Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bc2211 View Post
    then how this is a long term benefit to the community as opposed to those business owners?
    It's a quality of life improvement. Exactly the same way that a nice park or a nice bike trail is. No one views those are profit generating mechanisms or investments. But they're nice to have.

    The stadium should be viewed exactly the same way.

    But then some people get pissed off that there are a few men who get rich off it. That is not untrue, and I don't have many words to say to comfort such angry people. All I can say is that having the stadium is a good thing, like having a park is a good thing. Both cost money, but both also provide (intangible) benefit.



    I get what you are saying, but this is a non sequitur.

    Quote Originally Posted by bc2211 View Post
    if workers earned a temporary job or a few more shifts to accommodate the short term labor force and tourism, has that lifted them in any impactful way that was impossible without the super bowl?
    Of course no worker's life was changed by the (extra) work they got from the Super Bowl or FF. I highly doubt anyone would claim otherwise, certainly not me.

    But it's not nothing. It was something. That really is all that's being said here.

    It was part of the sales pitch, and it largest was accurately predicted. Good to know.


  2. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodburyTim View Post
    I think two things can be true in this debate. It can be a good thing that a state or municipality that pays for a stadium to keep or get a team because we simply want that addition to our entertainment options. It can also be true that it is not an economic victory.

    I think too often proponents of a stadium get caught up trying to justify it on economic terms and there isn't a lot of hard evidence to back that up. But like it or not our governments are involved in many services and projects that aren't suppose to make money.
    Exactly!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,539
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodburyTim View Post
    I think two things can be true in this debate. It can be a good thing that a state or municipality that pays for a stadium to keep or get a team because we simply want that addition to our entertainment options. It can also be true that it is not an economic victory.

    I think too often proponents of a stadium get caught up trying to justify it on economic terms and there isn't a lot of hard evidence to back that up. But like it or not our governments are involved in many services and projects that aren't suppose to make money.
    It doesn't have to be an economic "victory" but those who claim we just "wasted" $500 million on a stadium are simply wrong. We re-coup a good portion of that $500 million. We can debate how much and whether it's worth it. But the net economic impact is not $0. Also the Vikings paid for 50%, which is more than the average NFL team has paid in the last 20 years or so.

    I agree on the second point.

  4. #19

    Default

    I don't like that we helped pay for that stadium but I like that it has brought in events that have stimulated the local economy. That is good for everybody who lives here.
    Who hates iowa?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mean streets of Rochester
    Posts
    1,513

    Default

    At least with a stadium, I can see something tangible. I can touch it, feel it, hug it, attend games in it. How the heck do I know that if we don't build the stadium and use that money for education, that little Johnny out in Windom is benefitting?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •