Actually the fact that a private entity is the primary beneficiary of a publicly subsidized stadium is the deciding factor. Museums, libraries, etc are public goods, in that they aren't privately viable but still considered to be in the public interest. Or where museums and libraries may be privately viable we make the decision to open them up and make them non-exclusive for anyone to use because that's an optimal public outcome. That means there's a case for the public to support it.
No one answered my question though. What about the taxpayers that aren't hockey fans that would be virtue of public subsidy be paying for the private gain of a business that they have no interest in supporting or using? Is it fair to burden that taxpayer with the costs?
|