Quote:
Originally Posted by Madman
There are plenty of other ways to get Government support without actually putting a dime into the physical structure.
As previous posters have pointed out, land costs, road and transit access and soil reclamation are just a few of the very large costs that multiple levels of governments will likely be helping out with.
|
And these are the kind of subsidies I support. A land swap or transfer is easy, it may be a loss of potential revenue, but the city wouldn't lose the land at the end of it anyway.
Even if it is a private facility, it will still be the main entertainment hub for the city and where the traffic will go, so whether it is an area that needed the improvement anyway or will need improvement because of the project, it is still the city's sphere of influence to do so, provided it is somewhere that is a benefit to the city.
Soil reclamation is a big ask for a business that had no involvement in the contamination itself. This is what makes the land so undesirable to develop and therefore loses potential revenue for the city on that alone. If public money is what it takes for a project that would fix the problem that has turned an otherwise prime area for development into a blight, then it is definitely worth public investment to drive that.
Property tax breaks to drive development in a certain area is also good, especially if it is to be a catalyst for other development (sacrifice the tax revenue from one building if it will help increase overall tax revenue by 'producing' other buildings).
IMO, these are acceptable forms of public subsidy. They help facilitate construction without actually paying for construction; the key difference being that it is either a loss of potential money (which isn't real) or is something needed for any sort of development, not just an arena, which means it needs to be done anyway.