Shakeup at the Shakedown
Dave Good 8:19 a.m., June 19
Don Bauder
Don Bauder is a Reader contributor. See staff page for published articles.
Don Bauder is a Reader contributor. See staff page for published articles.
© 2013 San Diego Reader. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced without our written permission.
Golf is in the rough
Twister: Tell me about LiMandri getting ten grand a month as a tree consultant. He has a lot of irons in the fire as he sets himself up as an urban consultant. Best, Don Bauder— June 19, 2013 7:47 a.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
aardvark: The 8.4 million figure for the total Bay Area, embracing San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose-Santa Clara, etc. is correct. The income, of course, is heaviest in Silicon Valley, or the San Jose-Santa Clara area. The income figure is quite important. Best, Don Bauder— June 19, 2013 7:44 a.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
aardvark: You can be certain that the taxpayers will be raped in any stadium deal. The team will make promises, a compliant city council will buy into them, city bureaucrats will juggle numbers to make the promises look credible, the team will spend millions to publicize its lies, and in the end the taxpayers will get fleeced. Example: Petco Park. Best, Don Bauder— June 19, 2013 7:37 a.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
David Dodd: Every commissioner is a puppet for the owners. Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 8:41 p.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
aardvark: It would not be so easy to tell the Giants to pound sand. They are an institution. And they have won two of the last three World Series, haven't they? Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 8:40 p.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
David Dodd: There are very few lawsuits in which both parties do not proclaim that the suit "has no basis in law or in fact." Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 8:38 p.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
David Dodd: This is true of any business. If it can't make money in one location, it has to find another one. But the Chargers still make plenty of money at Qualcomm. Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 8:36 p.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
aardvark: For $700 million, I would think a company would want a larger market than San Diego. LA market is 13 million, San Diego at 3.1 million less than one-fourth that. Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 8:32 p.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
Duhbya: I don't know if Tampa Bay was the only team to drop prices. Those data are available from a Chicago company whose name escapes me now, but you can find it on google. High def, big screen TV is a competitor for teams now -- another factor in the mix. That should be another consideration in new stadium decisions. Some people expect MLB or NFL to chip in on a stadium. Hey, the leagues make loans. Loans have to be paid back. Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 1:49 p.m.
Why pro sports subsidies are c**p
Duhbya: The team that gets a taxpayer-financed stadium ALWAYS raises prices. That's a big part of the scam. First, the owner vows, as John Moores did, that he won't raise prices. Then when he gets the new stadium, he jacks them up considerably. Teams with new stadiums always enjoy a period of novelty effect when attendance is very good, whether or not the team is. For the owner, it's all gravy during those years. Later, prices come down. That's exactly what the Padres did -- jacked them up for the novelty effect years, then started cutting. Best, Don Bauder— June 18, 2013 12:31 p.m.