Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Yes, if you look at the trade-offs the airport doesn't look so good. Somewhere like Shannon Park has decent access for transit and good highway connections. Bedford Commons has excellent highway connections and mediocre transit. The airport is awful for transit and has a single good highway connection. Wanderers is excellent for transit but poor for highways.
But if the promoter owns a huge tract of land there and builds a stadium, that may be what happens, even if some land somewhere else is better overall. This is part of why it can be good to have democratic input and public dollars.
|
These stadium proposals led by a private partner usually end up making the government worse off, no matter what it does.
Scenario 1: The government wants to build a stadium, and it wants the stadium to be built in a more accessible spot.
The government would then probably sell publicly-owned land below cost to the private developer. The media would spin this as a corporate giveaway. Alternately, the private developer might ask the government to be on the hook for more risk, which could also blow up in the government's face.
Scenario 2: A private developer bought cheap land in an inaccessible spot, and wants to build a stadium there because it will pencil out.
The government tries to spin this as "no cost to the taxpayers" but, inevitably, has to spend taxpayer money upgrading the infrastructure in a remote area to service this stadium. It might even convince the public that they're doing this to attract other development to this site in the future, but that promised development never comes.
Threaded Mode