In SLC. Also I question what it defines as “job creation.” Are we talking short term or long term? Let’s look at opportunity costs. How many investors are typically going to engage in a massive building development of that magnitude in dollars outside of the top 15 cities in the US? It certainly brings temporary employment and those folks spend money too. Also, what happens to foot traffic in the region if the major sports tenants leave? I will gladly give it a read because this stuff interests me but I don’t think this is an apples to apples comparison. Each of those cities mentioned involved the city owning and maintaining the facility which is not the case here. That is a very costly aspect in the long term analysis that isn’t present here.

There are lots of bad examples like the Kingdome and Olympic Stadium in Montreal. The fundamental problem in most of those scenarios were massive cost overruns and poor management by the city. Labor disputes and construction quality usually caused those problems. Utah has a good track record of bringing big construction projects in on budget.

Utah has one of the most conservative legislative bodies in the country. It has some pretty anti tax people there who backed this. The very nature of this proposal is driven by user fees. You can’t really call it a subsidy if those benefitting the most pay for it. Again, the city and state isn’t doing this without something in a return as well. I guarantee you it is getting something from Smith in return and it is likely the concession rights. DeeDee Coridini let Larry Miller have those with no city sales tax component and it cost the city millions.