Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
John Daley ReportingThe future, quality of life and Utah's place on the map, those factors may explain why a deal to build a new pro soccer stadium arose from the ashes.
The high stakes deal happened in part because of fear. The big fear was about what losing Utah's pro soccer team might mean for the future. For many of the top decision-makers, on the line was not just pro soccer, but the possibility of other future pro franchises.
In coming years, Utah could be in the mix for securing a pro baseball team, but if ReAL Salt Lake soccer fails here, getting that team becomes all that much harder.
ReAL owner Dave Checketts knew that his threat to sell the team, perhaps out-of-state, resonated with political leaders who see Utah as an up-and-coming destination, increasingly on the national map.
Still, some question, after earlier soccer leagues have gone under, whether the deal is a good one for taxpayers.
Tim Chambless, Political Science Professor, Uni. of Utah: "Utah is growing. It's the fifth fastest growing state in the country. Salt Lake is the largest city between Denver and San Francisco and Phoenix and Canada. We can see in five to 10 years, we may have professional baseball in this state and we don't want to reverse that trend in any way."
Steve Pace, Stadium Deal Critic: "Bottom line, I don't see why anyone who pays taxes would want to invest in major league soccer. If I wanted to do it, I could find a way to do it privately."
Economist Jim Wood tells us, when it comes to economic impact, stadiums are at best a wash, that the real benefits come in what's added in quality of life and as a rallying point for a community.
Wood also says, in his view, the new stadium deal is clearly an improvement from earlier proposals in that the public risk is much less, with no up front interest costs.
