Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
From a quick search, that stadium was indeed entirely privately funded....but the state kicked in $70 million dollars in infrastructure for new roads to the stadium. So again, special treatment.
If we have to pick one, the city/province putting money towards infrastructure is probably the most palatable way of contributing, as we get to benefit from it outside of the arena. If a new arena is a catalyst for an improved bikepath/waterfront or Bow/Crowchild improvements (West Village location) or better C-train station (Stampede location), than that wouldn't be so bad.
The only way as a taxpayer I would be okay with paying for an arena on it's own, is if I get a discount on tickets that equals (or actually betters) my contribution.
|
I think that's the fairest way to approach it. Team/owners fund the actual stadium/arena and the city/province/feds upgrade the infrastructure surrounding it. Tax breaks for ownership while the city receives a hub for redevelopment (see SF Giants' ballpark and surrounding area pre and post build).
Also, Foxboro might be a different animal just because it's not an urban stadium... it not even suburban really (like the Braves soon-to-be-built stadium).