Originally Posted by Double Barrel
Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?
The point is that taxpayers should not be "partners" in entertainment complexes that only serve to enrich the owners and entertainers.
How much do we still owe on the Astrodome while we contemplate tearing it down...at taxpayers' expense?
Our public funds are better served in other areas. Schools, infrastructure, luring large businesses to our city to provide jobs and related support companies.
We can agree to disagree, but in end, if stadiums were such a great idea, private money would build them. But owners know they will not reap the same rewards as they could if they convince cities that their fate is directly related to professional sports.
Please tell me how the following is a good idea:
This is a great argument, and I'm all for it, and in the perfect world this would be the case. But Houston has already fought this fight once and lost it with the Oilers. The truth is, cities compete against each other for major sports franchises. I don't know if there is a positive economic impact of being a city with an NFL team (or other major sports for that matter). I imagine there is one, but I don't know what it is. At the very least, I would imagine that it increases a city's profile and its ability to attract other business. Is it worth hundreds of millions of $$$? The voting public says yes. I wish there was a study that told us what the reality is.