1. “he MLS is paying for the stadium themselves,”

True, but unlike any other business venture, they are getting tax-free public parkland to build it on and have to pay no taxes on construction materials. This isn’t direct public financing, what it is a shady way of hiding millions in tax dollars the will no longer get.

2. “creating jobs building the stadium”

Multiple studes have been shown to prove that stadiums to not create jobs or have any type of economic benefit to a city. The number of studies showing this is massive, yet people still throw out this line in direct opposition of the evidence.

3. “REPLACING all of the parkland”- You left out the park where that replaced parkland will be on the toxic banks of the Flushing River…also how well that replacement parkland worked for the new Yankees stadium.

4, “fixing broke down soccer fields that thousands of kids play on BEFORE the start construction, inspiring kids to pursue their dreams of playing soccer professionally” This is hilarious. The Flushing Soccer fields are broken? Since when?

Hey here’s an idea, *let’s just take the millions in taxpayer money that is being lost for in terms of stadium tax breaks and just fucking fix the soccer fields ourselves!*.

5. ” bringing revenue into the area,”

Again, see #2. Numerous studies have been done to show that stadiums do not provide a positive economic impact at all.

6. “That’s an amazing deal. If you don’t see that you’re just being a whiny prick”

Again, you are apparently forced to resort to petty insults to get your point across? Are you six-years-old?

So, we have sussed out that you base your arguments on the faulty assumption that stadiums generate revenue for the city while ignoring the millions in tax breaks and history of new stadium deals in New York. People who support this are deeply mislead about how these types of deals work.

But hey, if you really believe every word that MLS is saying, I have some magic beans I can sell you.

But the money didn’t flow from that direction, so soccer it was.

I’d lose if I watched either.

And what would NYC residents get in return for having their public parkland, paid for with taxpayer dollars, being decimated for a for-profit private enterprise?

“The stadium is considered a legacy project for the Bloomberg administration, which has outlined terms of a prospective deal: a 35-year, $1-a-year lease, with no sales taxes on construction materials, no property taxes and no revenue sharing with the city.”–Crains

A stadium doesn’t need to be directly publicly financed to completely rip off the city and the taxpayers. This looks like another wonderful part of the business-over-people mentality of the Bloomberg administration.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20121121/ECONOMY/121129966#ixzz2EmLyxYkb

Good analysis, Craig. The sightlines in MLB stadiums do not fit for soccer. You need to be able to view the whole pitch, and with a place like Citi Field, you just won’t be able to get that luxury.

http://www.sportingkc.com/news/2012/10/sporting-kc-sets-attendance-record-2012

There’s a table halfway down the page that shows that the MLS now ranks #7 overall for attendance per game.

They did play a couple of soccer games at Citi already. And I found this blogger who said that pre-fence moving, the sightlines were great: http://thisiscosmoscountry.com/?p=1352

oh boy!