Sounds face opposition in Metro Council

[fieldmarshaldj]

I am tolerant of most things, but religious revivals at baseball games is not one of them. The stories about it on ESPN and CNN embarrassed the city. Can you imagine the Titans or Predators having Faith night? How about the Sounds having Jewish, Buddahist, or Islam night? Enough of that.

Like I said, I have no problem with it if they pack in the seats. If they want to have a Jewish night, hey, mazel tov ! Buddhist might prove intriguing, albeit very quiet. As for Islamic, well... Perhaps if they offered complimentary strap-on incendiary devices for our Wahhabist Muslim friends, that might cinch it. The end of the game would certainly end with a "BANG" !

[nashvol85]

Like I said, I have no problem with it if they pack in the seats. If they want to have a Jewish night, hey, mazel tov ! Buddhist might prove intriguing, albeit very quiet. As for Islamic, well... Perhaps if they offered complimentary strap-on incendiary devices for our Wahhabist Muslim friends, that might cinch it. The end of the game would certainly end with a "BANG" !

So.....many....stereotypes.....must.....resist....responding.

[Rural King]

Okay. We need to get this discussion back in line and away from religion. Okay? So lets get back to talking about the reasons for and against having the Sounds Stadium on the old Thermal Plant site.

[Hankster]

Not sure what you were trying to prove with your "example", but it only serves to illustrate my point further: A large institution exerting who knows what kind of influence on a local government resulting in tax-paying citizens having their private property confiscated for the benefit of some rich private institution that can easily afford to by that land or other land in the free market.

Let's see: Vanderbilt with millions of dollars can't afford to buy land to expand - so the government has to run in with the police and throw people out of their homes or else the existing vanderbilt campus will implode and cease to exist and nasville will be doomed forever. Is that the crux of your argument?

I say, "so what" if vanderbilt can't get the exact plot they want for a new building. Boo-hoo! Welcome to the real world vanderbilt - why not leverage some of that high power gray-matter over there and come up with a plan B. They wanted to expand, and old granny nashville wouldn't sell the house for sentimental reasons. Now what? Well boys, no choice but to crank up the old political engine and get the cops to throw her out and codemn the "blighted" house. Oh sure, no one will care - it's just a few good-for-nothing home owners standing in the way of progress for the whole city. Destroying their private property rights in no way affects the rest of the city or it's future.....

I do not consider that kind of thinking "Free Market".

Talking about the cost of business: I was saying that the breakes given to Dell (for example) were mostly in the form of property tax breakes and also that $500 per employee credit which (I believe) was financed through sales taxes. I'm not saying nashville's taxes compare to those other big cities you mentioned, I'm saying that if nashville didn't have such high taxes to begin with the breaks received by Dell would not have been handed out as a political favor, but instead would be available to every business in the form of rock-bottom taxes. Under that scenario, Nashville would be the obvious choice for business without incentives, and all kinds of industries could move here and take advantage of the tax environment without negotiating that cumbersome and time consuming political process that Dell did.

I agree with you that it is not probably the right role of government to force people off their land against their will as long as they are not offered a handsome amount by the university (more than the property is currently worth). If they are offered more than the property is worth and still refuse, then it gets a little more sticky IMO as to whether government should intervene. Once the University is already here, if they have to expand they should be able to find a way to do it on their own without the need of taxpayer dollars.

However, I think it's quite different when a business has the opportunity to move away like the Sounds or has the opportunity to move to any place they wish like Nissan. When this happens, I fervently believe that cities have to get involved. Other cities will get those investments, if Nashville doesn't step up to the plate, because it's an absolute certainty that other cities will make offers to entice these investments. If Nashville doesn't play "this game" ever again because "it's just not the role of goverment," the ultimate result will be job losses and even a possible loss in population one day. That would then result in higher taxes for all those left in Nashville as all the infrastructure that has been built and all the services that are provided will be supported by fewer taxpayers. It could be that offering these incentives will actually result in lower taxes for Nashville taxpayers, not higher.

[smeagolsfree]

The NBJ's weekly poll has to do with the Sound stadium. The numbers as of now are lopsided in favor. So I guess we see where the business community stands on this issue. Here is the link:

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville...tml?poll_id=172

[sleepy]

Now on most things, I disagree with you on, but in this case, I agree. Lower taxes tend to lead to lower unemployment and a high growth economy. It's not like we're hurting in those categories, but it couldn't hurt to NOT raise them (ATTN: MAYOR PURCELL). I have a long response for this, but my head is spinning because I am studying for finals.

Tennessee has some of the lowest business tax burdens in the nation.

Minnesota has some of the highest, yet businesses flock here as a result of its superb public education system and other, well-funded, public facilities.

[sleepy]

That would then result in higher taxes for all those left in Nashville as all the infrastructure that has been built and all the services that are provided will be supported by fewer taxpayers. It could be that offering these incentives will actually result in lower taxes for Nashville taxpayers, not higher.

The more property that's taken off the tax rolls means someone has to make up the difference.

Memphis has been giving away tax breaks left and right (PILOT program) to virtually every business that expands or relocates. Of course, property taxes on homeowners go up. Even the Memphis city council has wised up to its own giveaway and has begun a review of the entire program.

[Kheldane]

However, I think it's quite different when a business has the opportunity to move away like the Sounds or has the opportunity to move to any place they wish like Nissan. When this happens, I fervently believe that cities have to get involved. Other cities will get those investments, if Nashville doesn't step up to the plate, because it's an absolute certainty that other cities will make offers to entice these investments.

Under the current political system, then I would say you're right and I agree with you. But I'm arguing for a change in the political/economic situation in Nashville.

Imagine a yard where you're trying to get grass to grow, but there's a big sheet of black plastic over it. Now imagine that you tear a hole in it to let in sunlight and grass begins to grow there. Ok, so the burdensome taxes of Davidson County are the big sheet of plastic, and the hole ripped in it is the incentive given to the company to re-locate here, and the grass is new business. The incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks,,, taxes that wouldn't exist without the mammoth Metro govt. spending so much. Step #1 of my plan involves slashing the metro budget by 80% leaving only courts and Metro PD. Step #2 involves slashing taxes by 90% so the govt. only collects what it needs. Using my analogy again, these two steps are like taking the black plastic off the whole yard and throwing it in the dumpster. It's the perfect recipe for rapid growth in businesses at home and the perfect recipe to attract more relocations.

Instead of incentives being given out on a case-by-case basis, they would be part of every-day business in Nashville in the form of ultra-low taxes and non-existent regulation. I honestly don't think businesses enjoy going throught the political hurdles, bureaucratic red-tape, and public scrutiny of these incentive-relocation processes. If they could simply move here when they want and know that Nashville offers the lowest cost of business as part of it's growth strategy (lower then the cost would be in many cities that grant incentives) then I think we could land lots of good companies, not to mention giving our existing hometown companies a competitive advantage.

[Kheldane]

Tennessee has some of the lowest business tax burdens in the nation.

They're obviously not low enough if the government has to give incentives for business to relocate.

[sleepy]

They're obviously not low enough if the government has to give incentives for business to relocate.

You're correct. Tennessee's competitors are El Salvador, Mississippi, Arkansas, and other similarly rock-bottom entities. Economic incentives are a perk, like frequent flier miles. Companies expect them whether it affects their decision or not.

[sleepy]

Step #1 of my plan involves slashing the metro budget by 80% leaving only courts and Metro PD.

Why not just privatize the courts and the police as well? It would be a great step back to the 14th Century when that was the norm.

[nashvol85]

Tennessee has some of the lowest business tax burdens in the nation.

Minnesota has some of the highest, yet businesses flock here as a result of its superb public education system and other, well-funded, public facilities.

I'm talking mainly about the city of Nashville as opposed to the surrounding areas, not the state in general. Why do you think business's are locating in Cool Springs and Brentwood rather than in Davidson County? Property taxes are a bit higher in Nashville. Also, he recently raised taxes...not to pay for education/parks/police/fire or whatnot, but to build sidewalks. Yeah, sidewalks are great, but everyone within the Urban services district got a tax hike for that and not nearly all of them will have sidewalks anytime during Purcell's reign as mayor.

I have no problems with the current Tennessee taxes right now.

[Kheldane]

Why not just privatize the courts and the police as well? It would be a great step back to the 14th Century when that was the norm.

Your sarcasm seems to assign more importance to your question than it deserves...

The answer is simple: Courts and police are the instruments by which government performs its legitimate functions: defense of private property and protecting the public from violent criminals in society. Of course there would be a few other departments like tax assessor and register of deeds, but these are all support functions that take up a small fraction of the budget.

[smeagolsfree]

The answer is simple: Courts and police are the instruments by which government performs its legitimate functions: defense of private property and protecting the public from violent criminals in society. Of course there would be a few other departments like tax assessor and register of deeds, but these are all support functions that take up a small fraction of the budget.

I think Vermont or New Hampshire is where all of the Libertarians are suppose to be or to move in order to get their agenda passed. One of the new England States any way. Maybe that is where you need to start. It is a very tiny percent of the population that agree with those views in this state regardless of the fact that Harry Brown is or was living here. Don't know if that is still the case. Why don't we try to get this topic back on track because we can discuss differing politics all day long and go no where.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I have no problems with the current Tennessee taxes right now.

I've got a major-league problem with that obscene sales tax rate.

[Kheldane]

Why don't we try to get this topic back on track because we can discuss differing politics all day long and go no where.

Agreed

Sorry if I threw us off topic. Let me just clarify my opinion that I have nothing against a sounds stadium, just the metro government's envolvement. I think a stadium would work pretty well there, plus it would be another attraction bringing people to downtown. I would definitely go there, and I would be very excited to see what kinds of restaurants and street life, not to mention skyline development would come about as a result of having a stadium there. So yeah, I'm in favor of a stadium big-time, but adamantly opposed to government involvement.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

[sleepy]

Your sarcasm seems to assign more importance to your question than it deserves...

The answer is simple: Courts and police are the instruments by which government performs its legitimate functions: defense of private property and protecting the public from violent criminals in society. Of course there would be a few other departments like tax assessor and register of deeds, but these are all support functions that take up a small fraction of the budget.

One could just as easily say that funding a stadium is a legitimate function of the government.

Police and courts at one point in history weren't considered a function of government. Police were private and courts were ecclesiastical. There was no sarcasm in my post, just a historical reality.

No function of government is "natural". It's all a product of human will or initiative.

And BTW--I'm not in favor of public funds being used for sports stadiums.

[nashvol85]

I've got a major-league problem with that obscene sales tax rate.

I'd rather pay sales tax than income tax. You can control how much you buy, you cannot control how much your income will be.

[Kheldane]

One could just as easily say that funding a stadium is a legitimate function of the government.

Yes, you could say it's a legitimate function, and even make it a function of government as Nashville has.

What you cannot say is that it's "for the greater good" - which is what someone else said in a post that prompted me to launch my argument. The concept that publicly funded stadiums will destroy wealth overall is something that can be (and hopefully has been ) proven through praxeological axioms based on the laws of economics. Of course, I'm assuming that "greater good" means increased overall wealth in an economic sense. If the poster meant something besides increased economic wealth, then my argument is not on point.

Thus, if you accept the axiom that the only legitimate functions of government are those that are "for the greater good" in economic terms, then you cannot say stadium funding is a legitimate function of government.

[sleepy]

Yes, you could say it's a legitimate function, and even make it a function of government as Nashville has.

What you cannot say is that it's "for the greater good" - which is what someone else said in a post that prompted me to launch my argument. The concept that publicly funded stadiums will destroy wealth overall is something that can be (and hopefully has been ) proven through praxeological axioms based on the laws of economics. Of course, I'm assuming that "greater good" means increased overall wealth in an economic sense. If the poster meant something besides increased economic wealth, then my argument is not on point.

Thus, if you accept the axiom that the only legitimate functions of government are those that are "for the greater good" in economic terms, then you cannot say stadium funding is a legitimate function of government.

The last sentence of my post agreed with you regarding public funds for sports teams.

However, I wouldn't accept the assumption that "the only legitimate functions of government are those that are "for the greater good" in economic terms". That assumption has an ideological basis which arose in, say, the 17th Century, and certainly isn't a "truism" which fell from the heavens. It's a man-made construct. Which is not to say it's good, nor bad, just not an absolute.

[Kheldane]

However, I wouldn't accept the assumption that "the only legitimate functions of government are those that are "for the greater good" in economic terms". That assumption has an ideological basis which arose in, say, the 17th Century, and certainly isn't a "truism" which fell from the heavens. It's a man-made construct. Which is not to say it's good, nor bad, just not an absolute.

I agree that it's not a "truism" in the absolute sense. It is an axiom that a fellow debator must accept before I can launch into my argument. But once they accept it, the argument is practically over.

On the other hand, when someone rejects it, as you have, then I have no rebuttal !