Agree but for different reasons:
"If the stadium was such a good thing for the entire community, then a sales tax increase should have been proposed instead of a property tax increase which raises the BS flag."
The city could issue special obligation bonds which would designate sales taxes be used but I doubt they would do that.
They could also work with the County to get an Article 39 tax passed. This sales tax would be piggy backed on state sale taxes but would revert back to the county assessing this tax. The current county commissioners are not too keen on the stadium and the 6 candidates running for the 3 spots have all come out AGAINST a taxpayer funded stadium.
You also have to keep in mind what the school committee has said about new schools. They are already talking a school building bond of hundreds of millions of dollars to alleviate over crowding. This would definitely put the stadium on the back burner, as it should as schools are infrastructure.
As for the deal? It is poorly negotiated with the city bearing the brunt of the costs. Mandalay pays 18% the city 82% over the 20 year term. It is by far one of the worst stadium deals recently done if you go by what NSS has to say about it in chap 10.
By the way, for anyone who cares - the NSS report is tragically flawed in this regard. They deliberately ignore financing costs when showing comparable ballparks. Think about it his way
Mandalay is paying $10M of a $37M stadium build.
Not bad eh? Now think about it with interest:
Mandalay is paying $10M of a $54M stadium build
See the difference? Now you know why the pro side frames their arguments the way they do.
Fund it privately is the only fair way to go
More information about formatting options