The author’s contention that a new professional football stadium will revitalize the impoverished Railroad Flats neighborhood has a number of flaws. His recommendation that the city grant a private entity a stadium lease is fraught with questionable motives. A municipal stadium would likely be more viable and, in the long run, a more attractive prospect. The claim that the stadium would draw thousands of football fans to the area ignores the fact that the other professional football teams in the Detroit area draw similar numbers. The Detroit Lions, for example, draw more than 200,000 fans to their games each year. When the Lions play at the Silverdome, they average 97,000 fans per game, a number that has not been surpassed since 1951. The Silverdome was built in 1975 and is wholly inadequate, with seating for only about 70,000 fans. The Detroit Lions also play two pre-season games each year at Ford Field, a retractable-roof stadium that seats 78,000. It is estimated that the new stadium, which would cost about $250 million, would seat about 70,000 spectators. Even if the team could average 70,000 fans per game, the stadium would be unable to seat all of them, so most of the fans would have to go to the Lions’ regular home, Ford Field, to watch games. Even if the stadium were more successful than Ford Field, however, the author provides no explanation for why it would revitalize a depressed neighborhood. Since the 1990s, the Detroit area has been blighted by crime, unemployment, and poverty. A homeless shelter recently burned down, killing fifty people. The neighborhood in question still has significant problems, and it is unlikely that a new stadium will solve the problems

The author also fails to explain how a new stadium would encourage new businesses to open. Although the stadium would provide a venue for concerts and other events, those events would likely cost the city more in rental fees than the revenue they would generate. The few existing businesses in the area are operating at near capacity, so it is unlikely that they would expand to accommodate a new stadium

The author’s reasoning about the stadium’s effect on population growth is flawed. He conflates stadium size and population growth. A stadium’s capacity is not a measure of population growth. Even if the stadium could seat 70,000 spectators, it would have no impact on population growth. Stadiums attract visitors from other areas, but those people usually return to their hometowns after the games. Even if the population of Detroit were to increase by 2.5%, the stadium’s seating capacity would not double. The Detroit metropolitan area has a population of about 5.9 million, and 170,000 people move to the city each year, so the stadium’s capacity would only increase by less than 1%

Finally, the author makes several questionable assertions. He fails to point out that the Detroit Lions have not played their home games in the downtown area since 1961, so a downtown stadium would not provide the team with a competitive advantage. He also makes no mention of the construction of the Silverdome, which cost $205 million, or the $60 million Ford Field renovation project. By any objective measure, $250 million is a lot of money, and the city needs to find creative ways to increase revenue rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill. If the city were to build a stadium, it should focus on building a multi-use facility that would provide sporting and entertainment events. The city should look for ways to partner with private investors, such as the owners of professional sports teams, to fund the stadium. The construction of the Silverdome and Ford Field demonstrates the city’s willingness to partner with the private sector; the city should not hesitate to try the same approach again.