What's old is new again as Denver debates community benefits in exchange for city $ to build a professional women's soccer stadium on a site with rich worker and community benefits history.
1. There is a perfectly good professional soccer stadium in Commerce City. The Avalanche, Nuggets and Mammoth share a venue for over 80 days a year. It seems that two professional soccer teams could do so for approximately 20 dates each. Is this just a vanity project for Denver?
2. Your analysis of costs and benefits does not examine the comparative benefits of alternative uses of the $70 million in spending. But, of course, that is the only rational way to evaluate this expenditure. I would very much like to see the city develop alternative scenarios for spending these funds, e.g. at the new Park Hill Park, and then compare costs and benefits.
If you covered these in your presentation and I missed them, I apologize.
Great points. My articles get l-o-n-g and always more points to consider. Thanks for raising them here for others to see.
On #1 the word is that a dedicated stadium was the price of admission to get the team. At all. I don’t have the capacity to fact-check that myself. But if true, another example of how the industry itself creates these conditions and false choices.
A professional women’s soccer team would be pretty cool. Especially if the existing communities see some benefits. Maybe the governor could build his legacy Bridge project at the site to connect communities instead of building it at the capitol where almost nobody wants it. Of course he should consult the communities first. They might even have better suggestions.
Can you spell b.o.o.o.d.o.g.g.l.e.? I know you can!
Robin,
Unless I missed it, you omit two relevant facts:
1. There is a perfectly good professional soccer stadium in Commerce City. The Avalanche, Nuggets and Mammoth share a venue for over 80 days a year. It seems that two professional soccer teams could do so for approximately 20 dates each. Is this just a vanity project for Denver?
2. Your analysis of costs and benefits does not examine the comparative benefits of alternative uses of the $70 million in spending. But, of course, that is the only rational way to evaluate this expenditure. I would very much like to see the city develop alternative scenarios for spending these funds, e.g. at the new Park Hill Park, and then compare costs and benefits.
If you covered these in your presentation and I missed them, I apologize.
Great points. My articles get l-o-n-g and always more points to consider. Thanks for raising them here for others to see.
On #1 the word is that a dedicated stadium was the price of admission to get the team. At all. I don’t have the capacity to fact-check that myself. But if true, another example of how the industry itself creates these conditions and false choices.
A professional women’s soccer team would be pretty cool. Especially if the existing communities see some benefits. Maybe the governor could build his legacy Bridge project at the site to connect communities instead of building it at the capitol where almost nobody wants it. Of course he should consult the communities first. They might even have better suggestions.