I don't live in the city but I don't have a problem with local governments funding in whole or part a stadium. I get that the studies say they are losing investments in most cases financially, and maybe they are. But I don't think that numbers alone tell the story. I view it as a quality of life issue. A new, attractive, inviting stadium with proper development around it absolutely can foster economic growth in ways that aren't going to show up directly in a bottom line study.
Look at Pittsburgh, look at DC where Nats Park was built, look at Detroit. Those are just a few examples. I've been to each before and after and the differences are night and day.
Granted those are major league cities but I think it works at our level on a proportionate scale, or can. As a county resident, would I like to have the Squirrels closer to where I live? Maybe. But I think you lose something when a stadium is built in the suburbs surrounded by parking lots. Put it downtown around business and buildings and character. Make it a destination.
I miss the Renegades. That was a quality of life thing. The year we didn't have baseball, that sucked. How many families in the last decade have made great memories at a Squirrels game? I think that counts for a lot, and personally I don't object to directing some of my taxes toward a new stadium, whether it's part of a regional deal or whatever. I agree that it would be even better if the team paid for all of it, but most minor league teams can't afford that, and there are always other cities happy to contribute. I'd rather do what's necessary, within reason, too keep our team here.
Every other city in America can figure out how to get a new stadium built. It just seems pathetic that we can't.
