Would you publicly fund another stadium or let the franchise leave Cincinnati?

[*Awful Llama*]

(01-13-2017, 04:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would never vote to increase my taxes to build stadiums for billionaires. They can afford to build there own damn stadiums. I read reports that cost benefit analysis of the economic impact of these stadium deals indicate it would be more beneficial to the city if they just dumped the money out of a helicopter as it flew by overhead.

You mention Cincinnati and dumping stuff out of a helicopter and my mind can't help but leap here:



PBS is coming up on it's 18th season, which makes it about 7 years younger than the Georgia Dome, which the Falcons are getting ready to leave.  So, I'd imagine we're within a year or two of beginning a serious discussion on replacing PBS.  It was a nice place in 2000, but it's nothing like the palaces they're building now, and it lacks amenities in comparison.  

This is the price of being an NFL city.  If Cincinnati isn't willing to pay it, then another city will.  The question is, will the taxpayers offer up the necessary ransom?  Polls indicated the '96 referendum was headed for defeat, but then Art Model reminded everyone that this is a game played for keeps, and the Browns leaving gave enough folks pause for the referendum to pass the following spring.  Would the citizenry be inspired again?  Personally, I'm up in Dayton, so I'd be happy if you good folks in Hamilton County were to spring yet again for a new stadium (make this one a dome, please!).  But, if you didn't, I'd certainly understand why.