Jim Devine wrote: >One solution is that instead of subsidies and below-market loans, the >cities should say: okay, if you -- the NFL fatdogs -- want our money, you >have to give us equity (i.e., part-ownership) in exchange. After all, we're >taking a big risk, so we should be treated like other risk-takers. This is exactly the case with the Green Bay Packers (smallest city in the NFL). While I agree with most of what Henry writes, on this issue I think he is wrong. He claims that it is controversial as to whether the teams benefit the city more than the subsidies. I would like to know about any studies, other than those done for the teams asking for the subsisdies that show something other than a loss. (This is not a rhetorical request - I teach Urban and Regional and need to know if these studies exist) I have not seen any. As someone has noted, the regional subsidies issue is just a beggar-thy- neighbor policy. At the level of national GDP, regional subsidies do not increase GDP. All they do is to reallocate $ from HH and Gov't to corporations. The only way to claim this is progreessive is to buy into the idea that business always uses $ more wisely than gov't. Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
