6 responses to “Hating on PawSox proposal shouldn’t be a progressive value”

  1. Deforest

    By no means am I speaking behalf of any progressive movements, but as I understand it the objection being couched in progressive terms is that the Pawsox proposal is a “give-away to billionaires” and “privatizes profits while socializing risk.” Whether any of those characterizations are true, I do not know. I don’t know much about the details of the proposed legislation. But those are the “progressive” arguments against. Whether or not those arguments have validity I leave it to others more informed than I to state.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. MeaningfulPlaces

    The money that would be spent near a new park would simply be discretionary spending shifted from somewhere else. This is called the substitution effect. In the meantime, a place that is unique and historic in Pawtucket would be replaced by a generic AAA stadium just like the ones everybody else has (and chock full of luxury suites, the real reason Lucchino, et al are so hot to abandon McCoy; don’t kid yourselves, folks). This is NOT progress in my view; it’s merely another step towards the relentless homogenization of the baseball experience in a society that is far too quick to abandon more authentic venues in order to build new, soulless mallparks. Please read Mike Betzold’s take on this topic in Detroit after Tiger Stadium went down; there is no need for this to happen again in Pawtucket.
    https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/908

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: -1 (from 9 votes)
  3. Barry Schiller

    I appreciate Kelly Smith’s dedication to progressive causes, but: the argument for giving away tens of millions to Pawsox owners is far from convincing, maybe partly because I don’t care about minor league baseball (and know few who do) and don;t see why it should get such a large subsidy. The idea that future sales tax revenues in the area should be dedicated to paying for the stadium rather than going to the general fund is a reach. Analogously, would taxpayers build me a restaurant to be paid back (maybe) by taxes on my restaurant sales? Even the idea that there would be all this extra development because of a minor league team doesn’t seem plausible as McCoy has produced no such benefit even though it is an area with plenty of easy parking and less congestion than right around I-95. And if the venture fails, we know from 38 Studios the taxpayers will pay back the high interest bonds even if we didn’t vote to approve them. At the least, taxpayers should be asked to approve the issuance of any such bonds as we will surely be asked to pay them back.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 7 votes)
  4. MeaningfulPlaces

    I posted on this topic yesterday morning, and my comment is still “awaiting moderation”. (Don’t know why; I was a bit curt in my statements, but I think they were fair.) I was writing as one who does not want to see McCoy Stadium replaced by a generic new stadium (like so many other AAA cities have), and I am sorry to see that historic preservation concerns about the proposal are not being discussed. (Never mind questioning the economic arguments being made in favor of a new stadium; if people were to spend their discretionary income near this stadium, they’d simply be shifting their local spending from one place to another; this is known as the substitution effect. And if the PawSox every left McCoy, I wouldn’t go to the new one, that’s for sure.)

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +4 (from 8 votes)
  5. leftyrite

    ” Hating on, …”

    Thank you. Love that blast from the past.

    (rolls the dice in front of the coliseum.)

    But, I think that it’s clear that big money is on its way.

    Can’t be stopped. Rhode island is too beautiful.

    The question is: 125AD ….or 498??

    (Back to the street)

    A Voice: Oh, I love that.

    Another voice: I bought it at the New York Lace Store.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
  6. Mark Gray

    WOW, I’m sorry I missed this article until today. I agree with Kelly 100%.

    It’s good to see more people challenging the idea that a small group of extremists gets to decide what “Progressive” means for everyone.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.