Question

Should the general population pay the debt service for bonds issued to pay for a stadium or arena that is used primarily by a privately owned professional team? Make arguments for each side.

Answer 1

My argument is the general population should not pay debt service for bonds issued to pay for a stadium or arena that would be used primarily by a privately owned professional team. It is a waste of many due to the fact that it will "private." It would defeat the purpose to use hard earned tax paying money to build something that most people cannot even afford to use. Since the country is in a recession it would not makes since to continue building things that will not really be beneficial to everyone.

Of course there are some that have pros and cons concerning this idea. For instance, there is a group of citizens and business leaders that are forming this Privately Funded Baseball Alliance which are for paying debt services for bonds that are issued to pay for a stadium. "The Privately Funded Baseball Alliance is a collection of men that backs a private baseball stadium in Wilmington. However, under no conditions supports the usage of taxpayer dollars to build and/or function a new stadium," as said by a press release that had come from Scott Harry, who happens to be the owner of Bruce Watkins Supply, Inc.

Citizens and businesses in certain place are continuing to struggle and undergo in this hard and long-drawn-out financial climate and that is why some are not on board for the stadium. Now in some cities city manager is preparing a budget that recommends a substantial property tax increase. Taxpayers need relief and not the burden of additional debt for a luxury endeavor. I believe the city's priorities at this time, and always, should be providing and maintaining adequate public facilities, infrastructure and services, such as public safety, roads and sidewalks, solid waste, parking and drainage. A new baseball stadium is not a necessity nor should it be a priority.

Some would also say that it is worth it because in terms of the current economic climate and jobs, the stadium and development construction phase alone is would be anticipated to bring in a one-time impact of a lot of jobs, a lot in a segment that has seen its positions destroyed in the last 5 years, and in totaling inoculate over $100 million into the confined economy, to some this is a much desirable shot-in-the-arm to improve financial action in the area.

Some would also go on to say that it is worth it to pay debt service for bonds. The believe this because for them to decline this partnership chance permits the profits to transport to another area, discourages potential future stockholders and advantages that their competitors in the ever significant world of financial development. Quality chances of this greatness are rare at best. Some believe that the business community is assembling for an opportunity as a stadium and believe that area inhabitants and leaders need to pay attention.

Others think that it is absurd that people would not pay debt service for bonds because they believe that the stadium would be beneficial to everyone even if it is used for private privately owned professional team. Many argue that they are being presented a prospect to capitalize in a something that they believe will outcome in the building of a valuable capital advantage for city inhabitants that will be a multi-use ability with an anchor tenant obligating for a long-term certain occupancy and a track record of honoring their duties. The stadium will be utilized for professional baseball, concerts, festival festivities, any technique of commercial excursions among other kind of activities that can be appreciated by all area inhabitants and a basis of civic pride.

In the end, I support the view that this would not be beneficial. Many would not be able to benefit from something that they may not be as passionate about. The stadium will not benefit everyone because not everyone will attend or can afford it.