Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude  . The difference is that this private INVESTMENT happens to have a sizable social benefit that the public does not have to pay for out of tax dollars. |
The City/province may have to pay for a stadium with tax dollars, but then that stadium would also earn revenue through rentals, consessions, and leases of its own. Maybe the City has such plans for their own 20,000-30,000 seat stadium down the road and do not want to give up their piece of the pie.
Maybe the City would rather see that space downtown turn into more condos so that they can earn revenues through property taxes, building permits etc. as well as move more people into the downtown core.
Maybe the City does not like the costs of policing 30,000 people moving into the downtown core.
Maybe a privately owned stadium would mean one less tenant in BC Place when the Lions ask Kerfoot if they can play their games there.
Maybe a new stadium built with tax dollars would mean that BC Place would no longer be needed after the Olympics and that prime real estate could be sold for huge profits.
Just because the City/province does not have to pay for this stadium with tax dollars does not mean that they would not lose out in other ways by allowing the private sector to control such a finanically viable entity.
Kerfoot is a very generous individual, but he is no idiot when it comes to investments. Maybe after GM Place was built with private money and the Pacific Colloseum sat vacant for years, the City recognized that they would be losing out (again) if they gave up their investment in the sport entertainment sector.
The sheep in society just hear "free stadium!" and they do not think about all the
negative financial spinoffs this could lead to for the City.