Hacker News Reader

Comment by cypherpunks01 | Hacker News Reader

I never realized this! Pretty interesting. Apparently there is an exemption crafted into NY State law specifically for MSG, and it's saved them over 1/2 billion in property taxes over the past 40 years. So NYC has very little say in the matter, the exemption would have to be challenged at the state level.

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._real_property_tax_law_s...

View on HN

If MSG isn't generating more than $1M a month in lift to NYC + NY tourism and other revenue I'd be stunned.

This article sheds no light on that, however:

https://gothamist.com/news/madison-square-garden-property-ta...

And they almost certainly generate a lot of expenses for the city. They are probably a major consumer of city services and infrastructure.

How much trickle-down effect there is...is irrelevant. I generate revenue from all the things I spend my salary on. I still have to pay taxes.

This is corporate welfare, pure and simple.

They don’t need the tax break to be profitable. I’m sure someone else would be more then happy to use the land for an entertainment venue.

Is there a city tax included with the tickets? I'd be shocked if the city was relying only on indirect tax revenue from events at MSG.

I wouldn't be surprised if MSG's impact is actually net-negative. The complex sits on some of the most valuable property in the world, and its current use completely wastes the airspace above it.

The Bay Area is watching something that demonstrates that right now. The land under a theme park near San Jose got bought by a warehouse (think fulfillment center) company. Entertainment venues like this aren't always economically viable if they have to compete on the open market with other property uses, but there's still community value to them.

There was some shenanigans there too. The land was owned by the county and the theme park was allowed to use it. Then at some point in the pandemic (I'm not totally clear on the details) the land was given (sold for very cheap?) to the theme park owner to keep the park there. The park owner then turned around and immediately (like not even a week later) sold the land out from under the park.

The city (confusingly, the city and county have the same name) sold it sold it in 2019 because California outlawed redevelopment agencies in 2011.

Oh my God. Let’s get rid of one of the best concert venues to build another high-rise? Gross

Reply on news.ycombinator.com