[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.).

[konaice]

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.

Ah, the old Zero Sum argument. (Long discredited I might add)

Many projects DO pay for themselves, Petco / Safeco / PacBell, etc. (I can't say much about Football stadiums, many of those are dual use in order to generate enough revenue.

There are examples (Safco) where this has worked very well, and others where it has failed miserably. The devil is in the details.

[Wolfie]

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.

Just ask Pittsburgh. Two new taxpayer funded stadiums, and the city now hovers on the brink of bankruptcy.