Hacker News Reader

Comment by drugme | Hacker News Reader

Elected officials have been played by team owners and sports leagues.

The article conveniently neglects to mention one of the more notable examples of a certain very well known official getting "played" in this fashion (for the benefit of a certain hugely unnecessary sports arena on the edge of downtown Brooklyn):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

View on HN

Not even sure it's correct to say elected officials are being played. Quite often they're sitting on the same side of the negotiating table as the team owner without no one there to represent the public. In most cases with a few notable exceptions, the elected officials are as rah-rah for a new stadium as the team owner. Which is why in so many jurisdictions they no longer allow the public to vote on stadium funding. With the elected officials on board, why would the team owners ever want the public to have a voice?

Agreed - they're not stupid, it's just not their money.

If I can reap the glory of a new stadium, or hosting the Olympics (as my city just narrowly avoided) while you pay the bill for years to come, that's a winning proposition.

I suspect that democracy is actually a driver here. I think that it's possible that the calculation is that "fans" will vote for a representative who backs the stadium where as most other voters will not care about the issue, and will switch off when it's raised as it's a "sports" thing. If you don't back the stadium then your opponent's will and you'll be out! Also I guess this falls into the "any publicity is good" bucket - so you back the stadium and the rich folks driving it will ensure that you are at events where the TV cameras are running and your face is on the screen.

Sorry, but that seems a bit confused. If there are not enough votes for a stadium, then there will not be enough votes to throw out a candidate for "not backing" a stadium.

Not allowing people a voice in the question and then blaming democracy for it? You can't blame an abstract system of government for sports owners making sweatheart deals that ignore public sentiment.

I think you are thinking that elections are a zero sum game, but the reality is that most people either don't vote, always vote for a party no matter what or vote for the candidate that they know. Politicians are all about influencing the swing vote - get people who never vote to vote for you or alternatively influence some small part of the electorate that does make positive decisions. Most people who don't want the stadium will either not vote or vote the way that they would have anyway, the calculation is that voters who are "fans" will vote positively for the people who stick up for their team. Stir in the "I'll vote for the person who's popular" block (which politicians are hoping that the free exposure in the stadium campaign will grant) and the negative effect of shutting out your opponent (because backing like this is strangely exclusive for some reason).

This is not how it works. If there is a number of people who really really really care about a single issue, it might be advisable for a politician to pander to their particular interests on the expense of the majority who cares only mildly about the issue.

the sad part most of them are in it for personal gain as they usually put together deals locking in seats to be used by various city committees or organizations that always seem to insure said politician is at the big games most of the time with their family and friends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com