Good question, Debbie. How can we help, other than comment on these articles?

Arnold—This would be a regional project. No one locality can, or should, foot the total bill for this project. In the case of the stadium in Waldorf the cost was broken out with 1/3 from the locality(s), 1/3 for the private sector (Opening Day Partners), and 1/3 from the state. Some thinking outside the box will be required because VA is not MD. As noted below more info will be put out for public comment as soon as possible.

Councilman - I would argue that 2/3 public funding is far too much even if it's split among the localities and the state. I have plenty of places I'd rather see my tax dollars go than a baseball stadium, including education, fixing potholes, and even helping public employee salaries keep up with the cost of living. As a matter of principle, I don't really like the idea that my state taxes are paying for other people's minor league baseball stadiums so I wouldn't expect others to pay for mine.

If we're going in this direction though, the Waldorf approach seems to be the right way to go. I know major NFL stadiums aren't the same as a minor league baseball stadium in terms of scale, but the Nashville football stadium has been a rare success because they hold so many other events there every year. There's a substantial academic literature on stadium funding, and holding regular events beyond the sport seems to be the way to make money with something like this.

If having an additional facility for hosting public events is a financially prudent investment, then the private partnership will have no problem raising the capital. Perhaps even selling ownership shares to the public, (ex: Green Bay packers). - but not tax $$ to fund this.
PS If the investment is a good one- tell me again why the MD team might move from their current home?

My concern in that regard would be that this sounds an awful lot like the Expo Center...at least on the surface...

Arnold--There is a fundamental question here. There have to be funds available to pay for teachers, roads, fire and police etc. Paying for these things has to be balanced by a community’s ability to pay. Another option is to invest funding that creates more revenue. The question is whether government should be in the investment business—spending money to make money? We can argue, and I share some of your concerns, whether this project will result in higher revenues. That is a case that will have to be made. Would be interested in your thoughts about public funding of stadiums, art centers, convention centers, etc?

Jason--Could you elaborate on your Expo Center comment? That facility was privately funded.

If I am not mistaken, it ended being a rather large albatross around the neck of the city, which has subsidized it for some time. I am not involved all that much in city politics, it just seemed a comparison to consider was in order, given the "venue to host events" label being applied.

Jason--The issue with the convention center is that it is a private, for profit, concern. Most convention centers are built and operated by localities. When bidding on events they are prepared to take a loss on the facility and make the money on meals and hotel nights. The Expo Center was not competitive. Funds were made available to subsidize their bids through the EDA (not taxpayer dollars but proceeds from bond sales) and were paid only if the event was secured. Not an issue that would be in play with a stadium/entertainment facility.

Arnold--AP Style is "stadiums"

Thanks for the clarification Dan. I think it would put us on the map. Make the Facebook page and watch the public support grow...we LOVE the Myrtle Beach Pelicans...and having a larger venue for some of our local events would be awesome!