Football Stadium Recommendation
Football Stadium Recommendation
The residents of Springfield have a big decision to make; “Springfield finally has a surplus in the budget after years of being in debt, and all citizens have to decide if building a new NFL stadium is a good investment of their tax dollars.” Building the stadium would initially cost the taxpayer’s $90 million dollars, but “the team promises that the voters will be paid back the money to build a new stadium through tax revenues that the new stadium will generate.” Even non-sports fans are following the Hawks now, because people are excited to see how Springfield will spend its first surplus in a long time. In explaining what course of action I will recommend, I will examine what most Springfield residents would consider: what is the best use of the surplus of money; what is best for the Springfield; and lastly how the new stadium would affect the city itself. Based on evidence provided by these factors, I recommend that the city of Springfield build a new football stadium for the Springfield Hawks. The number one concern for the residents of Springfield holding them back from voting to build the new stadium would have to be the fiscal impact of the new stadium. A major question that will arise for any town member is whether the taxpayers are willing to fork over 90 million dollars - especially on a luxury like a sports team when the city has money to spend for the first time in years. Even though the team promises to pay the voters back for their support of the team, the financial repercussions of funding the stadium are not eliminated. While the townspeople supposedly will get their hard earned money back in the end, it will be awhile before they are fully reimbursed because part of the money to pay back the voters is projected to come from in game sales. This will not be happening any time soon, because the stadium will take at least a year to build.
Also, one could argue that because “the Hawks are a winning team and always
The residents of Springfield have a big decision to make; “Springfield finally has a surplus in the budget after years of being in debt, and all citizens have to decide if building a new NFL stadium is a good investment of their tax dollars.” Building the stadium would initially cost the taxpayer’s $90 million dollars, but “the team promises that the voters will be paid back the money to build a new stadium through tax revenues that the new stadium will generate.” Even non-sports fans are following the Hawks now, because people are excited to see how Springfield will spend its first surplus in a long time. In explaining what course of action I will recommend, I will examine what most Springfield residents would consider: what is the best use of the surplus of money; what is best for the Springfield; and lastly how the new stadium would affect the city itself. Based on evidence provided by these factors, I recommend that the city of Springfield build a new football stadium for the Springfield Hawks. The number one concern for the residents of Springfield holding them back from voting to build the new stadium would have to be the fiscal impact of the new stadium. A major question that will arise for any town member is whether the taxpayers are willing to fork over 90 million dollars - especially on a luxury like a sports team when the city has money to spend for the first time in years. Even though the team promises to pay the voters back for their support of the team, the financial repercussions of funding the stadium are not eliminated. While the townspeople supposedly will get their hard earned money back in the end, it will be awhile before they are fully reimbursed because part of the money to pay back the voters is projected to come from in game sales. This will not be happening any time soon, because the stadium will take at least a year to build.
Also, one could argue that because “the Hawks are a winning team and always