Maze Media
Maze Media
  • 4
  • 49 083
Cities bet your taxpayer dollars on new stadiums. Does it pay off?
Taxpayers have paid roughly $8 billion (adjusted for inflation) funding NFL stadiums since 2000. City officials and team owners often tout significant economic and developmental benefits of constructing stadiums in cities. Recently, the state of New York and Erie county agreed to use $850 million worth of funds from taxpayers to help construct a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills. But do the purported advantages outweigh the cost to taxpayers?
I want to hear what you think - should public funds for sports stadiums?
During COVID, stadiums across the world were used as mass vaccination sites. Even if you think taxpayers shouldn’t fund stadiums, would you like to see stadiums more frequently be used for public services?
Let me know in the comments!
Subscribe for more videos coming soon.
Created by Liam Mays
Original music by Kyle Grandillo
To contact or see more content by Liam Mays, visit liammays.com/
มุมมอง: 427

วีดีโอ

Why suburbanites are so against multi-family housing
มุมมอง 3.4K9 หลายเดือนก่อน
As cities grapple with a growing housing shortage, the prospect of rezoning is gaining momentum nationwide. Proposals would allow denser housing options, including multi-family developments, mixed-use spaces, duplexes, and apartment complexes. Yet, in the tranquil enclaves of predominantly single-family housing suburbs, a strong backlash is emerging. But are these concerns about rezoning ground...
Burying highways could change U.S. car culture
มุมมอง 40K9 หลายเดือนก่อน
Subscribe for more videos coming soon! Car culture is synonymous with the United States of America - largely due to the Interstate Highway System, originally devised to improve national defense and connect the country via automobile travel. But in practice the Interstate Highway System divided and destroyed communities, and causes a plethora of environmental and health issues to this day. Now, ...
How individualism is killing Americans
มุมมอง 5K3 ปีที่แล้ว
Subscribe for more videos coming soon! When COVID-19 started raging across the U.S., anti-maskers emerged, proclaiming that health safeguards violated their personal liberties. Meanwhile, residents of other countries either complied with restrictions or followed recommendations on their own - all for the good of their communities. So what fueled some of Americans' resistance? Some say it was th...

ความคิดเห็น

  • @bennythepenny5831
    @bennythepenny5831 17 นาทีที่ผ่านมา

    The Henry Hudson Parkway (my nearest highway) should be buried & have its old right of way replaced by a railroad/boulevard.

  • @railworksamerica
    @railworksamerica 25 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Infinite park glitch!! Build highways, people will complain about the highways, then cover them all with parks!

  • @Spiritof-nn1fh
    @Spiritof-nn1fh 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Yes let's be sheep

  • @najeefilms
    @najeefilms 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Money grab back in the 1950s. Federal government sold out the American people

  • @ft9kop
    @ft9kop 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    those "affordable" multi-family housing would be like $300k starting with a $500 HOA fee.

  • @kailahmann1823
    @kailahmann1823 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    "modeled after the German Autobahn"… but in Germany we do a few things different. Here the Autobahn always loops around the city. If you look at Hamburg, there's the A7 in the west and the A1 in the east, which then cross right north of the town Seevetal. A city might have grown beyond the Autobahn, but then there is like a zillion bridges. Within the city, you'll only find conventional roads with rarely even three lanes per direction - and even those are seen as problematic. But we also keep the access limited to only a few spots, because they are not meant for driving within the city, but for connecting cities. So you'd never see off-ramps beginning before the previous on-ramp has even begun or other super complicate connections.

  • @Billybob-el3cl
    @Billybob-el3cl 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Prairie village is falling behind the rest of Johnson county as far as multifamily. Johnson county has quite a bit of multi-family.

  • @ExploreWithMohamed
    @ExploreWithMohamed 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Fantastic viseo, can't believe not many people saw this video

  • @dannyornelas9914
    @dannyornelas9914 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Why fight for single family zoning when you’re on the edge of living in a nursing home which is essentially an MDU?

  • @hiitskate
    @hiitskate 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Whoa hadn’t heard about this before!

  • @maxmays3412
    @maxmays3412 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Yet another regressive tax!

  • @darthmaul216
    @darthmaul216 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    If I had a nickel for every time Washingtonians created an earthquake I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot but it’s weird that it happened twice

  • @emilywehberg4163
    @emilywehberg4163 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The question us non-football fans have been asking for years!!!

  • @emmakeyesla
    @emmakeyesla 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    🗣️ taylor swift mention

    • @emmakeyesla
      @emmakeyesla 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      but seriously- as someone who’s not a sports fan, i was totally shocked to learn that taxpayers pay for these stadiums at all. if the teams are receiving so much public money to build their complexes, i think it makes sense that the stadiums should be put to more public use and have access subsidized for residents. perhaps stadiums that receive public funds could reserve a number of free tickets for locals in a lottery system, offer discounts for county or city residents (like museums that receive tax $ do), or allow the stadium facilities to be used for sports recreation camps for local youth… or any other number of free public/city events! if taxpayers are giving material support to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, they should see material benefits too, not just civic pride

  • @Emanuel_carey
    @Emanuel_carey 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Meanwhile Indianapolis is building a stadium for a soccer team that isn’t even in the MLS. Transit be damned

  • @jamalgibson8139
    @jamalgibson8139 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I'm not a huge fan of this idea. Burying highways is extremely expensive, and the payoff is dubious at best. Yes, you can argue that property values increased, and that that overcomes the cost of the project itself, but if you look into it more, you'll see that the big dig only succeeded because it siphoned money from transit projects, which would have been far impactful for the city. Ultimately burying highways just furthers car dependency, but it makes us feel better about it, because the problem is not in the public eye. When you think about it, you're still dumping tons of cars into urban areas, and those cars still take up inordinate amounts of space for parking and roadways. Better to just tear it down and build transit, like most functional cities in the planet.

    • @maze_media
      @maze_media 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I tend to agree, which is why I mentioned tearing down highways as another option. I think there are some instances where capping is a good middle ground. It’s difficult to convince the public that tearing down highways completely and replacing with transit will better their lives because they simply haven’t experienced that. It’s impossible for most in the U.S. to fathom. I think it’s good to treat capping as a step in the right direction, but not the end goal. If it’s between capping and total inaction, I’d take this in a heartbeat. But I completely see your point too.

  • @Rossell-t9b
    @Rossell-t9b 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    INDIVIDUALISM IGNORES THE EVIDENT NEED FOR COLLECTIVE COOPERATION TO FLOURISH. INDIVIDUALISTS CANNOT BELIEVE THEIR LYING EYES WHEN THEY OPEN THEIR EUES EVERY MORNING.

  • @jamalgibson8139
    @jamalgibson8139 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This is why I'm in favor of overarching state/federal action on this issue. While I think the concerns are wrong, e.g. property values won't actually drop, it's hard to fault people for voting to protect their bottom line when they are misinformed. Ultimately, this issue lies with the fact that we basically turned housing into an asset/investment starting in the 30s, and that's basically why housing costs have increased so much over the years.

  • @ld4032
    @ld4032 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I hate ugly and boring suburbs

  • @MrAlen6e
    @MrAlen6e 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Nimbys have completely created outdated urbanism thats practically excludes younger people, single residents, pocs and ironically seniors who want to downsize. It's absolutely no wonder there's a housing crisis and supply issues

  • @jackalnerf6230
    @jackalnerf6230 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    While I also don’t like having the doctor be responsible for something so horrific on a personal and selfish level, I love the middle idea of having her grapple with the timelords doing that and what it means for her. That could have been one of the most emotionally wrenching and relevant stories ever told by the show.

  • @tomgeraci9886
    @tomgeraci9886 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The fact that anyone is against ADUs or duplexes is insane. ADUs are basically just turning a garage on a single family lot into an apartment, and the only way they’d be constructed is if a property owner allows/wants it, so it’s not like a developer is coming in and dumping a 10-story building into a suburban neighborhood. Same with duplexes, or mixed use development in downtown/commercial areas.

  • @howardcitizen2471
    @howardcitizen2471 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    And if the interstates had bypassed cities, the woke leftists would now be complaining about "vehicular segregation".

  • @teddybruscie
    @teddybruscie 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    We need to start calling suburbanites what they truly are. Welfare Queens.

  • @KCDashcammer
    @KCDashcammer 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Unfortunately Americans are spoiled by car-centric infrastructure. Removing/replacing any of it even with a great value proposition will face lots of opposition because you already built it and used it so naturally you want it to stay.

  • @officialgreendalehumanbeing
    @officialgreendalehumanbeing 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    i hate nimbys with a passion. they are single handedly responsible for most of the issues of my home state of california.

  • @ttopero
    @ttopero 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Please don’t use time as a proxy for distance. First, it assumes car travel as the default & only suitable method. Second, it doesn’t take into consideration the time of the day or week. Third, it is so generalized that it can’t account for the parking and travel the actual destination. A range in miles is best, and including whether transit is available would balloon you to a whole other quality level beyond most TH-camrs!

  • @ruckusbeblack
    @ruckusbeblack 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    “Road reparations” lmfao 😂✊🏿

  • @MYChemicalLyrics
    @MYChemicalLyrics 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Honestly, as someone who grew up in a pretty white, middle class, decent suburb, who knows I can't afford to buy in my home town, I found this to be rather tone deaf. The blatantly put their fingers in their ears. The reason why most old people don't want to allow housing changes is because in the US, people view their homes as an investment which may as well be their retirement account. My parents are not racist, but they have basically NO assets to their name besides their home (bought for $200k, now worth $600k+). But sure, let's blame the lack of financial support for seniors in this country on racism and bigotry...

    • @emmakeyesla
      @emmakeyesla 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      truly no shade, but did you watch the whole video? he addresses this concern explicitly at about the 5 minute mark- studies show that fears about property values depreciating when mixed-use developments are built are unfounded. the boston study for example showed that there were no negative effects on housing values, and in more than half of the areas that got mixed-use developments, housing values appreciated MORE than they did in areas without such developments (you can pause the video if you want to read the language of the study, though he summarizes it well). makes sense to me- neighborhoods where young people, families, artists, immigrants, etc can afford to live and where businesses exist in walking distance of homes tend to become really pleasant places to live -think restaurants, art + music scene, playgrounds for these new families, etc. this makes people want to move there even more, and that increases property values. given there is no actual evidence for those kinds of fears about property value depreciation, its hard not to see these fears as based in implicit bias or at least in ignorance of how housing markets actually work. no shame in learning! further, you mentioned you cant afford to buy a home in your town. relatable, lol. but wouldn’t buying a home would be easier if there was more available housing stock -say, if they built a couple blocks of new condos instead of you trying to compete for the very limited (hence very expensive, as you say worth 600k+) number of single family homes that exist now?

    • @geanettepartington691
      @geanettepartington691 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I for one do NOT believe that home value goes UP, when you let "everybody and their dog" move in. Sorry, I simply do NOT believe THAT.

    • @olamilekanakala7542
      @olamilekanakala7542 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@geanettepartington691 Some people also don't believe the earth isn't flat. I say to each their own. Hopefully our government uses more robust arguments to make decisions that what people choose to believe.

    • @jamalgibson8139
      @jamalgibson8139 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@geanettepartington691 How about this. Imagine you have a house on a quarter acre lot. Imagine that house is $400k. Now imagine a developer wants to come in and build 4 townhouses, which will sell at $200k each. How much is that quarter acre property now worth? $800k. So, when you allow higher density development to occur, the average *dwelling* price decreases, but the average *property value* increases. Put another way, imagine a developer wants to build a $20 million high rise on that quarter acre lot (this is just an example, I know a high rise takes a bit more area than a quarter acre). What would the property value of the surrounding area become, if it could command such high prices?

    • @jonathanstensberg
      @jonathanstensberg 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Lack of financial support for seniors??? Bro, nearly of the federal budget is a handout to seniors.

  • @mariusfacktor3597
    @mariusfacktor3597 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Single Family zoning is state-sanctioned class segregation. It's a racist and classist 20th century invention, and it needs to be abolished.

  • @janningc
    @janningc 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Now do one on HOAs, please! The research on HOA impacts on home values seem a little sparse, but maybe there's more available buried under all the CAI propaganda.

    • @maze_media
      @maze_media 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Love that idea! Adding it to my list

  • @idm0211
    @idm0211 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    high quality content right here

  • @Zach-mv3le
    @Zach-mv3le 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Progress is when the will of the locals is subverted to make your town worse ;)

    • @InADarkTavern
      @InADarkTavern 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      “Worse” meaning people of different class/“race” move in?

  • @BakersfieldBhakti
    @BakersfieldBhakti 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I'm a NIMBY because my neighbors are crazy people. Bass bumping until 2am so loud it makes my windows rattle. My wife is a nurse in a nursing shortage. She has average 50-70 lives she is responsible for daily. Not only does she have to do things like control people with dementia and check blood sugar levels but also she is the only human contact these people get. 60 people is 1 minute per hour per person to change diapers and bandages while still making these people feel human. If my neighbors keep us up all night because they are having a craft fair night market and people are literally parking in our driveway, leaving dirty diapers it kinda disrupts our sleep and ability to be effective caretakers. I'm sorry I care more for the elderly and disabled than you having fun and "getting your hustle on". I agree, HOAS and Karens suck. But you also have to accept that the polar opposite exists. People who don't give a FFF about anyone but themselves and their party lifestyle. I have the right to a good nights rest. This is my home, my residence. I have nowhere else to go. Take your business elsewhere. If people knew how to respect others and be considerate I wouldn't mind business in my neighborhood but my neighbors are a-holes who take advantage of it and are literally ruining my life.

    • @jamalgibson8139
      @jamalgibson8139 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You don't need an HOA to solve that issue though. The city should be enforcing noise ordinances. You shouldn't need another quasi-governmental agency to handle things like that.

    • @BakersfieldBhakti
      @BakersfieldBhakti 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@jamalgibson8139 I never at any point advocated for HOAs or any quasi-government establishment. The city *should* but when you live in an area with gang violence, noise violations aren't exactly a priority. No police/sheriff or zoning board support, no HOA, what other recourse am I left with? If I could afford a lawyer to get cease and desist orders against landlords I would. I have no options. If I have to chose between Karens and this I chose Karens.

    • @jamalgibson8139
      @jamalgibson8139 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@BakersfieldBhaktiYou said, "I agree, HOAs suck, but..." implying that HOAs might be useful. I was simply responding that what you're dealing with should be handled by the city, not an HOA. I agree it sucks, and I wish you didn't have to deal with it - I have assholes around me who make more noise than they should too - but trying to stop development isn't going to change the situation that you're in.

  • @FAKETV96
    @FAKETV96 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    very well made video!

  • @madduxgremaux951
    @madduxgremaux951 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Such a great video! Reminds me of something I would see from Vox. It's inspiring to see new creators make quality content like this cause it makes me feel like I can do it too. Keep it up! :)

  • @baileyconradt
    @baileyconradt 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Awesome video! Hope to see more from this channel :)

  • @us3rG
    @us3rG 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This is the only way but in the city

  • @lil_lyrix
    @lil_lyrix 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    NIMBYism is truly the worst. The roads in my town are horrible, and instead of people being happy that people want to move here they're instead blocking new development and keeping our towns tax base minimal, which prevents the town from being able to afford to fix them. It's unsustainable. There was supposed to be a new condo development near me that was blocked by residents because it would create "Traffic issues". Our town does not suffer from traffic issues and a couple new units wouldn't change that.

  • @adamv7176
    @adamv7176 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It's like an exculsive club with a $400,000 buy in

  • @bensonboys6609
    @bensonboys6609 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I wonder, at 3:20 when it’s talking about the negative health effects of living next to a highway (increased cancer risk, increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest),I wonder if that study is just correlation, did they control for income? A lot of negative health effects correlate with low income, and houses next to major highways would have lower property values.

  • @emmakeyesla
    @emmakeyesla 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    odds are those same people have an “in my america...” sign in their front yard…

  • @airpodsmurf6175
    @airpodsmurf6175 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I love how boomers would rather see homeless people with dilapidated tents and garbage outside than high rise apartments.

    • @sarahrose9944
      @sarahrose9944 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      * than 3-5 story apartments

    • @maze_media
      @maze_media 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Especially considering most of the complexes wouldn’t be much larger than some of the mansions being built.

    • @TLM860
      @TLM860 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      But those apartments would destroy the local character 😂

  • @blaness13
    @blaness13 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The only thing thats going to change car dependent car culture is reliable USEABLE SAFE, public transportation, Nobody that has the choice is going give up driving to spend twice as much time on a shotty system that doesn't run all the time or has limited schedules on weekends/late night etc., just so they can sit on a bus or something next to someone that hasn't taken a shower in weeks or is doing drugs on the bus, not to mention the possibility of getting attacked or mugged between your destinations and the actual bus/transit stops, or on the transit vehicle it self, covering up highways isn't changing shit, the US/north America has to take public transport seriously, and stop letting criminals and addicts make the rules.

  • @TheLiamster
    @TheLiamster 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Exclusionary zoning, parking minimums, set back rules, height restrictions, lot sizes and FAR ratios should be abolished. Let developers build what the market demands rather than pander to selfish NIMBYs who are against progress

  • @hiitskate
    @hiitskate 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Another great video

  • @DemonSkySnow
    @DemonSkySnow 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Lol another proof the US isn’t the greatest country😂

  • @haze6277
    @haze6277 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    YWNBAW

  • @aussiereuben1
    @aussiereuben1 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Increased property values and more attractive neighbourhoods? That also sounds like gentrification, driving up rents and pushing out the marginalised in favour of those who can afford it. This would also favour the specialist corporate office types who can live close to their employment and push the marginalised out to the outer suburbs where they are forced to commute by car because of the greater distances involved and reduce their ability to afford access to what they need. It seems those driving the agenda are themselves the ‘gentry’ (well-paid academics) seeking to ‘gentrify’ the great unwashed masses out of their boho brownstones.

    • @jamalgibson8139
      @jamalgibson8139 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      While you are correct that focusing on property values really devalues the issue at hand, I disagree with your premise that low income people should only live in shitty conditions. By this logic, building highways through thriving neighborhoods is a *good* thing because it creates more affordable housing! I'm sure that's not the point you're making, but I don't see another way to read it.

    • @aussiereuben1
      @aussiereuben1 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @jamalgibson8139 Let's parse this in reverse and start with "gentrification", without any value judgment on the word from me for a moment. It is the objection to improving community facilities and accommodation because this attracts people willing to pay more to occupy those communities. This in turn creates upward financial pressure that makes those communities unaffordable for those residents who pre-date the improvements. Thus those older communities are torn apart and pushed to other more distant and just as "shitty" places to live. The only way to address this is to interfere with the freedom of tenants and landlords (including government landlords such as community housing) to choose what works best for them. If private landlords are compelled to go below market rates they are incentivised to exit, neglect, or abandon. If government-owned/funded landlords are compelled to go below market rates they must find the money somewhere else, thus adding non-productive costs that are toxic to employment rates and the well-being of the wider community. No effort to combat "gentrification" is ever 100% and thus, over time, is always doomed to fail. This intervention is abhorrent as coercion is inescapably a feature of such a system at some point and that coercion is a rot that will eventually cause the entire system to fail. Further, no government, despite the rhetoric and initial good intentions is ever motivated to keep a population that pays less tax, generates less economic activity, and costs more to keep happy and healthy when governments merely failing to intervene or pretending to intervene, just letting gentrification take its natural course, are more likely to win their elected positions, earn more money, and find the locals being replaced with a 'better class of people'. Yet the entire premise of "Burying Highways" is to start the gentrification spiral, promising that the original communities will be better off and those city governments will solemnly commit to preserving the celebrated communities that existed before making them attractive to a 'better class of people'. This can only be a positive and attractive thing for those who seek to occupy those neighbourhoods and displace the original communities to some outer ring of "shitty" suburbs without the amenities now seized by the occupying gentry. Despite the harm done by the highways the cure will always kill the patient (the communities that are supposed to be preserved) and each community must be fully informed to make the decision that suits them, not me, not any government, nor you, but 'they'. The "Burying Highways" agenda can only fail to serve the people it claims to serve and be a celebrated cause among those who profit. Dig deep enough and you will find either the deceived or the greedy.

    • @jamalgibson8139
      @jamalgibson8139 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@aussiereuben1 Thanks for the lengthy response. It's an interesting way to view the topic, but I think it's a bit limited in focus. Let me start by saying that I agree with you on the issue of burying highways. I think that the money spent on burying highways and building fancy parks is generally a waste, because it still induces cars to drive through these areas, but it makes us feel better because they aren't visible. I think restoring the area to it's original configuration is best, with more housing built to stitch the neighborhood together. It's an example of what Jane Jacobs calls cataclysmic money, and I agree that it ultimately fails the community that it's supposed to help. Where I disagree, though, is in the premise that neighborhoods aren't allowed to change over time for the better. I think that the reason many oppose gentrification today is because too much change happens too fast, and this is again because of cataclysmic money. Because these areas have been denied resources for so long, both due to government policy and market trends, investors come in seeing an area ripe for exploitation, and exploit they do. This exploitation is encouraged by governments as you rightly point out: no government wants to lord over poor people, they want to lord over the wealthy. This leaves the existing community with little to no say in the development that happens, and with little benefit to the changes in their neighborhood. But it doesn't have to be this way. We can encourage broad changes across entire cities if we just stopped holding development back with onerous zoning codes and planning requirements. If neighborhoods had the ability to adapt to change incrementally, we wouldn't have these massive, seemingly random investments coming and uprooting neighborhoods. Moving to a more traditional development pattern, and doing our focus on the movement of cars will allow us to build better cities for everyone, not the just rich.

  • @nico51189
    @nico51189 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Born and raised in Dallas. Thank you for highlighting Klyde Warren Park. It’s like our own Central Park!