From Deseret News archives:

Another stadium foul play?

Published: Friday, May 2, 2008 12:09 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Imagine you'd really like to buy a luxury item but your spouse says you can't afford it. So you cleverly let your spouse think your monthly car payments continue beyond when the loan is paid, and you pocket the difference to buy the item.

Would that be honest? We can imagine more than a few nights sleeping on the sofa over such shenanigans.

And while this may not be a perfect analogy, it might explain what could be taking shape between Salt Lake County and Sandy, where soccer stadium funding once again is an issue.

County Mayor Peter Corroon and a majority of the county council do not want to give any more money toward stadium construction — beyond the $35 million in hotel taxes state lawmakers forced them to give. Sandy wants to form a community development agency to raise another $10 million toward the stadium, but that would require a substantial buy-in from the county.

Meanwhile, however, the county may be ready to continue giving Sandy $300,000 a year toward funding the Sandy Amphitheater, even though the county's commitment toward the amphitheater was set to end this year. That money would not go directly toward the stadium, but Sandy certainly could shift funds around to free up $300,000 elsewhere.

Story continues below
Some county leaders, including the mayor, say there is no connection. The amphitheater is successful and deserves continued support, they say, and the county needs to mend fences with Sandy after a rancorous stadium struggle. We hope that's true, given the county's hitherto principled stand against stadium funding.

That stand was bolstered Wednesday when the University of Utah's Center for Public Policy and Administration released a study on the public funding of sports stadiums. Similar to many other studies nationwide, it concluded, "Academic economists have not found statistically significant relationships between various measures of economic growth and stadium construction." A stadium has roughly the same economic impact as "a large grocery store." The only possible benefits may be in intangible things such as community pride.

As the study notes, along the Wasatch Front, taxes already have built a quarter of EnergySolutions Arena, all of the E Center and 93 percent of Franklin Covey Field.

In the end, whether what the county is considering truly is an end-around for stadium funding depends on Sandy. If the county does decide to extend amphitheater funding, the city will have to decide where best to allocate resources.

The public, as always, can only sit and watch, and, we hope, take notes.

Recent comments

That is all well and good, DMN.

But, what about taxpayer funding...

DMN Double Standard | May 2, 2008 at 9:16 a.m.

I would debate the 'all of the E-Center' comment. The first 11 mil...

UofUman | May 2, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.

When Mayor Corroon first stood against spending taxpayer's money to...

very disappointed | May 2, 2008 at 7:41 a.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

will definitely played with a chip on his shoulder and played his heart out...

TCU 55, Utah 28

But Great? Just because they man-handled both the Y and Utah doesn't make...

TCU 55, Utah 28

Looking at where we are today... BYU is a top twenty program. Utah is not...

BYU 24, New Mexico 19

Wow, pretty harsh comments, "MVP of the game?". I think BYU showed some guts...

congrats guys! rimando was huge, olave crushed, will and kyle were all over...

TCU creams U.

re:Re:John Roberts | 9:21 a.m. I love all of your historical points, but...

Letters: Better off out of Senate?

Hillyard was exaggerating anyway, since they can't defeat ethics reform by...

Some maintain that the sin of Sodom was being mean-spirited, inhospitable and...

Thumping on Utah and Y does not make TCU worthy of #4 ranking. The MWC this...

I am a huge BYU fan, and saw the slaughter last night...Utah didn't belong on...

Advertisements
Advertisement