Now it's my turn to answer some of you.
I'm happy to say that this blog so far has been a huge success in terms of readers and posted responses. Most of you have been thoughtful. That says a lot about the readers of this newspaper and its Web site.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to stay out of the fray.
Here are some quick comebacks to a few of you.
Regarding the funding of the soccer stadium:
Eric and Dave said the stadium would pay for itself when the World Cup returns the United States some day. The U.S. qualifier against Costa Rica, played at Rice-Eccles Stadium, was used as an example of how this would help the economy.
I have a couple of problems with this. Yes, I read a study done at the U of U showing how much money that game brought to the local economy. First, those figures have to be put into perspective. Compare them to what the Convention and Visitors Bureau brings to town, or to a good few days of retail sales at IKEA. One soccer game doesn't really add that much to the economy, and World Cup qualifiers don't come around too often.
Second, I assume future World Cup games would be at the new Sandy stadium. The seating capacity there will be less than half that of Rice-Eccles. That would cut those great revenue figures by more than half. In fact, if the actual World Cup came back to the United States, I don't think the Sandy stadium would be big enough to attract any games. Remember, the last World Cup here was played in large football stadiums around the country, to accommodate the huge crowds.
Rich made a good point by comparing the stadium deal to how Larry Miller built the EnergySolutions Arena. The city used public money to give him the land. I've read credible studies from university economists that show any public stadium funding, whether for minor sports, the NBA, NFL or Major League Baseball, are economic losers for their communities. One economist told me this is one of the few issues on which conservative and liberal economists agree.
So is EnergySolutions Arena a bad thing? Well, I'll concede there is an intangible benefit to having a high-profile team that brings publicity and, at least to sports fans, prestige. You have to decide whether the soccer stadium and RSL will provide that. Just remember, Los Angeles hasn't fallen to pieces just because it hasn't had an NFL team for a decade now. Clearly, there are other things just as important to a city as a team, and that's true for the Wasatch Front, as well.
On the question concerning whether Utah should adopt California's Proposition 13:
I enjoyed the discussion, although some of you have a rather disturbing view of government.
Anonymous, do you really believe that all taxation is theft? Isn't that why we have a representative government, so that the taxes imposed represent the will of the people? If taxes were, as you say, voluntary, I wouldn't want to be the one who has to call 911, hoping enough people volunteered to pay for police officers.
Also, I was concerned by Because..., who said retirees cost less to the community because they have raised their kids and create less crime than younger people. Both are true, but you're looking at only one side of the equation. The elderly are often victims of crime, and their health is declining. They require emergency services of all kinds. And those kids? Do you really think you don't benefit from a well-educated populace just because your kids are grown? Do you have grandchildren in school?
Beyond this, the state has circuit-breaker laws that can give seniors a break on their property taxes.
There, I got that off my chest. Now let's hear your comebacks.