Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LeeOblivious t1_ja9ownz wrote

Reply to comment by Affectionate-Car-468 in Anyone else noticing an unusually large amount of potholes on all city streets? by Affectionate-Car-468

Trust funds can spend funds on improvements. And you are making a supposition that Restaurants, hotels, shops et all actually significantly benefited from said stadium^(1). This is the same tired argument that keeps getting retreaded every time public funds are used to prop up private enterprise. If the stadium had been profitable then it could easily have gotten financing. Or the Cardinals could easily have ponied up to buy it themselves if it is that important to them. Their organization is worth how many billion??? ~20 million is barely even a drop in their net revenues.

1 Whaples, Robert. "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!" Economists' Voice, 2006, 3(9), pp. 1-6.

5

LeeOblivious t1_ja9qb6c wrote

Oh, and making the thing into a giant shelter for the homeless would actually be a good use of public funds. We can centralize services for them, saving money while containing problems to a small area that is easily patrolled. The city as a whole would benefit. We could put in a small clinic and police office onsite as well. Provide onsite addiction treatment and counseling and mental healthcare. As well as permeant housing services and job assistance. A big part of the homeless not being able to get a job is employers' reluctance to hire anyone with no permanent address and hygiene issues. I know when I do interviews if you smell or are dirty, I do not care how good a resume you have I'm not hiring you.

2

KTfl1 t1_jackg9q wrote

"Containing problems to a small area"

I have issue with your choice of words and the premise. Unhoused generally do not want to be confined or contained. In my opinion, putting people who may have some mental issues together in a small space is a recipe for disaster.

1