It's a rare Ferrari, but the difference is that we all get to drive it once in a while. Well, many of us get to drive it, and all of us get to enjoy the experience of having that garage, and the events that come with it, including having professional sports. Doesn't mean we should just pay for the garage on their behalf, but there are benefits for all of us, and the cost is a challenging one in smaller cities.
I think there's one more important distinction to be made as well. Owning a team is the Ferrari, the building is a separate asset that comes along with it. The building is an asset for the city, and the building serves the city far beyond also serving the primary tenant.
Regarding this whole 'do we need more debate time' issue, the only people I see clamouring for more discussion are the people that are vehemently opposed to any public funding. Current counsel, including Nenshi, were strongly opposed to putting up huge funds - they have represented the city from a position of strength from day 1. If they are comfortable with the deal, then that reflects very well on it. A zero NPV for the city sounds like a really good deal to me. At some point, you agree and get it done, or you drown in permanent discussion.
|