Springer admitted "there's no economic reason" for a city to build a stadium, but "sometimes public funding is necessary" to build them because they are legit civic assets.
Olberman agreed, adding if building stadiums made economic sense, owners would just build stadiums themselves and keep the profits. But alas, "that's what voters are for," he explained:
This weekend in the Tampa Tribune, columnist Joe Brown summed up Springer's post with, teams should stop "play(ing) the economic-development card," and focus on their real benefits to the community, a sense of identity:
When a team is winning, it’s hard for most local residents not to get swept up in the enthusiasm, as the championship runs of the Bucs, Rays and Lightning have shown. It’s something that can unite a community as few other things can.
Nobody in St. Petersburg is asking for an economic impact study for the city’s new pier. It will be built because it’s considered a part of its beautiful waterfront, something to enhance the quality of life here, just like a city park or a museum. The same applies to Tropicana Field.“Generally communities say this is something they want even if it doesn’t make economic sense,” said (St. Pete Councilman Karl) Nurse on the funding of a new ballpark for the Rays.
True. So now the city council will have to decide what’s in the best interest of St. Petersburg and the Tampa Bay area’s baseball fans.“Are the Rays willing to accept the fact that they are located in a growing television market which, no matter where you put a stadium, is going to be inconvenient for a third or 40 percent of the region?” asked Nurse.As they often say on TV, stay tuned.