I know I am in the minority on this, but I for one feel that the use of taxpayers dollars to build a stadium is a good beneficial use of public funds by a city/county or state. However, certain conditions would have to be in place for such a deal to make sense. Such as:
City owns the stadium and leases it to the primary tenant (BBall or Fball team).
City owns the rights for all other events (concerts, secondary teams etc.) and all profits generated from said events.
Construction costs to be controlled so as to be profitable within an agreed to time period of 10-15 years).
Revenue generated by the primary tenant to be shared in an agreeable method.
No Tax increases be imposed to pay for the costs of construction. (construction of stadium to be financed w/ stadium revenues)
But why should government even be in the business of building facilities primarily used for private business? I say, let business take care of that.
The Pacific Bell Park arrangement worked out great; why not more of the same in other cities? Give the taxpayer a break for a change!
...
No Tax increases be imposed to pay for the costs of construction. (construction of stadium to be financed w/ stadium revenues)
Well you were doing fine till that last point. You have essentially removed any reason for government involvement and therefore you are NOT in the minority, but with the Majority of the posters here.
The places where government gets involved is PRECISELY in the funding, usually with a special tax, (such as a limited term sales tax or bond issue).
In responsibly governed cities, this is paid back by the park over time. If not, its a gift to MLB.
The other condition shat Should be imposed (As Seattle Imposed on the Mariners for Safeco Park) is that the team is responsible for the Complete Cost of upkeep, improvements, security, and ALL operational expenses.
This can be done responsibly, and HAS been done responsibly, and in such cases its a win win situation even if the team is Lose Lose like the Mariners.