The Difference Between Pork and Investment: Location

This morning the Orlando Sentinel issue an editorial in support of controversial stadium subsidies for the city's new MLS team, while the Tampa Tribune issue an editorial in support of Jeffrey Vinik's plan for a new USF downtown medical school.

Go up to the Panhandle or down to the Keys and I bet there'd be far less support.  But it goes to show contentious earmarks are actually quite popular when they benefit your constituency.

But let's dig into the Sentinel's editorial for a minute. The board contends the project's top-ranking among 2015 stadium subsidy requests validates the teams' need for state tax dollars:

In slotting the Lions' den No. 1, (the state economist's) analysis confirms a previously sunny forecast: A 2012 economic study estimated the stadium would spur a $1.2 billion regional impact over the next 30 years. That includes 390 jobs, personal earnings of $565 million and tax revenue of $9.1 million.

Actually, the top-ranking only confirms the new stadium project is a better spend than three other questionable projects - NOT that it's a good use of state tax dollars.  Remember, legislators could choose not to award any money to pro teams this year.

I've spent weeks debunking all the dubious claims from the four teams seeking subsidies this year, and even in the case of the new MLS stadium, they're asking $60 million over 30 years from the state for 390 jobs.

That's $5,100 per year per full-time job.  That's not exactly a "sunny forecast" since pro sports jobs don't typically pay well.