Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I am fully against taxpayers footing the bill for stadiums

But if it must be done the the teams need to sign a contract agreeing to fully support the state for a minimum of 50 years. No talks what so ever about a relocation or expanding outside of the state
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
Every city that lost a pro team had many chances to keep them.
San Diego
Seattle
St. Louis
Why do you think so
MarineBob · 56-60, M
@mysteryespresso I just expanded my business on my own no taxpayer dollars needed
SW-User
if it must be done

It literally never must be done, whether for an NFL team, a NASCAR museum, or that one time a city will ever host the Olympics.

There's no constitutional entitlement to taxpayer-funded entertainment or sports. The teams tend to be owned by billionaires, and the participants are already compensated far more than anyone doing actually useful, beneficial occupations like nurses and scientists.

Let the entertainment/sports sector completely fund itself, every time. This perversion of public-private partnerships is vile. So is some Americans having more rights than others based on the state they live in, when some states compete against each other in a race to the bottom with tax incentive schemes to lure sports teams, Google data centers, Amazon headquarters, Volvo factories, etc.

 
Post Comment