Mario: Still Hell-Bound
Last month's post on Pittsburgh's slots-for-arena scheme got picked up by the Pittsburgh City Paper, some great unexpected publicity which meant a slightly elevated level of comments.
Some of these are simply not worth a response, but others are. Those that are fall into two distinct categories:
(1) People who misconstrued or missed entirely some of the key points, and who had arguments with positions I do not share; and
(2) Principled disagreements that at least engaged with the issues that I was raising.
I will deal with all of these in turn. Let's recap what I said, this time with an emphasis on what I did not say about the slots-for-arena deal:
* The state has legalized slots, and Pittsburgh will be getting one of the licenses. I did not take a position on the legalization of gambling, though I did note that as a revenue-raiser it amounts to a regressive tax, and that it is see-no-evil libertarian childishness not to acknowledge that it will have negative social effects. These issues are separate or at least distinct from the issue of what we do with gambling revenue once it's been legalized, but it is right and good to insist that casino owners do something to make up for the social harm that they inevitably cause. Also, I did not make the case that any one proposal was better than any other, least of all that the Isle of Capri/Penguins/Nationwide proposal is worse than Forrest City or any of the others. In my view, they're all bad from the point of view of what we might have got had our elected leaders made a different decision long ago on which things were important in this process. They did not, and we are stuck with shit.
* Developers competing for the license are throwing in "sweeteners" to make their proposal more appealing in the eyes of the public officials who will decide who gets the license. So in the Isle of Capri example, they are throwing in $293 million for a new Penguins arena. We can argue endlessly about whether slots will really bring in that much money, but the developers surely do seem to think so -- so much so, in fact, that they are willing to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars from the development because they think it will help them grease the skids with political decision-makers. They seem to think that they will still make a tidy profit on top of that.
* Because this process is so political, it is the height of silliness to claim that any of the revenue involved in these projects is merely "private" money. The decision of who gets the project will be a political one, one in which the public should properly be involved -- and in fact, that is not only not a bad thing, it is a model that we ought to follow for all forms of "economic development." At the same time and in consequence, it is dishonest to argue that using this revenue for purposes other than an arena would be impossible because developers simply wouldn't do it. They would do it if we all made it clear that it is important, because the slots license is that potentially lucrative.
* All of the developers are proposing to do something for the Penguins as one of their "sweeteners," because our political leaders long ago made a choice about what to emphasize and what was important. The title of my post may have put the onus on Mario Lemieux because he is indeed a slimy opportunist who would gleefully steal directly from the health or public school budgets if he could, and because he shamelessly positioned himself to reap a windfall from these revenues that were at least theoretically to be available to the public for other purposes. (It is childish -- nay, infantile -- to suggest that I would have had to meet him personally to make the judgment about whether he is an asshole. His reprehensible public conduct is bad enough to make that assessment. I don't care if he loves his wife, nor do I give a shit if he has a touch of that contrived personal humility that so many Pittsburgh sports fans find endearing and "non-threatening" especially when compared to the "arrogant" black athletes they love to hate. In his private life he may be a "nice guy"; in his public life, he is a dick. Pittsburgh has made him a very wealthy man. Mario Lemieux has not "done a lot for this city"; this city has done a lot for Mario Lemieux, period.) But in the actual post I made clear to put the blame more squarely on our elected officials, who sent a message to the developers that the arena was important, when they could have easily sent the message that something else was more important.
The only legitimate counter-argument to these points came from several posters who argued that the $293 million is not simply throwaway money but is an investment, since the arena will inevitably bring in more revenue and economic development for the city. I happen not to agree with this position, but it at least engages in a principled way with the issues I was trying to raise.
For these folks, I would suggest reading some of the critical literature on local "economic development" subsidies, particularly the giveaways to white-elephant convention centers, professional sports, and commercial entertainers that nearly every city and region in the country has pursued at one time or another. All of the evidence indicates that the economic development "bang for the buck" from these projects is much less than investments in basic infrastructure, health care, and education.
In the case of health care alone, consider the fact that the endowment fund for adultBasic health insurance for the whole state of Pennsylvania was at $330 million when it was taken to balance the state budget. (This program was itself funded with tobacco settlement money, which once again raises the issue of regressive "sin" taxes -- a digression, but one worth noting in any case.) The $293 million that Isle of Capri proposes to put into the arena in Pittsburgh alone over the course of just a few years is a comparable figure (and Isle of Capri's promised pittance of $1 million a year in vaguely-defined "community benefits" looks infinitesimal by comparison). With a little research, anyone could raise similar comparisons about the shuttered city rec centers and pools; about city schools; or about programs for drug and alcohol treatment, mental health, and HIV/AIDS prevention.
One commenter accused me of typifying the "mentality" of this city, and oh, how I wish that were true. But if by accusing me of being a typical Pittsburgher, someone means to say that I am against creating a few more hip yuppie enclaves while leaving vast social problems untouched, then I proudly plead guilty to that charge, and lustily raise a can of Iron City in the general direction of yinz guys.
Comments
Yeah, John!
Posted by: Lore | January 7, 2006 04:39 PM
Please do not personally attack me in your post. I did not attack you with what I wrote. I disagree with your opinions on something and you catogorize me as 'childish.'
Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2006 02:28 PM
Also, Mario has sold a lot of tickets to hockey games in Pittsburgh. This brings in tax money for the city. People coming in from Canada to watch him play also sold hotel rooms in the city which also brings tax money. The city did not make him a rich man, being a talented hockey player did. I also do not believe in judging peoplebefore meeting them. I can disagree with someone's public policy and still be friends with them.
Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2006 03:22 PM
While you may think that your intellectual superiority caused many respondents to miss the point, there were certainly some valid points posted by those who responded.
-To your first rebuttal, you don't think %50 of revenue recieved from the machines is enough...you don't think the business taxes, corporate taxes, and all the other fees associated with corporations is enough on top of that? What else do you want? I thought business was TO MAKE MONEY, not CURE SOCIAL ILLS!!!
Also, the public did have a say in what should be required of the license holder for PGH slots...the PGH Gaming Task Force had many meetings on the subject. If you didn't attend, then don't complain.
-You then said "Because this process is so political, it is the height of silliness to claim that any of the revenue involved in these projects is merely "private" money."
Now I've read this sentence MANY times and I can't figure out what the hell it means. You just throw that out that this revenue is public money and it is "the height of silliness" to disagree. I'd disagree with this point because I really don't see where this comes from. Yes it is a political decision as to who will get the license, but isn't that the fault of the legislature making it that way? However, I don't see how that magically turns the slot profit into public money. I guess my intellect isn't quite as keen as yours.
-You then said, "The title of my post may have put the onus on Mario Lemieux because he is indeed a slimy opportunist who would gleefully steal directly from the health or public school budgets if he could, and because he shamelessly positioned himself to reap a windfall from these revenues that were at least theoretically to be available to the public for other purposes."
To which I say,
1.) YES, it seems with those kind of accusations, especially the one where he would steal from public schools or health plans, you would have to know him personally. That is not infantile or childish as you seem to think it is. On the contrary the only thing childish about this is your original statement.
2.)How did he shamelessly position himself to reap a windfall of "public" money? What exactly does that mean? I'm not one of your usual cheerleaders who just mindlessly post "GO JOHN!!!" at some angry rant. Your statement really doesn't make any sense.
- You then said, "Pittsburgh has made him a very wealthy man. Mario Lemieux has not "done a lot for this city"; this city has done a lot for Mario Lemieux, period.)"
You ever hear of the Lemieux Foundation?
-You then talk about the only coherent argument I could find, concerning the cost benefit analysis of public funding of corporate America. There, and only there, I slightly agree. I wan't happy with the public subsidy of the new PNC building for Reed Smith. However, that funny word "public" keeps comming up.
All in all, your argument basically boils down to "let's use this corporate money to fund health care and pools." Do we make the holders of liquor licenses, nursing home licenses, ect. contribute to such causes? My answer to this is to use the money the state already takes in the form of the %50 tax. Don't tell other people how to spend their money.
Posted by: Pops16 | January 9, 2006 03:38 PM
I keep thinking that the plain meaning of my words should be enough, but for some people, I suppose I have to explain what I mean repeatedly before it sinks in. Here, for the umpteenth time, is my point: the elected officials are already implicitly requiring that developers do something "extra" -- in addition to tax money -- if they want to move to the top of the list for the slots license. Unlike the libertarian twits on the Tribune-Review editorial page, I think that this is a good thing. Casino owners have no inherent "right" to come in and rip off the public for millions of dollars. To the extent that we let them do it, we have a right to ask that they give a lot back. Isle of Capri is not complaining about this arrangement, which is why they're offering $293 million for the new arena; they think of it as an opportunity cost for getting the license in the first place, while they know that they will still make substantial profits on top of that.
So I do not see anything wrong for taking the casino owners for everything they can give. They are worthless parasites to begin with, and to the extent that we allow them to exist, we should insist on something other than a profit-making opportunity for Mario Lemieux.
And yes, it is childish to think that someone's sunny personality is a relevant rebuttal to a critique of their abominable public behavior. We should never shy away from criticizing ripoff artists no matter how much they smile and lovingly put their arms around your shoulders. Furthermore, I don't give a shit about the Lemieux Foundation, nor should anyone else, because all of Mario Lemieux's wealth is derived from the rest of us in the first place. It's not his "hockey skill" that got him there, it's a lot of ticket sales and TV revenue. If he had been born in Laos or Madagascar -- places where they don't have much hockey -- his latent hockey skill would have amounted to nothing. It's a peculiarly American delusion to think that accumulated wealth is a derivation of someone's personal virtue. Wealth is first and only -- and nothing more nor less than -- a social relation, period. Anything else is a mystification of reality.
The only relevant argument against my critique is the argument that this is not a giveaway but an investment, since the arena will also bring in revenue. I give this argument the credit of being honest, but it is still misinformed. There is no credible study that I have ever seen that makes the case that sports stadiums, arenas, convention centers, or other amenities-based subsidies are a good and efficient economic development tool. Contra the libertarian twits, there are in fact plenty of public investments -- including quality-of-life investments -- that make a real difference, health care and education chiefly among them. I would suggest that readers look at Greg LeRoy's The Great American Jobs Scam -- especially the chapter "Loot, Loot, Loot for the Home Team" -- and other links I have cited for information on this.
Because of Mario Lemieux's whining and blackmail, scared politicians got it into their heads that building a new arena was important, which is how Lemieux got himself in the position to get this money. He played politics -- and there is no clear-cut distinction between the political and the economic. Anyone who is both in touch with the way the real world works and aware of Lemieux public pronouncements over the last few years knows this to be the case. What's the point in denying it? I'm tempted to say he should just pack up and leave for Kansas City, but I wouldn't wish this jagoff on my worst enemy.
Posted by: John Lacny | January 9, 2006 04:48 PM
It seems that my summary of your main point is correct then. You want to make this license contingent on the funding of health care programs. Plain and simple.
What I don't understand, and yes, you don't explain it, is how:
1.) Casino operators are ripping us of.
2.) Why you don't then complain about all other for profit businesses to contribute to your utopia.
I also question what makes you hate Lemieux so much? What public conduct was so evil that you have to call him an asshole. Was it his public charitable givings? No, you already stated that you "don't give a shit" about the Lemieux Foundation. That is nice, I'm sure all those cancer patients would like to hear from someone as compassionate as you. Well you said he hasn't done anything for this town, guess you were wrong on that one.
Maybe it is his hockey skill. Well no, not that either, as you said, he made his money on ticket sales and TV revenue. Nevermind the fact that NHL TV revenue is practically non-existant. Nevermind the fact that noone would have even gone to Pens games if it weren't for an extremely talented asshole. Clearly, TV revenue and ticket sales had no relation to his skill as a player...ok...
Also, as for the only relevant argument being that the arena is an investment, that is untrue. The basic underpinning of your whole argument is "private funds should be compelled from private individuals for public benefit." Though it is true that private funds will be used to confer a public benefit, it is not per se compelled. And yes, I know that the circumstances surrounding the selection of the licensee will require a benefit conferred, but what you are asking of the licensee is a service traditionally handled by government, not pushed on private individuals. I ask again, why should the license holder be required to support PGH public schools when the population keeps declining?
As for my lack of understanding your "brilliant" postings, I retort, you are nothing more than a typical armchair political blogger. Don't take offense to that because most real politicians frame arguments in much the same way, especially democrats. Using words like "obviously" and "clearly" and "childish" and "height of silliness" usually allow the writer to gloss over points that actually are NOT obvious and clear. You "obviously" did that here.
Posted by: Pops16 | January 10, 2006 10:50 AM
My pseudonymous interlocutor "Pops16" -- in between his complaints that I should stop using all them $5 words -- asks an interesting question: "Why you don't then complain [sic] about all other for profit businesses to contribute to your utopia [sic]." It's unlikely that he meant to ask this question honestly, but in the event that he did, here it is: I indeed criticize other for-profit (and non-profit) businesses, and I am only criticizing casino owners because they are the issue at hand in this development. They are bloodsuckers, but other bloodsuckers (e.g., Wilbur Ross) should not be exempt from criticism. We should think about all economic development proposals in this way.
On Lemieux, my point stands: all wealth is a social relation, and Mario Lemieux would not be wealthy if not for the rest of us. He -- like any other capitalist -- accumulated wealth because of our messed up social priorities, and if he gives some back through philanthropy, that doesn't change the fact that we have messed up social priorities, and that he is actively complicit in benefiting from them.
Posted by: John Lacny | January 10, 2006 07:04 PM
It's not the words I don't understand, its how you link them together to form some sort of coherent thought. I don't remember complaining about not being able understand the words.
As for the grammar, which is what I'm assuming you are trying to point out is in error (sic), this IS an internet blog and I wasn't going for perfect, but I'll try to stay in the lines from now on.
Well at least FINALLY we get to the heart of your opinion...
1.) You don't like casinos or their owners (bloodsuckers). I'm assuming the REASON (yes I like hearing reasons for opinions) is because of some social moral outrage or that they discriminately prey on the poorer population. I know they do. I guess I don't despise them as much as you do, but hey, its your blog.
2.) You don't like the social priorities, or rich people, or sports figures, or talented people who turn their talent into wealth. Me thinks someones been reading too much Marx.
I know social stratification is difficult, but it is possible. Sorry you don't see things that way. It must be a very miserable world you live in.
FREE THE PROLETARIAT!!!!
Posted by: Pops16 | January 11, 2006 03:39 PM
Hm, did I just get red-baited?
Oh well, "To be attacked by the enemy . . . "
Posted by: John Lacny | January 11, 2006 07:06 PM
Vast social problems abound. But keep in mind, if the Penguins leave, a tremendous amount of charitable work leaves with them.
The Penguins do more than just play hockey and contribute an esitmated $71 million to the local economy.
Over the years they have been "dedicated to serving the community through a variety of interactive charity and community service programs".
Serving such organizations as Children's Hospital, The Make-A-Wish Foundation, Project Bundle Up, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Girls Hope, Center for Victims of Violence, Woman's Place Shelter, Salvation Army, Veterans Administration Hospitals, Central Blood Bank, Allegheny School for Exceptional Children, Mom's House, the United Way, Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, the Cancer Caring Center, the Carnegie Library, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, Animal Friends Shelter, the American Kidney Foundation, and the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
That's nothing to sneeze at Mr. Lacny.
Posted by: anonymous | January 27, 2006 03:27 PM