You are, obviously a troll.
That said please consider this.
It is not the function of government to invest in itself but to encourage investment. Sure you could say that infrastructure improvements are investing in one's self but you know, as do I, that the stadium is NOT infrastructure related.
It is up to private developers to do this sort of thing.
For instance, Chuck Schoninger buys that land parcel and proposes a hotel on the land. That's the type of development that SHOULD happen. The city could/should get involved in this to "incentivize" this process by perhaps offering a small break on property taxes - if Mr Schoninger is on the fence about it. Remember, the city COULD do this if the city deemed it appropriate.
As for the stadium - we were asked to spend $54M for a project that would provide 25 to 30 full time jobs - or approximately $422,000 per job created. For Verizon the city offered $875,000 in tax breaks or about $400 per job created (1200 jobs).
The city gets NO REVENUES from the stadium but collects taxes from Veizon (about $145,000 per year if memory serves me correctly). Not to mention that many Verizon employees have bought houses in the area that generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional revenues.
So the argument here is how do we BEST generate revenues for the city? There are guarantees from investments like Verizon - property taxes at a minimum. There are no guarantees from a stadium - just an estimate, using fuzzy math, that maybe, just maybe, the city could get some tax revenues from spending outside the stadium.
Sorry but I'd take a guarantee over an estimate any day especially when Verizon created thousands of jobs.
Let private developers develop - let the city encourage that development
More information about formatting options