What a bizarre statement you make.
Is the pro side now lowered itself to throw immature, irrelevant statements out there to disparage anyone who is against the stadium?
Is this what you're reduced to?
Most folks on the No side fall into the categories of not wanting the city to get so heavily involved in private enterprise. This is a legitimate argument but goes more toward political philosophy.
There are some folks that just don't like baseball, wouldn't go to a game and don't want to pay for it. Even your side admits they anticipated some of that.
Myself? I fall into its not worth it group. There is no economic benefit from 95% of all stadiums in MiLB. I have completely refuted the findings of NSS with studies facts and figures.
But that does NOT mean I'm against progress or growth - its just that stadiums don't provide it. to assert that WE are against progress or growth is boorish and childish. In fact if you look CLOSELY you'll see how almost all my posts indicate that I support baseball if privately built. Why? Well if there's no debt to repay the city benefits almost immediately.
So why are YOU against growth? Why are you against a bigger degree of progress? A more immediate measure of progress?
Your argument smacks of Kueblerisms. That jerk tried to say that the city is so badly run and maintained that we need ANYTHING to provide growth - even if it costs us $54M.
How insulting to this city. Yes we do have issues that need addressing that includes infrastructure improvements - but to claim that being anti ballpark equates to anti progress is immature and illogical.
A privately owned stadium pays property taxes - a PLUS for the city.
Without debt the first tax dollar realized is a net gain - a PLUS for the city.
Why you guys are so down on Wilmington is beyond me. But your feigned disbelief is becoming tiresome to deal with.
You are an irresponsible lot; that does NOT have the city's best interest at heart.
More information about formatting options