@ Moose.

Read, “Public Dollars, Private Stadiums” for a great examination of why this happens.  Residents / taxpayers have frequently opposed this policy in different US cities but it happens anyway.

Some select quotes from the book, but I can’t do it justice here, you have to read it.

“Overall, the process of building private stadiums with public dollars in the United States is more akin to plutocracy and oligarchy than to democracy…...Residents in and around Pittsburgh and Phoenix were crystal clear about not wanting to spend public dollars on private stadiums.  But in both cases, powerful stadium advocates simply trampled on public sentiment and built the stadiums anyway….”

AND

“In Philadelphia, for instance, there was no need to blatantly trample on popular sentiment because the public was never given any say on the matter except indirectly through city council and state representatives.  When a Pennsylvania state representative explained to us the inner workings of the legislature, it seemed to have little in common with democracy as we conventionally define it.  He explained how Pennsylvania decided to put up two-thirds of the money for the four new stadiums in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia:

“Ninety-five percent of the calls we get on this issue are against it….For dynamic issues like these that are wildly unpopular, the legislative leaders decide it will happen; and then they decide how many votes each side (Republican and Democratic) will give up and which representatives are least vulnerable-so they don’t get taken out ( for voting for something so unpopular )

AND

” In fact, we were told that one of the big inside fights on this issue concerned the fact that Republicans wanted to provide fewer than half of the total yes votes needed to pass the stadium bill.  The Democratic leadership, however, argued that because Republican governor Tom Ridge wanted the bill so badly, the Republicans should give up more than half of the votes.  The Republican leadership countered that because the stadiums would benefit the two largest cities in Pennsylvania, which are largely Democratic, the Democrats should give up more than half of the votes.  All of this finagling may not surprise a cynical observer, but it is not exactly what you read about democracy in a high school civics text.”

Anyway Moose, two broad points.  These rich owners have succeeded in getting lots of public dough IN SPITE of public opposition.  It doesn’t happen because most are in support.  Second point, it’s not only liberals who are opposed.  Anti tax / anti corporate welfare conservatives are also opposed.  It’s the rare issue where these two are unified.

Anyway, read the book, it’s fantastic.

Pete:  It will be added to the long list of must reads books that I hopefully will get to some day.  I appreciate the few quotes and recommendation and I know my comments were simplistic in nature but I find it fascinating that we, as voters, let our elected official get away with such shannigans.  I suspect that if the same legislator were to support/advocate for/pass a bill about a social issue (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, civil rights - take your pick) that we were opposed to that we would rally against them and join groups that actively opposed their reelection. 

However let them pass a bill that makes no financial sense whatsoever and diverts monies from more worthy causes and we sit on our hands.  I use the collective we because I can be as guilty as the next for not making my voice heard - shame on me.