CROWDSOURCE: Eisinger’s, “The Politics of Bread and Circuses”

This week let’s use the crowdsource to discuss Peter Eisinger’s piece, “The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class”.  We will use this crowdsource as a way of making sense of his argument together.

Specifically, the chapter speaks to the political-economic changes taking place in NYC beginning in the 1980s.  Eisinger’s piece will only make sense if you read the assigned readings this week in order.  They take you through the last nearly 100 years of urban development, and in that context, Eisinger’s piece becomes more significant.  What is Eisinger’s argument?  What is he talking about?  What do you find interesting, confusing, intriguing, or complicated.  What passages stand out to you as significant and why?

Remember, this is a collective/group project, so you don’t need to respond to each of the prompts listed above – together we should respond to these questions.  In that regard, you should read others comments and add to the conversation (not repeat a point someone already made).  This may be responding to someone’s comment, or answering/trying to answer a question posed by another student, or questioning a point made by another student.

REMINDER: You are not posting to the blog for this assignment.  You will include your thoughts and responses in the comments section of this post.

Comments due by 12noon, Sunday 9/18/16

For more general information on the weekly crowdsource, click here.

Image Information: circa 1955: Aerial view of
Yankee Stadium and Polo Grounds, New York City.
(Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Weekly Crowdsource


  1. I believe Eisinger’s argument is that during the rapid urbanization in the late 19th century, our government provided many services to the people that lived in the cities. Looking 100 years later, we see that cities now allocated resources, time, and energy into making cities “places to play”. What he means by this is that cities built now are built for the purpose of expensive entertainment amenities designed to attract tourists and other people outside of the main cities. City leaders hope that people will generate investment, high employment multipliers in the hospitality and retail sectors, and local tax revenues by doing these projects. But the big question is, whether this is really benefiting the people of the city, middle and poor classes, or the people coming or leaving the city.
    Eisinger was nice enough to identify 4 new patterns in which the local government has changed since the late 19th century when it comes to the use of our local public resources for entertainment. These 4 patterns are the pace and variety of construction have increased, the demographic and economic context is different, the intended patron base has shifted from the city’s residents to visitors, and the scale of entertainment construction is marginally greater. Eisinger provides a chart in which he shows the increase in facility construction increasing from 1920 to late 1990’s. We already have a lot of stadiums for sports here in NYC and I sometimes wonder why we put so much money into making new ones when we could be using that money on fixing issues in the city. Many of our local governments have been making large public investments in entertainment facilities at the same time that the municipal tax base is on a decline and social welfare needs are rising. What this means is that, people in cities are not getting jobs and money as promised for making this buildings especially when the tax base is declining. These projects are mostly designated primarily to attract visitors. We see here in NYC that Time Square has many tourist attractions and is always well protected and catered to the tourists. For me personally, I feel like the city is a place I would go as if I were taking a trip out of the country. I see no benefits of me going to watch games, theater, etc when you can see most of these on television. I feel as if though money can be better used to benefit the people that live here not for those coming to visit. Lastly, projects today are bigger and much more expensive than many years ago. This raises huge flags because a lot of that money could have been better used to benefit the people instead of, sometimes, one time uses of these entertainment facilities.
    The last part that I want to mention about this article is that there seems to be a bigger disconnect and trust gap between the people of the city and the local governments. Eisinger mentions that many of these people, elites, that make these areas are using sketchy deals that get them to build their facilities while taking away resources from the people of the city. The distribution of resources aren’t always allocated properly by our government and at times those resources are denied and shifted to other areas in very shady ways. So how can we fix such issues in our city? Eisinger proposes that it is just a matter of balance or proportionality. By doing this we can see more jobs and income going to the middle/lower classes of the cities thus removing some of poverty.

  2. In Peter Eisinger’s piece, “The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class”, his argument is that cities, such as New York, spend more time and money on entertaining visitors in the city than they do on the people who actually live in the city. He provides a very well structured argument and I agree with pretty much everything he said. Nowadays, the main is money. Money is on everyone’s mind. We want to know how to make money and how to spend money and if we are already making money, we want to know how to make more. I don’t think this obsession with money is necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely is affecting our every day lives. Cities are obviously focused on how they can keep making more and more money and they do this by entertaining tourists. By providing tourists with places to entertain themselves while visiting, the city makes more and more money. It should be a good thing that the city is making more money, but it’s not because the city isn’t using the money in a way that helps the people who actually live in the city. I don’t think any of the entertainment is benefitting any of the social classes in the city and I agree with Eisinger, who claims that it’s not about spending the public’s money, it’s about how to balance it. I think finding the right balance is hard in a lot of situations, especially in how to balance the spending of the city’s money. It could be the perfect solution if it’s balance correctly and if it is benefitting both visitors and residents of the city.

  3. While what Eisinger is saying is true, the government has shifted from trying to benefit both the locals and visitors simultaneously in order to benefit the city, and that towards the late 20th century we have seemed to ignore the former, In my opinion he seems to not mention an important fact may change his argument a bit. These “entertainment” venues that are built with tax dollars that started to hold more relevance within the 1970’s is about the same time that corporations and those who make the most began having tax breaks. Meaning that while these entertainment venues exist because of the tax payer, most likely these entertainment venues get tax breaks. Leaving the tax payer left behind. If all was fine and dandy, then we would strive to build these stadiums to attract out of town visitors so that they can both spend money in the city and benefit the local economy (most of the money would go to the entertainment that they came to see) and the taxes that we receive from that entertainment that visitors came from out of town to see would be able to improve our schools, roads and welfare. He neglected that part of the argument

  4. In the article”The Politics of Bread And Circuses Building the City for the Visitor Class”, the author pointed out that the leaders of big cities like New York are trying to devote enormous public resources and times to the construction of large entertainment projects. They want to benefit the tourists. The leaders want to give the visitors “places to play” but they ignore the most important people of the city who are the resident of the city.The local residents also need to improve their living environment and decrease the tax pressures. The leaders should not just “entail the construction of expensive entertainment amenities, often in partnership with private investors, designed to appeal primarily to out-of-town visitors, including the suburban middle classes”. The bankrupt city would be more poorer even though the leaders put emphasis on the visitor. The visitors are not willing to the poor cities like Detroit. It is dangerous and sparsely populated in that kind of cities. People like to visit the prosperous, safe and developed cities.

  5. In Peter Eisinger’s “The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class,” he proposes how city regimes are committed to “the task of making cities” (316), which mainly “entails the construction of expensive entertainment amenities, often in partnership with private investors, designed to appeal primarily to out-of-town visitors, including the suburban middle classes” (317). In other words, Eisinger is proposing that popular areas like New York’s Central Park, Denver’s Coors Field, and the Detroit People Mover were created in an attempt to boost up tourism/visitor morale and in turn help the city become more profitable, hence the phrase “bread and circuses.” His argument can be seen in how “an estimated 80% to 95% of convention-goers [who] stay overnight in the host city [and] pay hefty room taxes in the process represent a highly desirable type of visitor; they tend to spend considerably more per day than ordinary tourists or attendees at cultural performances or sporting matches” (321). From this perspective, we could assume that the city is able to benefit from the “convention-goers’” costly expenses during their stay in the city. What I found mostly interesting about Eisinger’s piece was how he presents “the downtown urban entertainment district” as being “typified in some cities by a high concentration of multiplex movie theaters, sports complexes, bars and cafés, and ‘theme’ retailing, such as Disney and Nike stores” (320). Considering how he exemplifies New York City’s Times Square as a “pioneer model” (320), I think it is quite possible that with Eisinger’s notions in mind, we could view this famous landmark as more of a “business” venue rather than an “entertainment” venue. This can be seen from how Times Square isn’t just home to numerous Broadway shows, but also to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not, Dave & Buster’s, movie theatres (a few of them IMAX), multiple fast-food chains within walking distance of each other, and giant digital screens and billboards that are nothing but flashy advertisements for TV shows, movies, food, cars, etc., all of which are various forms of attracting the attention (and the wallets) of its frequent visitors.

  6. Peter argues that New York participating in creating entertainment venues such as casinos, convention centers, and other entertainment amenities such as the Yankees stadium would actually drive negative social economic growth instead of positive. Peter also states is that instead of New York becoming a melting pot that the strategies contribute to the opposite and in doing this aims for a city only built for the visitors belonging to the middle class.

    These strategies serve to create a city only for visitors and non-permanent residence in doing this creates a negative disparity in economic growth as doing this entertainment spending most likely never pays for itself instead cost more than what it promises at face value.

    Its interesting how Peter states how the strategies may seem desirable in the forefront with over optimistic claims but what if what fails to consider is on the larger scale and economic perspective. These governmental investments don’t correspond to the modern age. An interesting point that he specifies is in creating a city for visitors the city tries to disconnect the context of residents from visitors at the Yankees stadium.

  7. I highly agree with Eisinger’s idea that cities do indeed “spend more time and money on entertaining [its] visitors” rather than on its residents. While cities do tend to make valuable profits from their multiple forms of entertainment, they seem to have a difficult time figuring out what good cause that money should be going towards. In terms of “finding the right balance,” perhaps some of the city’s money could be used for renovating run-down housing developments or promoting educational programs in public, middle, and high schools.

  8. Peter Eisinger illustrates how the cities that were investing in entertainment amenities became universal urban undertakings. The cities that were building large sports arenas were the ones that had more people beginning to live in high poverty neighborhoods. As the local governments were making large public investments in entertainment facilities, the municipal tax base was declining and social welfare needs were rising (321). It is not so surprising how much bigger these entertainment facilities are getting and how much money is being put into them, considering the energy and political resources that the elites are devoting. This causes other important urban problems to be ignored. Although it may seem these facilities are bringing in a lot of revenue from visitors, they may actually weaken the bonds between the citizens and the leaders of the city, because the civic agenda begins to fall off track. In Washington, voters turned down an increase in taxes for the funding of a new stadium, and if I were a citizen there I would have done the same. Money used for entertainment takes away money that could be used for more important things such as education, and it is not a good thing that this is what is being prioritized. One point that stood out to me was how stadiums/entertainment projects never really generate as much money as they expect them to. Also, they generally fail to generate a significant number of jobs. All of these points Eisinger makes support the fact that there is clearly an imbalance of what is necessary for residents of the city and how resources and money is being misused.

  9. Peter Eisinger’s piece, “The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class” Eisinger points out how city leaders in the United States devote enormous public resources to the construction of large entertainment project, such as stadiums, convention centers, entertainment districts and festival malls. They justify these projects will generate economic returns by attracting tourists to the city. However he questions, if this benefits the local resident of the city , middle and poor classes or the city visitors, who comes and leaves.
    In article it states “ It is not surprising that political and civic leaders increasingly are intent on spending their political and fiscal resources to support such entertainment facilities… Thus city leaders make entertainment projects a keystone of their urban economic development strategy, hoping that they generate ancillary investment, high employment multipliers in the hospitality and retail sectors, and local tax revenues” (318). However article says a substantial suggests that such expectation are generally misplaced. All the entertainment amenities generally show up on the negative side of the balance sheet, and in the few cases when they do not, their effects are highly localized. Finally Eisinger end the article with “It is all too common for a city to use its scarce resources not to build infrastructure, fund youth recreation programs, subsidize homeless shelters, or enrich the schools but to help wealthy investors construct entertainment facilities for well- off visitors who produce few payoffs for residents.” (331)
    In my opinion, I don’t think it is fair nor necessary to spend the public’s money to investors construct entertainment that will not even benefit the local resident. Especially when they can use that money to benefit the residents by doing different stuff such as fund youth recreation programs, subsidize homeless shelters or enrich the schools. Before they devote enormous public resource to the construction of large entertainment, they should remind themselves the purpose of this “entertainment”, and who are we trying to benefit. Finally like Eisinger says, it is not about spending the public money, it is about how to balance it, which I totally agree with. As long as we balance the money right, it can be beneficial to the tourists and our residents which solves the problem and will make our economy better.

  10. I think people like to visit “prosperous, safe, and developed cities” because of their attractions. With stadiums, parks, casino’s, zoo’s, and other various forms of entertainment, the cities become more developed. Unfortunately cities that neglect to have great entertainment are given less value. In the article, it’s an interesting juxtaposition that entertainment areas were created to have visitors visit the city and spend their money to boost the economy, all the while, the entertainment zones also relied heavily on local commerce, spending, and taxpayer money on these areas to help support them. Cities were boosted for visitors while using local taxpayers to help build sporting stadiums, and other entertainment zones. I’m confused as to why locals were neglected when compared to visitors. Locals help build revenue, and they are the taxpayers that help fund the various entertainment areas. Out of those who help build revenue for the city, from those that live in the city, suburbanites, and visitor’s, I personally believe the one’s living in the city should not have been neglected as they were. It’s abuse to use taxpayer’s money to help finance entertainment with the intention of only drawing out visitors. It’s unfair that those impoverished living in the city were unable to use the benefits of the city, since entertainment zones were mainly affordable for the middle class.

  11. Eisinger’s argument is that building large entertainment projects may strain the relationship between local leaders and the citizenry and skew the civic agenda to the damage of basic municipal services. He gives an example which is that the city is a place to play for middle class today inside for not only the well-to-do but also for the common people in nineteenth century. I disagree about the city as a place to play for middle class because I spent time in library and baseball stadium, so I do not think these places are not only for middle class. Eisinger talks about how pace and variety, context, patron base, and scale are different from that in the earlier period. In page 6, I am confused about the example, “In Houston, for example, the number of people in high-poverty tracts rose……and social welfare needs are rising.” Why do 26 of 30 cities which built sports facilities after 1970 were experiencing an increase in number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods? In page 9, why were 7 of 14 cities which were built new stadiums or arenas initiated using public funds other than simply local levies even though they got negative referendum outcome? In page 10, Eisinger points out that education is a municipal responsibility in New York City. I strongly agree his point because education is most important part for the generations of a city. If the generations of a city get good education, the economy of the city will vigorously develop by these educated generations. “Sure, sports are important to a city’s image, but in my judgment it’s more important to have parks, police, water, and youth programs”, said Houston Mayor Bob Lanier. Parks can provide place for residences to relax, reduce pressure, and enjoy the beauty of the earth; police can make the city safer; water can make the city healthier; youth programs can make the city developed better. Bob’s point is for everybody not only for middle class or attract visitors.

  12. I definitely agree that it is not necessary or fair to spend the public’s money to fund tourist attractions and create problems for those who actually live in the city. There are so many problems that need to be fixed in New York and other major cities. For example, New York is one of the states with the highest rates of homelessness, there needs to be more accessible resources for them and more opportunities for decent meals. Also many of my family that has visited New York for the first time were surprised at the horrible smell and sanitation in the city. They thought that it was too crowded and too expensive but they did enjoy some of the tourists attractions. Therefore, instead of trying to appeal to tourists they should fix major problems within the city, because the tourist notice these problems before they notice any big tourist attractions. Eisinger states “Facilities built today are more expensive an bigger in the past…for certain classes of entertainment facilities, size has also increased”. I found this statement to be very disconcerting because, as you said, they should be spending more money on youth recreational programs, shelters, and improvement in schools. But instead money is spent to get more money in return from the tourists. Affordable housing and expensive transportation costs are a huge problem for those who live in the city, and these problems are making people want to move out of the city to find cheaper solutions.

  13. In “The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class” by Peter Eisinger, he talks about how the government provided public services to people which are essential to their health, safety, and education. Even when the government does this, they are spending more time on how to entertain the people rather than helping and creating more things for the citizens to make their life better. For example, when people come to New York, most of the people would go to Times Square and spend most of their time there exploring with their family and friends. There are so much things to do in Times Square especially when there are a lot of stores like shopping mall, restaurants, entertainments, and much more… They wouldn’t be at another part of New York like the Bronx. Instead of entertaining the people, the government should do something else that would help the neighborhood, the kids to be in a safety environment, help the people who don’t have homes have a ceiling over their head, and things that would actually help the residents.

  14. When Peter talks about how the government spends more time on using money to entertain people- it’s specifically about people from other places- tourists, as opposed to thinking about residents in the city. Of course it’s important to have good tourists sites in NYC, but at the same time I didn’t know until reading this, that most of the money being used is towards tourists as opposed to the residents. And the government should be helping the people who live in the city. People who live in city also appreciate entertainment I am sure, but a lot of these things are much more expensive and they want to attract people with more money, so then it ends up not being as beneficial for the residents. But there should be a balance, the way other people have mentioned in some of their comments between the spending of money for fun and entertainment purposes, as well as to help fix issues in the city for the people who live there.

  15. In “The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for Visitors Class,” by Peter Eisinger, he highlights the fact that big tourist cities such as New York or Lose Angeles take the time and money to please visitors more than they do for the people who reside in these cities. In my opinion I don’t agree with that at all and believe that shouldn’t be the case. Both locals and visitors should be treated equally. The residents of the city assist and play a big role in accommodating the visitors because all the tax payers money goes towards things such as stadiums, parks, and all entertainment for the visitors to enjoy. The tourists spend their money at these locations and the government earns, meanwhile the tax payers (residents) lose. If the money that tourists spend in the city that they visit were used to improve living conditions instead of continuing to further expand entertainment for visitors, it would be fair for both. But then again, cities are only focused on earning money and when they do earn that money they don’t use it to accommodate the residents. So I agree with your statement, at the end of the day even though I would never believe so, but after reading this piece I can tell that building more entertainment amenities such as casinos, stadiums, parks would drive negative economic social growth instead of positive.

  16. In Eisinger’s article, the author speaks about the effects that tourism has on the city as a whole. He says that although in the past city officials were concerned with the wellbeing of the residents in the community, in recent years that focus shifted to promoting tourism. This shift was made in hopes of gaining money for the city from tourism but I think that the opposite actually occurs. With this large sum of resources focused on the people who visit for a few days, weeks, or months, there isn’t enough left for the people who live in the city for the rest of the year. In addition, the profit that is made through these tourists is usually given to private business in order to build the tourist empire even more instead of helping the city as a whole. I do see the benefit of having tourism in a major city but I believe that there are more important things that can be done with a fraction of the money. I found this article to be very insightful because it gave a new perspective to how the finances of a city are distributed.

  17. I agree with what you’re saying because rather than just being beneficial to the who actually live in New York City, it’s sad to say that the government really mostly cares about the entertainment of tourists and those visiting nyc when there are far more other problems than just the entertainment of people. There are several more problems with the homeless, with those who lose jobs, and even just the citizens in general who need much more help. If the government is always spending money on the tourists just so they could enjoy their time, who’s going to care for the rest of the citizens? There are many problems that should be fixed and yet there is not consideration given and that’s what really matters. Although the government may be earning money from all the visits, it wouldn’t be fair because that money isn’t going to be used on things that are actually needed. Money has consumed up the minds of the higher class so much that the lower class, and those who lack resources, are very much neglected and should therefore receive more attention when they are in fact those who actually live in New York City.

  18. It seems obvious that you don’t go spending money on luxuries when your city is in need of schools, parks for children, hospitals and even infrastructure. I think that the reason these city officials, private investigators and sometimes even politicians can get away with spending some of the public money given to them for stadiums and sources of entertainment for people is because there aren’t people voting or registered to vote in a certain county. There are some places in Jamaica and even Flushing where some of its homes or buildings and infrastructure look 3rd world-esq simply because there aren’t people voting or calling to their representatives to fix it up or spend money. You become nonexistent to those running for office.

    New York has the money for luxury expenses, but that depends on the cities or towns that actually make money off tourists or visitors from other places in the state. Not all of New York has the same money and power that Times Square has for attracting tourists.

    Spending money on a city for visitors can actually add some vitality to a city. For example, a stadium or a city team with millions of dollars spent on it adds character to the city that a hospital and a few schools don’t have the ability to do. Restaurants, bars and other business places around these attractions are set up to make money, that is maybe until it the season is over. It places the city on the map. I think that is what some of these investors hope to do. The people also enjoy it or eat the idea up.

  19. I agree that Eisinger neglected the part of the argument that discusses where the tax money being used to improve our local organizations. A huge portion of our tax dollars are spent on projects around the city; these projects surely attract visitors and tourists from outside our city and allow revenue to generate within our city. However, the people paying these tax dollars have no say in where the money is being distributed and, in many cases, aren’t receiving any direct benefits from it. For example, over the past few years many of our tax dollars have been devoted to constructing stadiums and sports arenas around the city. Sure this will attract fans and travelers but how about those residents who choose not to attend sporting events? They are required to pay these taxes and help build these places that they won’t get any benefit from. I also believe the taxes that we receive from the out of town visitors should be strictly collected for projects that will improve the lives of the residents and our own local economy and focused less on attracting tourists, such as infrastructure, schools, etc.

  20. Goldsmith in his article gives a good example of a bad economical structure in USA. Its a really interesting article to read, because it shows a reality of our lives. That nobody cares about poor people. The government builds city’s as an entertainment venue, but not for the residents. Globalization of American economic leads to changes in industrial structure of the cities. International migration and the changes in the labor influenced economic situation. Minority people are pushed away from their jobs or giving a low income jobs. Some patterns of socio-economic arrangement creates  poverty and prevent its elimination.
    The government cares only about tourists and how they going to spend money on intertwinement in the large cities. Nobody cares about those people who left without homes. For example Williamsburg was an average place to live a few years ago, but what about now? Those poor people who lived there before can not afford to live there now, because its too expensive. I read a news recently that they will build a luxury apartments and parks around the Williamsburg bridge, but again who can afford those apartment?? That’s so crazy. I think it’s better to build several projects and give the apartment to those people who really need it, instead of giving more comfort for right people. But again, the money always comes first for the Goverment in the fight for people’s lives.

  21. Im in complete agreement with Andrea when she says “Money is on everyone’s mind. We want to know how to make money and how to spend money and if we are already making money, we want to know how to make more.” its 100% true people have this obsession with always wanting more. I also agree with the city needing to balance their spending money so they aren’t just catering to the tourists but also the people that live there.

  22. I agree with Heather’s opinion on the effects that tourism has on the city as a whole. Spending the public’s money to fund tourist attractions is unfair to the residents who actually live in the city. We are attracting people for temporary usage and not giving back to those who live in the city full time. The city consists of high housing rates and very expensive transportation which are driving people out in search for cheaper living conditions. In my opinion, it is not fair for residents living and paying taxes in the city when a majority of the money is not being used to benefit living conditions. Eisinger states “It’s not about spending the public money, it’s about how to balance it.” I believe balance is a major key to successfully improving our city living conditions and our economy.

  23. I agree with Eisigner’s point in that we shouldn’t be spending money on luxuries when there is still so much to be done in helping people who are struggling. In particular I agree with a point that a bunch of people have already made here in that we shouldn’t be building new stadiums when there’s people starving. I feel like we shouldn’t be making buildings as tall as the sky and more expensive than you can imagine when there’s people who don’t even have a roof under their head. Although I guess if it’s your money you should be able to do what you want with it. It’s not like it’s the government who are building the stadiums here in New York. It’s great to have the freedom to do whatever you want with your money but it seems like it’s just not fair how much better some people have it than others

  24. I disagree because there are cities like Detroit, where people from other countries and even other states go to visit. But they’re only interested in seeing the Detroit that they see in movies and rap videos. Therefore if tourists aren’t concerning themselves with what is outside of that charade of a city made for tourists, than why should city officials worry if they’re still getting paid? Yes, the people that live there could protest for better public funding but most of the time the big investors beat them out in court. Tourists can add wealth to the city., yes, but that wealth is only going to the big business owners, not to regular people.

  25. I totally agree with you, It really is disconcerting. This public money should not be spending to increase any of entertainment facilities anymore. Also I love how you point out the affordable housing and expensive transportation costs causes a huge problem for the people who live in the city. These “Entertainment ” is not just benefiting the tourist but, also causing a problem for the resident now.

  26. Eisigner’s argument in this piece is that, a long time ago, around 100 years ago, we used to spend money on things that made sense to our cities. Today we are increasingly spending money on things that are important to the people that aren’t living in the city but rather are hopefully visiting for an attraction. Instead of spending money on depicting the culture of a city and building its infrastructure up, we are building attractions for visitors. We no longer are doing things to keep up what a city stands for culturally, but rather working to attract those from places elsewhere. Eisigner is saying in the most basic of ways to put it, instead of caring about what mattered to the inhabitance of a city, the people in charge now only care about what people from outside the city can do for them financially, regardless of how those who actually live in the city feel.

  27. I agree with what Adam is saying. I believe how people are visiting the city as an attraction and how we aren’t doing things to benefit the people with their living. Before making an attraction for tourists, they should do something first to help the people to live better or build things that would be helpful like lowering the transportation fee. A lot of people take the transportation to go to places but if they keep on raising it, it would be harder for the people to pay for the transportation fee. People need the buses and trains to go to places they can’t do by walking distance and it would make the people’s lives harder than they are living now especially when they need the money to buy clothes, foods to feed their family, etc.

  28. Good addition! I agree he doesn’t discuss how much tax payers lose – not just because they’re losing our tax money, but because of the tax breaks they’re getting so any profits aren’t going back into public coffers – as much as he could – i also think that conclusive evidence of just how much tax payers and cities are losing because of the combination of these two things was new when Eisinger was writing so maybe that’s when he overlooked it. Now it is more widely known that stadiums are bad for urban economies, but when they’re being promoted – even Barclays – we were told that this would be good for the city and for the city’s economy. The argument you’re highlighting is often suppressed.

  29. Zhaoxin, great question you pose about why city populations were decreasing in the 70’s – this is an important point that we will address in class tomorrow! (Wed 9/21/16)

Comments are closed.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar