Monday, November 10, 2008
Brainstorming for last paper
I had some trouble thinking of an "atypical" idea for this paper, but I think I have come up with an idea that I can have a pretty strong response to. Recently, the New York Yankees played their last game at old Yankee Stadium. This is because in 2005 Mayor Bloomberg decided to allow the Yankees, as well as the Mets, to fund the building of a new stadium across the street. Three years earlier, Bloomberg canceled Rudy Giuliani's plans to use public funding for the stadiums, so he gets some credit there. However, the estimates of the costs for the stadium seem to be understated. But this shouldn't matter because the Yankees are paying for the construction right? Except for all of the other expenses that are coming out of the pockets of taxpayers. These include building the new parking decks, funding the $91 million metro station that needs to be built, demolishing the old stadium, and paying for the new parks to replace the ones that are being built over. There was no community meeting to decide on this new stadium being built on the land that neighborhood children play on everyday. Residents had no say in the plan to build a stadium across the street from the old one, just to have a newer stadium with more cup holders and fewer seats. In my opinion, if the community does not have any input on the new stadium construction, then they should not be expected to pay for anything affiliated with the construction. Supporters argue that this helps the community because money is going to be put in the economy, but do the benefits outweigh the costs if there are fewer seats and the stadium is only moving across the street? Numbers have shown that very few new jobs will be created as a result of the new stadium and the new parks are going to be scattered over empty land. Watching a show on ESPN earlier this year, I learned that some of the fields are going to be placed at the tops of parking decks! What kind of environment is that for children to play in? The bottom line for my argument is that in this case the city has screwed up completely, and without talking to the residents of the city. The taxpayers should not be held responsible for funding this project, nor should it have even been allowed. In the future it needs to be enforced that the city consult it's residents and that such awful plans for construction are not carried out. The fact that the Yankees have taken away fields and playgrounds and made the city residents pay for their new ones just seems crazy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you need to make it clear which problem you are addressing. I think the argument that the public should have been notified and they should not be held fiscally responsible is a strong one. The problem you may face is coming up with a good proposal. One possibility is to try to change the way the process works in the future. Maybe use Yankee Stadium as an example of the problem but don't center your entire proposal around it. The argument that more negatives than positives are being created as a result of the stadium being built seems to have some flaws, and you may want to avoid it. The Yankees needed a new stadium badly. Decks have collapsed during games, and there have been several other architectural problems lately. In a city like New York, especially in the Bronx, there is very little open land to work with. Obviously some will be displeased with the placement of the stadium because it will inevitably be placed where someone doesn't want it, but I think building it right next to the oold one makes alot of sense. They will replace the ball fields that will be eliminated as a result of construction and kids will still have a place to play. I don't know about you, but playing on a field where yankee stadium used to be seems like a pretty cool idea. Especially on the top of a parking deck, which is a really neat idea, provided that it is safe. Yankee stadium is much more than just a baseball stadium, it is a national landmark. Sporting events of all kinds have been held there for over 100 years; presidents and Popes have also spoken there. The Yankees bring people together (just see how many yanks hats you see on people walking down the streets of NYC). Don't really know where I'm going with all of this, just some food for thought for your paper.
I think this is a good issue to debate. Whether public funds should be used on these gigantic stadiums that a good percentage of those who pay for them don't ever use. I would ask then why do local governments continue to agree to pay for them with taxpayers money? This isn't the first time this has happened. There are hundreds of stadiums scattered across the country and many of them are paid for with taxpayers' dollars. These mayors, councils, or administrations must believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Yankee stadium for instance produces revenue for the city probably better than any other alternative you could put on that city block. My father has made several trips to New York just to see the Mets play at Shea Stadium. He's probably spent more than $3000 dollars in his life in NYC just because that stadium is built there. And that's just one person. I would also argue that for the most part taxpayer's don't have much say in how their money is spent in any area.
I think you are going in a good direction in the aspect of what topic to chose for your proposal argument. However, I feel you should narrow it down. I think that if you chose the argument concerning how the people from New York were not notified that their tax money would be paying for the stadium would be a good direction to go by. I feel that it is a strong point and it will capture people's attention because this situation can occur to anyone. I think it might be difficult to find a lot of information concerning this topic because it is recent.
Just wanted to say thanks for all of the feedback on the paper, I have put it to use for what we are turning in today. I addressed the issue of maintaining the old stadium and my proposal is to basically refund the people of New York and set a precedent for future instances. If a team says that they will fund a project, then they need to fund it in its entirety. Even the mayor of New York has said that details were left out, such as the Yankees being able to pick up and leave in 60 days notice if they choose to do so, not that I think they would. There is just so much conspiracy and lies behind this project and I wanted to use it to set a precedent for the future. These types of projects need to be more straightforward with the citizens in the future. As for playing on old Yankee Stadium land, I agree that this would be pretty cool but it has to be done better than on the top of a parking deck. No one should want to play on astroturf in mid-summer where the sun is being sucked in by the remains of old rubber tires that cover the field. I know I wouldn't want to.
Post a Comment