you do because of the scale of the investment relative to the uncertain economic backdrop of a city in flux. They have been able to attract some investment with tax breaks. but a $500M stadium will require some public participation and some promised minimum return threshold. Combining public and private financing de-risks the project from the taxpayer perspective and allows projects to go ahead that otherwise could not get done with either source of capital alone. There are very few stadiums being built without some public support, Syracuse sure isn't going to get anyone to do it when their are better markets with more attractive demographics. It doesn't mean its a bad investment, it just means you aren't going to get private investors to do the whole thing.
I agree with a lot of what you say about PPP and it's clear that you're well-informed about this.
What I don't agree with, though, is the idea that sports venues drive economic development in urban areas.
First, Baltimore:
Camden Yards is an aesthetic gem. Did it make the Inner Harbor into the tourist draw and sales tax piggy-bank that it is today? I don't think that's established; a lot of the Harbor development was underway before the ballpark construction began.
We've got two big stadia, surrounded by surface parking and cut off from the street grid, creating a development dead zone. They're segregated from Pigtown and -- especially -- Federal Hill, arguably holding back expansion and further revitalization of those neighborhoods.
A great majority of fans drive in from the county and elsewhere, spending little in the neighborhood (maybe the recent expansion of MARC service on weekends will improve this a little; I know I stopped making the trip from D.C. when they cut that service in 2007 or 2008).
To the extent that stadium-goers do patronize neighborhood bars and restaurants before and after games, it really is a zero-sum game. Retail and services in the neighborhoods around Memorial Stadium have withered in the past 25 years; the money's moved down to Camden Yards.
Next, as far as Syracuse is concerned, we've got a stadium.
What's a 44,000-seat stadium in Midtown going to do for the city that a 50,000-seat stadium on the Hill doesn't already do?
Will bars and restaurants (of which there are already a handful - Phoebe's, Dolce Vita, etc.) spring up in the Regent District? Will they coexist with Marshall/Crouse establishments, or will they just poach some of their revenue?
What's going to happen with development around Kennedy Square? Will Syracuse be innovative in moving people to and from the site? The great majority of the people on this board who advocate for a new stadium cite ease of access (and easy, inexpensive, non-structured parking) as a top priority. How does that coexist with current plans for Kennedy Square development? How could that not create a large dead zone at the periphery of the stadium district? Baltimore can't solve that problem - vacant lots and empty warehouses exist for blocks to the south and west of the Ravens' stadium. I don't think we want our large public works projects (and that's a loose use of "public works") to create such problems.
Finally, while land is not in short supply in Syracuse and Central New York, it's still a finite resource. Is this stadium proposal the best use for this close-in, valuable series of parcels? Would it prove better for the city and community than the current plan (which proposes retail, market-rate housing, and much-needed office and academic space for SUNY Upstate)? And what of neighborhood improvements? The city and university have long hoped to take advantage of gentrification in Hawley-Green (and, eventually, Prospect Hill) and knit the neighborhood with the Hill. It's difficult to see a stadium and associated parking facilities doing that. (It sure didn't help Federal Hill.)
If Baltimore is the template, we've got some serious questions about what we're aiming for and how we're going to go about it.
