Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Super sports nonsense in New York and Sacramento
Subsidized facilities a loser for taxpayers
Catherine Rampell, economics writer for the New York Times, tried in yesterday's (January 26) issue to find the source of that ever-recurrent prediction that a Super Bowl brings $550 million to $600 million to the host city. Finally, she found someone at the New York/New Jersey Super Bowl Host Committee to give some halting answer.
The figure came from a report several years ago, but "a decision was made" not to release the study, said the source, who then stopped returning Rampell's information requests. Rampell went on to quote economics professor Philip Porter at the University of South Florida (frequently interviewed in the Reader), who said the net effect of the Super Bowl was "zero."
Rampell concluded that the event is "a huge transfer of funds from taxpayers to a handful of special interests."
Meanwhile, Sacramento is in a bitter dispute about a huge subsidy for its professional basketball team's new stadium plans. The current team sells out every game, even though the team stinks.
Proponents say the project will create $11.5 billion in economic benefits in 35 years, but they concede that this is based on the creation of bars, hotels, and the like that don't exist today. Opponents say the predictions are ridiculous. For example, the city will invest $19 million a year in principal and interest payments and get $2.7 million a year in taxes.
Sons of Irwin Jacobs, co-founder of Qualcomm, are among investors in the Sacramento team.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Super sports nonsense in New York and Sacramento
Subsidized facilities a loser for taxpayers
Super sports nonsense in New York and Sacramento
Subsidized facilities a loser for taxpayers
Catherine Rampell, economics writer for the New York Times, tried in yesterday's (January 26) issue to find the source of that ever-recurrent prediction that a Super Bowl brings $550 million to $600 million to the host city. Finally, she found someone at the New York/New Jersey Super Bowl Host Committee to give some halting answer.
The figure came from a report several years ago, but "a decision was made" not to release the study, said the source, who then stopped returning Rampell's information requests. Rampell went on to quote economics professor Philip Porter at the University of South Florida (frequently interviewed in the Reader), who said the net effect of the Super Bowl was "zero."
Rampell concluded that the event is "a huge transfer of funds from taxpayers to a handful of special interests."
Meanwhile, Sacramento is in a bitter dispute about a huge subsidy for its professional basketball team's new stadium plans. The current team sells out every game, even though the team stinks.
Proponents say the project will create $11.5 billion in economic benefits in 35 years, but they concede that this is based on the creation of bars, hotels, and the like that don't exist today. Opponents say the predictions are ridiculous. For example, the city will invest $19 million a year in principal and interest payments and get $2.7 million a year in taxes.
Sons of Irwin Jacobs, co-founder of Qualcomm, are among investors in the Sacramento team.
Comments