Sounds fair let the people that will be paying for it at some point make the choice. I dont agree with the welfare for the NFl but I agree with the taxpayers making the choice
When Death Smiles Upon You the Infantryman smiles back
WVdolphan "Ireland gets it.
And those who also get it, know that Ireland gets it. Those who are clueless are still concerned about cornfed and the running game"
WVDOLPHAN "The last thing this team should be worried about is the OC(offensive corn). When you add it all up, its really a pretty solid OC"
I just posted in the other thread. This one wasn't here when I began that post. For convenience purposes I'll just paste what I wrote there:
Now there will be a county referendum on the public funding. The Dolphins reversed course and agreed to that today. Looks like they were backed into a corner, sensing it otherwise wasn't going to happen in Tallahassee, given the makeup of the legislature. Dade County typically gets the shaft, let's put it that way.
I'm surprised there isn't a separate thread. I heard about this a couple of hours ago, on the way home from the golf course. I suspect the news posters believe this is bad news, so they are content to ignore it. But I'm not sure it is bad news, for the ones supporting the plan. The Dolphins could never prevail in a high participation general election atmosphere, but a specialized referendum is an entirely different matter, like a primary. The most energized voters dictate the outcome. No doubt the Dolphins will spend tons of money trying to influence who shows up and what they are thinking. Lots of major upsets in primaries.
I hope it fails miserably.
Regardless, referendums are not cheap. I hope they wait for a situation with other items on the ballot. If it's a solo job, rushed into March or April, the Dolphins should have to foot the bill.
As for the topic on hand, let's hope the locals make the right decision and pass this. Afterall they are not going to pay for it, it will be tourists. Be smart Florida.
[QUOTE=Nublar7;1064580267]You do know Doogie that anyone can hit the "Post New Thread" button and create a new topic about news? Don't you? If you knew about this a couple of hours ago, why didn't you create the thread? I am sure you will say it was because you were driving home from playing golf so you were not available. Fine, but remember the next time you insult the other members of this message board with a backhanded comment that they also might be away from their computer for extended periods of times. You might have thought no one would call you out for that attempted slap in the face to the rest of the entire site, but it won't slip through the cracks with this Dolphins fan. You didn't post the thread after hearing about it a "couple of hours ago" and you didn't post it, so please save the insults.
As for the topic on hand, let's hope the locals make the right decision and pass this. Afterall they are not going to pay for it, it will be tourists. Be smart Florida
Financing stadiums is rarely a smart move for any economy, one has to only look at the phoenix situation to know the truth of this. The Nfl numbers of economic impact are for the most part pure fantasyland.
John Siegfried and Andrew Zimbalist said it
best: “[F]ew fields of empirical research offer virtual
unanimity of findings. Yet, independent work on the
economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant
positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.”
Clearly, if public
financing of stadiums is to be defended, it must be
done on other grounds.
Robert Baade and Allen Sanderson examined
ten major metropolitan areas with major sports franchises and found evidence of positive net job creation
in only three of them.
Secondly, proponents argue, local governments
benefit from increased tax revenue. Fan spending
on concessions and tickets as well as on hotel rooms,
parking, and meals is all subject to sales taxes. Therefore this new business results in an influx of capital that
would otherwise be spent outside city limits.
the team’s presence improves the national perception
of the city, and a well-perceived city has an easier time
attracting companies and non-sports tourism.
If the above arguments had merit, then the
economic case for public financing would be well
nigh unimpeachable. They do not. While construction of a new stadium indeed creates a significant
number of jobs, those jobs are temporary. Public financing proponents often focus on gross job creation,
the number of jobs that can be fairly attributed to
the presence of the team. However, this approach
ignores that money being spent at sporting events is
money that is not being spent at other leisure activities or in other sectors of the economy, namely movie
theaters, parks, restaurants, and other entertainment
venues. The decreased flow of money into those
sectors results in fewer jobs in those areas. This is
a “substitution” problem, where jobs that are created
due to the team’s presence merely come from other
sectors of the economy that the team’s presence has
negatively impacted. Net job creation is the proper
measure. Furthermore, the projected “multiplier effect,” should be kept lower, as not all of the resulting
new income is spent in the local area.
Just some important parts of one of the many articles that dismisses the overrated claim of economic impact an nfl team creates
I bet the Fins are big players in FA now to create a buzz before the vote.