Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
So neither the City nor the Lakers don't own the Staples Center. But somebody was subsidized by taxpayers in order to enable them to in turn susidize the lakers. For one thing, the muni bonds are tax exempt, which means the interest rate on the arena financing is way below market. I'm sure that's not all. Your post evinces deep involvement by LA taxpayers.
Of course the Lakers aren't paying a fair rental rate, a high enough rate to enable the owners of the arena to retire any debt and otherwise amortize cost of the building and make a profit absent taxpayer subsidy. That's how it works in the real world.
|
I already told you that the land was, in part, paid for by muni bonds. Your response was that muni bonds were not subsidies, but financing (with which I agree).
Now you are asserting that muni bonds are indicative of deep local taxpayer involvement.
So that brings us back to my question....if someone is a tenant...a renter....on land that was in part financed by muni bonds, you are claiming that taxpayers subsidize that person's salary? How so?
You are all over the map and going in the wrong direction. Now you cannot even cover your tracks coherently because you are blatantly contradicting your own posts.
UtahDan's smart list is getting shorter by the minute.