Reddit reviews Public-Private Partnerships for Major League Sports Facilities (Routledge Research in Sport Business and Management)

Find me a study that suggest otherwise? But for now I will just leave these here....

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/April-2001/Should-Cities-Pay-for-Sports-Facilities

Stanford department of Economics

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/

The Brookings Institute:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

Urban Planning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design

https://www.amazon.com/Public-Private-Partnerships-Facilities-Routledge-Management/dp/0415806933

Lake Forest department of Economics

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1990.tb00513.x/abstract

It truly is one of the least controversial things in economics.

Here are two books:

https://www.amazon.com/Public-Dollars-Private-Stadiums-Building/dp/0813533430

https://www.amazon.com/Field-Schemes-Stadium-Swindle-Expanded/dp/0803260164/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=28RY3QNDND8H7927BFB2

It's even worse than that. They are not giveaways, they are extortion payments by politicians of taxpayers money. Judith Grant Long at Harvard studied it and wrote a book. The owners say build us a stadium or we'll move the team to another jurisdiction. The city then issues bonds the taxpayer's are responsible for paying the money back, the owner's franchise becomes more valuable and the city gets taxes from maybe a few more concession jobs, maybe some parking revenue. The kicker is that most of the people that can afford tickets come from the suburbs. So the main beneficiaries are team owners and out-of-towners. The only thing the average city taxpayer gets is pride in the team they can only afford to watch on TV.

Sure - I meant that the questions you were asking and your overall line of reasoning sounded very much like the conversation-pattern I've heard whenever black women discuss their experiences in feminist spaces.

When they point out their lack of support by the feminist community, and the utter ignorance of how race affects issues in mainstream feminism, and the unwillingness of most white feminists to reciprocate any support given by the black community, they are absolutely correct, and they are more often than not ignored (or worse.)

Unfortunately, because I don't know the history of gender relations within the black community the way I know the history of race relations within the feminist community, I am an imperfect teacher on this subject. What I know is that black women say there's a problem, that they say they are ignored or worse when they ask for it to be addressed, and that they are credible when it comes to their own experience.

So when I notice the same patterns of rhetoric that are problematic in my community showing up in the other, it's familiar and troubling.

I think women's suffrage might have fared better than you think; many of the rural states in fact allowed women to vote in state elections starting in 1869. But it was a complicated issue, because it was more tied up in what the politicians worried the women would vote FOR than whether they thought they should be voting at all, and that gets it tied up not in the simple issue of gender roles, but each man wondering whether his constituency is safe. Imagine mobilizing a completely unknown voting bloc - terrifying to the status quo. Not as much of an issue with allowing recently emancipated slaves to vote, as they were relatively sure to vote for the union politicians that had just won the war and help provide leverage in the newly re-incorporated south. This is also partly why you have such horrific issues with allowing asian and hispanic enfranchisement or even basic citizenship; they weren't considered as predictable and therefore valuable of a constituency, so there was no reason to take on the political risk of considering their basic human rights. (I'm getting very off-topic, sorry.)

No. Whether an action counts as betrayal cannot depend on the sensitivity of the group, it must depend on the sensitivity of the minority. Otherwise there's no accountability. Who decides whether the outcome was worth it? The people who benefitted (the majority?) or the ones who paid the price? I'm not saying compromise can't ever happen, and I'm not saying that there's some perfect world where progress can occur without any ugliness, ever - what I'm saying is if you always focus on only the majority, and allow those in the positions of power to define not only what qualifies as success but what constitutes unacceptable harm, you're going to have a very imbalanced power structure that looks quite a bit like a panel of white, male senators grilling Anita Hill about the particulars of sexual harassment so they can install a dirtbag like Clarence Thomas on the bench to make terrible decisions for the country for the rest of his life.

In lieu of paragraphs, I shall give links:

on #solidarityisforwhitewomen follow some of those embedded links, too - there're a lot of great rabbit trails in there.

It's a problem outside the US, too

Jezebel link for the back-story, but this link-farm from Melissa Harris-Perry is the academic goldmine for black feminism

Professor L'Heureux Lewis discusses black male privilege on NPR

A very detailed collection of essays of the many ways 'misogynoir' is felt - edited to remove link; I should have read her content-use page before linking, as she explicitly states that she does not want her personal blog to be used as an education portal.

Sure, the NFL is a business known for exploitative practices and ingrained racism, sexism, and violence. Sure, they've implemented protocols after a nasty PR scandal. (Business decision - not doing so could leave them open to further lawsuits, like this one they're currently settling as ungraciously as possible ) Not sure where you got your numbers to compare NFL players to the general population, but this article breaks it down pretty well, and details why athletes have a lower reporting rate as well. It's not just that, either. The organization as a whole has a history of tolerating bullshit: multiple teams had their cheerleaders bring class-action lawsuits this year over multiple-complaint, multi-year labor disputes. Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys was involved in a scandal involving inappropriate behavior with a woman who is not his wife. The owners of the Vikings and Browns were both indicted on massive fraud charges just last year. The impact of building football stadiums on the local economies - with tax incentives, etc - is almost never borne by the actual organization, but off-loaded onto the communities themselves. ($12 billion according to this book ). There's the whole "it's fine to continue using a racial slur and caricature as your team identity" situation in Washington. And that's off the top of my head, from the past 18 months.

Suffice it to say, I'm not a fan of the organization as a whole, and being a business isn't an excuse to being an obvious home for corrupt individuals with a high tolerance for unethical and immoral behavior to do business with each other. (and then make major political donations!) The whole thing stinks, and they handled this entire affair in their normal, unethical manner, until they were exposed and forced into damage control.

At the risk of womansplaining, that's not mansplaining. (so you may feel relieved!) Mansplaining is that specific kind of condescension that assumes a woman couldn't possibly know what she's talking about, or that a man definitely is an authority by default. You're just asking for clarification, which makes perfect sense since our conversation has been long and rambly.

What I am looking for from society and what I am looking for from this conversation are two different things. What I want from this conversation is to describe the parallels between your privilege in your community and my privilege in mine, and point out that it's really easy to be blind to our privilege as relevant in the context of the greater good, or to act as though the concerns of "the few" aren't as relevant as the concerns of "the whole group" - but they are; you can't have the whole without the few. And as it comes up again, I would encourage you to listen without defensiveness, and rather than asking questions that can seem combative to ask for resources to read up on the basics of their particular struggle, because it will enable you to best serve the true whole group, instead of just the whole group that most resembles you - simply because that was my experience.

What I want from society is a product of watching far too much Star Trek: The Next Generation growing up. True universal health care, education, civil rights. Deemphasis on profit as the pinnacle value, more emphasis on sustainability. A shift in cultural opinion so that public service is no longer seen as degrading.