[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.

[orangelobster]

"OTHER things that Government Builds for Private Enterprise: Highways, AIRPORTS Atir Traffic Controls Systems, Harbors"

O.K., we'll build a road to the new stadium, but it should be paid for with private funds. The game of team owners playing one city off another to see who will give them the most charity has to stop. The teams generate enormous amounts of money. There is no reason the public should have to foot the bill.

[Michael.SF.]

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

Thanks for your supporting comments.

Actually, I did not 'forget' those items. I purposefully did not mention them so as to not distract from the discussion at hand (call it an editorial decision). The list is much longer also then you have given. The one that I have mentioned, in other discussions, that creates the largest "you have got to be kidding" factor, is "Airports".

The arguements for and against (airports/stadiums) are actually very similar.

[Alberta's Child]

From everything I've read about this subject, I believe it has been fairly well-established that sports venues like this almost never pay off in the long run. The basic problem with them is that their economic impact is usually negligible -- they attract entertainment dollars that would otherwise be spent on something else.

This is particularly true of a football stadium, which is rarely used more than two dozen times in a calendar year (and only if it attracts outdoor concerts by giants in the music industry like U-2, the Rolling Stones, etc.). The exception to this rule would be a state-of-the-art venue that is frequently used to host events that attract a lot of visitors from outside the immediate area (college bowl games, NCAA Final Four, etc.).

[GaryMontana]

I lived in Seattle during the building of Safeco field. Why should I as a private citizen have to pay for a sporting team? All sports teams are corporation -- just like a televsion network, a grocery store, or any other corporation. It is NOT the responsibility of a citizen to pay for a PRIVATE Corporation's headquarters! As a citizen of SEATTLE I had to pay for that waste of space called Safeco (the bonds for the previous home of the Mariners -- a dome have still not been paid OFF). I was taxed for something I recieved NO BENEFIT FOR!

I say SCREW the baseball owners. SCrew the sports owners! Screw the PLAYERS IF they want to put out a product -- it is my right to choose to purchase it or not. I SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT!

IF the busineses around the stadium will benefit than and they want a team then LET THEM help pay for the team not the average joe!

ALL SPORTS TEAMS ARE -- Are businses NOTHING MORE!