- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29,794
- Reaction score
- 20,459
Apparently folks here are well up on the politics and economics of stadium building in Houston. Yes, we COULD limit team ownership to those billionaires who are willing to use their own money to build and upgrade stadiums. The NFL is NOT going to do that. The NFL leaves open the option of having cities support their teams financially withe tax breaks and direct funding. There are many models.
I think it is easy for those in NE to say that other cities shouldn't contribute to stadiums. After all, we have a billionaire who uses his own money, and we have the most successful franchise in the NFL. Perhaps if one of these ingredients were missing then those in NE might also be willing to support a stadium.
=============
But maybe not. After all, folks in Boston were willing to allow the team to move to Hartford or St Louis. We have Kraft to thank. Perhaps other cities are not so willing to let their team leave.
Packer fans are probably the most rabidly loyal local fanbase in the NFL. And even they only passed a referendum to increase sales tax for Lambeau upgrades by a 53-47 margin. And that was 15 years ago, before the whole "stadium costs pay for themselves by stimulating the local economy" argument was thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
This isn't a politicized issue, other than where you're maybe trying to make it one. When it's left up to the voters, they've made their opinion clear: they do not want to hand their tax money to billionaires. I live in Los Angeles, and we've been without a team for ~20 years precisely because of an unwillingness to put tax money toward a stadium. I'm confident that Boston similarly has its priorities and general common sense in order. They were willing to let Kraft leave last time he threatened to, after all.