. Salt Lake City) in saying these costs can be reduced by half to 80% if public policy houses those out on the street.
To do that would require more initial spending for those later savings, and would probably require more be done to insure the region has more affordable housing.
When the City considered charging a building fee to make that affordable housing happen, rather than the "inclusionary zoning" ordinance that required affordable housing be part of any new development, housing advocates said $6 - $11 per square foot should be the fee equivalent to the previous inclusionary zoning. The City proposed $2.25, and after much begging settled on $2.50.
So, just to review, we've got a quarter billion dollars in bonds underwritten by Goldman Sachs that will ultimately cost two or three times that much when repaid, to fund a stadium, but no control or stock in the Kings...at the drop of a hat....Yet when it comes to the homeless, 25¢ is the level of compassion to which one can appeal.
Pies, anyone?
I have made my donation, to the National Lawyers' Guide (the people who defend Occupy protesters) puny as it is, and posted the following comment to the story (which includes a video interview with the protester):
In comments, I read continued sympathy for KJ, and condemnation of the pie thrower. Hippie punching never seems to go out of style.
Let's consider the context, though. KJ managed to get a quarter-billion-dollar subsidy for the Kings' stadium. Far from being an economic asset, the Kings themselves are (according to the Bee's cited economics studies) as big a liability as an asset.
Even though their value may be a wash, the structure of the transaction itself favors Vivek Ranadive and the merry band of plutocrats who own the Kings. The City owns the stadium--so no tax revenue, and they have a white elephant if the Kings decide to leave.
Since professional sports enjoys an exemption from anti-trust prosecutions, they can extort monopoly rents if the City has no say in their location. In other words, owning a stadium, but no stake in the Kings means the City can have yet another stadium extortion in its future. Heck, Al Davis, the Oakland Raiders owner, has extorted stadiums from Oakland *and* Anaheim.
Forbes Magazine estimates the value of the Kings team itself has roughly doubled thanks to KJ's efforts. Has the value of the City's investment doubled? (Hint: are you kidding?)
Worth remembering: 75% of George W. Bush's net worth came from a stadium deal in Arlington TX. That's the "liberal" KJ's compadre.
I've actually heard incoming Mayor Darrell Steinberg pat himself on the back for making sure the City has the "asset" of the Kings. I'd say it's more like he's helped implant a tapeworm in the body politic, but whatever...
Meanwhile, I'd say donation to Thompson's representation (the National Lawyers Guild) are in order. Maybe it's not too soon to start a "Sean Thompson for Mayor campaign, too....
...
Afterthought comment:
One more bit of context: One City Councilman reports the City spends as much as $40 million on the homeless (though the official line item is $11 million), county police and emergency room visits. Homeless advocates cite other cities' experience (e.g. Salt Lake City) in saying these costs can be reduced by half to 80% if public policy houses those out on the street.
To do that would require more initial spending for those later savings, and would probably require more be done to insure the region has more affordable housing.
When the City considered charging a building fee to make that affordable housing happen, rather than the "inclusionary zoning" ordinance that required affordable housing be part of any new development, housing advocates said $6 - $11 per square foot should be the fee equivalent to the previous inclusionary zoning. The City proposed $2.25, and after much begging settled on $2.50.
So, just to review, we've got a quarter billion dollars in bonds underwritten by Goldman Sachs that will ultimately cost two or three times that much when repaid, to fund a stadium, but no control or stock in the Kings...at the drop of a hat....Yet when it comes to the homeless, 25¢ is the level of compassion to which one can appeal.
Pies, anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.