…but there’ll be no new stadium for you. That is, if the powers-that-be listen to these twenty-six economists, there won’t.
After all, you’d probably only use it 20-30 times a year, according to one University of Alberta economist. He and the rest of them think that the funds would be better spent on schools, parks, and libraries. Since the whole world is driven by cost-benefit analysis, don’t get your hopes up about leaving RFK any time soon.
They don’t call those guys dismal scientists for nothing.
June 10, 2008 at 9:35 pm |
Hmm… judging from the mail this article received, it looks like these economists have generated a controversy. Imagine that. Out of economists, no less.
I personally think that if you pair the new soccer-only stadium up with a decent soccer pub, that you’d have better luck. (Actually, I have no idea what I’m talking about since I don’t know anything about the proposed area or whether ancillary businesses close by would even be viable. But I do know that the thought of a soccer pub sounds good right about now.)
June 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm |
[...] Original post here [...]
June 10, 2008 at 9:41 pm |
I make it my business to opine about practically everything, and that includes lots of things I don’t know anything about. What I do know is that Washington DC could only be improved by the construction of a soccer stadium. A decent pub (great idea) and a couple of good restaurants and you’ve got yourself a multiplier effect that’s got to be higher than that of a library. Nothing against libraries, mind you. Can’t they build a library and a stadium? Reading and soccer and beer–the perfect complements.
June 12, 2008 at 2:51 am |
Parks, schools, libraries…whatever. You can bring books to a football match and there’s grass on the pitch. And what can’t you learn about the world that you can’t learn by watching a horribly timed tackle?