One of the few good things our local governments did in So. California was to tell two football teams to take a hike after they issued "build us a new stadium or else we're moving..." ultimatums.
And that really settled the issue once and for all, didn't it? Someday LA will get an NFL team back at about three times the cost of keeping the ones it had. Meanwhle, they will have gone over a decade without a team. Brilliant.
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)