[Michael.SF.]

But why should government even be in the business of building facilities primarily used for private business?

To make a city a more desirable place to live, to generate tax revenues, to capitalize on advertising dollars, to help secure employment for city residents, to help draw visitors to the city, to have facilities which allow them to draw bigger acclaim (the Olympics), to provide a site to smaller groups that could not otherwise play at such a facility (small colleges, High school champioships etc.), to attract businesses (restaurants, hotels) to an otherwise less then desirable neighborhood.

[B Knotts]

You could make the same argument about building a large office building.

[konaice]

To make a city a more desirable place to live, to generate tax revenues, to capitalize on advertising dollars,

Well said.

Too often people on FR always assume this has to be a gift to MLB, when in fact if done right (Exa,ple Seattle Mariners SafeCo Park) the gov always gets back its investment and a lot more.

I know nothing about the proposed DC deal. But if the team would have paid back the government (over time), then what's the problem? The Government is essentially putting up seed money for a long term revenue generator.

OTOH, if it was truely a GIFT to MLB, then I don't thing its a good idea.

I still think RFK would be the best move for the first few years - its currently a hole into which DC throws Money. It could EARN the city money while the team builds a following to justify a new park.

You forgot to mention OTHER things that Government Builds for Private Enterprise: Highways, AIRPORTS Atir Traffic Controls Systems, Harbors.