Missouri

TexasTowelie

(116,773 posts) Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:34 AM Jan 2017

Greitens: 'I have completely ruled out state funding for stadiums'

Major League Soccer investors trying to bring a team to St. Louis probably won’t get $40 million in tax credits or any state money, based on Gov.-elect Eric Greitens’ comments Monday.

“To be very clear, I have completely ruled out state funding for stadiums,” Greitens said Monday said taking questions from journalists in Dellwood.

Hours later, the St. Louis alderman sponsoring the ballot proposal for up to $80 million in city funding for a St. Louis MLS team called the proposal’s future doubtful.

“I was hoping to get to the point where this proposal made sense for St. Louis, but I’m feeling that less and less,” 6th Ward Alderman Christine Ingrassia said by phone.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/greitens-i-have-completely-ruled-out-state-funding-for-stadiums/article_f8a545d1-be13-5239-a034-4fa4c39b1462.html

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Greitens: 'I have completely ruled out state funding for stadiums' (Original Post) TexasTowelie Jan 2017 OP

good for him let the stadium crowd pay for its own stadiums. nt msongs Jan 2017 #1

Fans can chip in and raise the funds Jake Stern Jan 2017 #2

Good! Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2017 #3

msongs

(70,172 posts)

1. good for him let the stadium crowd pay for its own stadiums. nt

Reply to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:41 AM

Jan 2017

Jake Stern

(3,145 posts)

2. Fans can chip in and raise the funds

Reply to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:59 AM

Jan 2017

Tired of paying taxes for a new stadium every decade or so.

Buckeye_Democrat

(15,042 posts)

3. Good!

Reply to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:28 AM

Jan 2017

It's ridiculous that citizens pay for stadiums, especially when the sports teams usually aren't publicly owned! I think the NFL doesn't even allow public ownership of their teams... with Green Bay being a partial exception because they were "grandfathered" in.

Arguments that they help the local economy are silly. Building the stadiums would help the local economy even more if the revenue didn't mostly go to a few owners, right?

It reminds me of people arguing that paying immigrants less than minimum wage is "good" because it keeps consumer prices down. Sure, it also means more money going to a few owners rather than being better distributed to local citizens. If low wages are good, what next? Arguments for the "low consumer prices" under slavery, which also benefited owners far more than others?

Reply to this discussion