• @elboyoloco
    link
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So… I’ll start off by saying I’d still rather not have the stadium… But there is an argument to be made that it helps the economy. The influx of people in the area when games are held can help local businesses and whatnot.

    That being said… The influx of people without a mass transit system is messy. The roads suffer, traffic gets worse… So really you need the transit system first.

    I have no idea how much a stadium helps the local economy, but I know there is effects. Maybe someone more educated in that area could help us understand why cities do this - whether or not we think it’s right or wrong?

    • @jumperalex
      link
      41 year ago

      Most research has shown that to be false because usually the deal made is horribly lopsided and based on dubious projections.

    • @RGB3x3
      link
      21 year ago

      Stadiums are decent for the local economy.

      But public transit is so much better. Stadiums are only good for the area surrounding the stadium and even then, so much of a stadium’s footprint is empty parking lot. It’s a huge waste of land, contributes to poor drainage and worse heat and is an ongoing expense.

      Transit takes cars off the road, making driving better for everyone, it can be profitable for the city, it allows for businesses to flourish with more customers nearby (because they’re not forced to rely on being somewhere with parking)… A public transit system is a much better use of tax money than another stadium.