[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I do understand the ciritism's of cities funding arenas/stadiums, and not really arguing against it, but once it's built and established in the community, do people really bitch about it anymore?

How do Edmontonians feels bout the Rodgers Centre several years after construction? Are a fair amount upset about paying so much for it in the end? Any other North Amercian cities that have had recent venues completed with lots of public funding backlash? How about Montreal's Olympic Stadium? The best example of a project that's a financial white elephant. Are citizen's in that city more prideful of the venue, or have more remorse over the cost?

Like any civil project, I feel that during the funding, construction, and initial post construction phase, the costs can be a big controversy if the price tag sticks out. But the following year after it's not thought of at all anymore, and the project itself is a fabric of the community and viewed as a positive asset. One recent example of this I feel is the peace bridge where lots of people balked at the price, but it's a internationally recognized featured in our city.

I'm not saying that this should excuse cities pay much more for projects than they should be when the argument of who's benefiting more could be skewed more to the third party, but if it comes down to having no arena, continue skipping of major concerts/events, and thus no team at all, versus a new arena that brings it more events, and renewed commitment of professional sport team staying, then the cost in the long run really won't be a concern at all.

I mean, how many of us knows how much the Saddledome cost? And was it worth it?

I agree with your premise, but referencing the Olympic Stadium is not a good call. Everyone in Montreal and QC hate this building, since it (a) has no function, and (b) is still a money pit.