Q&A about yesterday’s stadium post
In response to my post yesterday about the stadium, several people raised interesting questions and comments. I’ll reply here.
Q: What's the value at the state level of Nashville being a top tier sports city?
A: The state does seem very interested in the East Bank. I suspect that Gov. Lee views Oracle as “his deal” and maybe he has an interest in seeing the rest of the East Bank develop too? Whatever the reason for the state’s interest, the suggestion in the question is that, if the decision ends up being to build a top-notch stadium, then the state should contribute dollars to that. My perspective today is that I am relatively indifferent about who would pay to build a new A++ stadium as long as it isn’t Metro taxpayers.
Q: Shouldn’t East Bank infrastructure spending by Metro have priority because there will be multimodal connections not available everywhere in Davidson County?
A: There are a few things to unpack here. First of all, is this true? Does the East Bank plan have multimodal connections not available in other places? The implies that major transit connectivity is part of the East Bank plan. I have heard talk about connecting the East Bank with a transit plan. As an example, in this January 2, 2022, Tennessean article, it said: “The new East Nashville boulevard would include bike lanes, pedestrian access, more rapid bus service and could eventually be part of a new citywide mass-transit system, Cooper said.“
As far as ideas go, this isn’t the not worst one I’ve heard. It might have some real merit. But where’s that in any plan shared with the public? It would be impactful to me if a credible transit plan were added onto the current East Bank plans. But I haven’t seen that yet.
Q: Doesn’t equating "East Bank" with "stadium and city-owned parking lots" put an unintentional thumb on the scale in your analysis?
A: This comment makes a fair point about the names I used. I agree that the East Bank should be thought of as the entire area from PSC Metals up to Oracle. For my post yesterday, I was using a smaller definition and I should have made that clear. I was focusing in yesterday’s post on the stadium and city-owned parking lots because (I think) that is the area where taxes will be captured for the stadium and infrastructure in the immediate area. To the extent that the tax capture area were to end up being larger than the current stadium and parking lot footprint, that would add a new dynamic. If that were the proposal, we would have to know that capturing tax dollars from an area that is already developing for one purpose means you are taking them from some other purpose.
Thanks, everyone. I’ll share more as we learn more.