Costs to Cities of New Sports Arenas

Re “Who Wins in Stadium Shootout?” July 13: Perhaps we should have Newt Gingrich look into cutting the budget for the “National Endowment for the Sports.” If government funding for the arts is considered to serve only a minority, I’d suggest that we’re still getting a better return for less money--and the role models provided by sports figures are no better. Why is our government in the business of funding violence and drug abuse through “professional” sports, and promoting questionable morals like fostering competition rather than cooperation?

These are not starving artists that our tax dollars are sup- porting--we’re paying companies that already make substantial profits. Why do they need government subsidies? (Perhaps it has something to do with politicians getting box seats and tickets to sporting events?)

DOUGLAS HELLER

Santa Monica

*

I was thrilled to see the quote from Houston Mayor Bob Lanier, “The average working person is asked to put a tax on their home or pay sales or some other consumer tax to build luxury boxes in which they cannot afford to sit.” I also noted that almost all quotes in favor of continuing subsidization came from sources with a financial stake in construction, the NFL, owners, architects, etc.

I trust that future editorials and articles will utilize the facts provided in this article and not continue the same tired hype for newer, more expensive facilities. So many aspects of this subject--alternative uses of funds, public funding of access, corporate entertainment tax write-offs, allocation of revenues, support by politicians who receive free tickets to all performances--cry out for detailed exposition. More, please, more.

TONY BARNARD

San Pedro

*

Bill Boyarsky (The Spin, July 14) deserves plaudits in questioning the secrecy between our local politicians and the power brokers who are fashioning a new sports arena for L.A. and its taxpayers.

Didn’t this country and its citizens break away from tyranny, based on the principle of no taxation without representation? Why should our representatives be legally permitted to “give away the store” to private entrepreneurs behind closed doors? Boyarsky continues in his attempts to obtain records of these clandestine meetings, but is illegally rebuffed by our elected officials.

As a taxpaying citizen I demand that we taxpayers be allowed to approve or disapprove all details of such an expenditure by vote.

E.G. LINDSAY

Los Angeles