Good lord. They’re filing for bankruptcy, and at the same time have decided to build a new 444 million dollarstadium.
My first thought is “you can’t fix stupid” but then I’m wondering who is foolish enough to finance this thing? The article claims most of the cost will be borne by the Detoit taxpayers* and the rest financed by bonds.
We bought municipal bonds as an education investment (prior to having kids). But we were pretty cautious about which city we were willing to invest in. Even 2 decades ago I wouldn’t have touched Detroit bonds. The thought of buying a 30 year bond from them today is nothing short of laughable. So my question is: Who the heck would buy a 30-year Detroit municipal bond today? I admit I’m no investment wizard but I’d avoid those like the plague, if it were my money. Are these guaranteed in some way I’m not aware of?
*I’m sure an additional tax burden on their citizens is just what is needed here. :rolleyes:
IMHO, the problem is not the bonds. It is the perennial question of why cities put vast amounts of money on the table to foster a single, for-profit and notably greedy and self-serving business… that might leave in a huff when their slightest whim is denied.
Seriously though, isn’t the bonding being done by the state? Doesn’t affect the argument of it being a good investment or not, but it does kind of deflate the “bankrupt city spending millions on hockey” sound bite.
Though tangential to OP’s question, it is unfortunate how sports franchises enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. I think they get away with it because sports teams are seen as a sort of community service rather than as a business. Here’s one example.
Yes! And all the people on the dole will have snazzy logowear and something to talk about amongst themselves, and something to watch on their big flatscreens - when it’s not blacked out. Which it will be, because only 2/3 of the $100 seats will be filled by ardent fans who drive in 50 miles to see “their” team play.
This is correct. The “taxpayers” mentioned in the OP are not just Detroiters, but everyone in Michigan.
Can we all agree that it’s better for Detroit if the Red Wings are located in the city rather than in the suburbs? Isn’t this true of most cities? The opposition to this project is lost on me.
Wow, it’s hilarious to me that Charlotte, arguably one of the cities the recent financial collapse had the least effect on, had almost exactly this same argument about its new sports arena.
It amazes me how much sports fanship can blind otherwise reasonable people to the 11-out-of-10 absurdity that is public-fund support of commercial, for-profit, self-serving businesses that happen to field a sports team you can go see in the publicly-funded venue for a mere week’s salary.
Hmm. I was under the impression that the Red Wings would eventually vacate the city if a new stadium wasn’t built, but I just reread the link in the OP and it says they haven’t yet threatened to do so.
Still, it would be incentive for them to stay for the long haul, and it’s projected to bring jobs/$$ to the city. I’d be happier if the state of Michigan were doing more for Detroit itself (infrastructure, education, debt), but it’s not.
So your solution to “the state doesnt support Detroit enough” is for the state to pay a zillionaire to solve a problem that doesn’t exist while it rapes the pension plans of police and firefighters because… as i hear it from the mouths of politicians, it’s the “only” responsible solution to out of control costs of running the city.
Apparently, yes. And there you have a prime example of why Detroit is dashing headlong into being a lost cause and laughing stock. Paying millionaires to play games for our entertainment is a major priority. Building a separate gigantic arena for EACH sport is essential. Just ignore that city collapsing around you. We neeeeeed our sports!
