Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport
bah, Just a tangible example of how billionaire owners willingly ransom their teams to extract more money from taxpayers for luxurious new stadia (with seat options out of the price range of most citizens). Among the poorest possible use of public monies. Especially since studies show the dubious value of professional sports teams to cities' economies. Where the hell is the moral outrage? Ah, just like in ancient Rome: distract the plebes with gladiator shows.
|
I can handle publicly-funded stadiums on the basis that it forms part of the overall cultural infrastructure. A new arena or stadium every 50 or 60 years doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Where it starts to get weird for me is when governments get involved in replacing relatively new facilities that aren't in any way deficient or non-functional. It blows me away that there is serious discussion about replacing the Georgia Dome at public expense. The place is barely 20 years old, it's gigantic, it has every creature comfort... but it's still not good enough anymore and time to replace it with a billion dollar palace.
As of January 2013, there was still $99.975 million of debt outstanding on the Georgia Dome, which cost $214 million to build. A new venue is expected to cost $1.2 billion. The purported reason for the new venue (so far as I can tell) is because the NFL now requires a retractable roof on its stadiums, and apparently won't grant Atlanta the Super Bowl without such a facility. (How did NYC get the Super Bowl?!?) That seems like an absolutely crazy justification for an expenditure pushing $1.5 billion.