A few choice posts on Indianapolis' financial mismanagement.
I may not know the intricacies of high finance or the subtleties of government economic models or the ins and outs of bonds and taxation, but I surely know when I'm getting screwed.
Do a little bit of checking and what you'll find is when you shell a few extra pennies for luxury seats you can also commandeer some primo parking. In addition, the players get some parking spaces as well. These were all promised to Mr. Irsay. So if you put it all together, the city and state, otherwise known as the taxpayers, are being asked to shell out millions for parking spaces, that they can't afford so some really rich folks can park close to the Stadium to make a rich guy even richer at your wallet's expense.
The Colts are already making out like bandits ($48 million contract buyout payback, $121 million in naming rights from Lucas Oil, $7 million annually in lease revenue, all game day revenue, up to $3.5 million in non-game revenue and the city has to maintain the stadium). This doesn't even count the millions in operating cost overruns. And the Colts were also opposed to keeping some ticket prices under $25 for regular folks. And they balked at a ticket fee to help pay for pubic safety in Marion County.
Instead of those activities providing ever increasing funds for the operation of local government, you are pleading poverty which would force you to close swimming pools, reduce trash removal services and endanger citizens by reducing law enforcement and fire protection personnel. You are increasing city indebtedness for reasons which have nothing to do with your appropriate functions. The servicing of that debt will continue to curtail funds needed for those functions . . .
Has it not become apparent after 20 to 30 years of these tax and spend policies that they are not successful, at least as far as municipal government is concerned? Should not "investments" by the city at some time begin to produce a return favorable to the investor? Is an increase of tax revenues which can be used only to retire increased debt really of value to the city?
As far as debt and revenues are concern, we have now had revealed just what kind of deal you most recently negotiated for the city. You will raze a completely functioning, 22 year old building and replace it with one costing approximately ten times as much.