stadiums

Sucking the Life Out of Detroit—With a New Sports Stadium

|

In 1999, William Ford Jr., whose family owns the Detroit Lions, said that a new stadium would "showcase the city's turnaround." In 1997, Michigan Governor John Engler stated that the stadium would symbolize the city's renewal. Over a decade later, the city is now bankrupt. But rather than learning from the past, and despite an overwhelming consensus amongst economists that sports stadium subsidies have no positive effect on an economy, the new Detroit Red Wings arena proposal is being sold as a way to boost the economy and bring Detroit out of bankruptcy. It's pitched as a win-win with no jeopardy to taxpayers. That's at best, a half-truth. For more information about Detroit's crony capitalism problem, click here.

Detroit Redwings Stadium Infographic
reason infographic

Sources

The Risky Economics of Sports Stadiums

Pro Sports Stadiums Don't Bolster Local Economies, Scholars Say

General information about the Stadium proposal

Debunking the Economic Case for Sports Stadiums

NEXT: Single Mom Who Admitted to Bringing Legal Gun into NJ Now Facing 11+ Years in Prison

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And getting rid of the Joe Louis Arena!? How could you, Ilitch?

  2. There’s still life in Detroit to suck out?

    1. Think hyenas gnawing on the bones.

      1. I would have said cannibals, but it still works.

        1. I prefer crows and vultures, risking harm themselves, to feed on road kill on a very busy highway.

          1. And why, I ask myself, is the highway so busy? Why, from people rushing out of Detroit to live elsewhere.

  3. …”the new Detroit Redwings arena proposal is being sold as a way to boost the economy and bring Detroit out of bankruptcy.”…

    Vote that straight D ticket folks! A chicken in every pot; two if you own a sports team!

    1. Er, you know Rick Snyder is pushing this, right?

      1. Bo Cara Esq.|8.11.14 @ 2:10PM|#
        “Er, you know Rick Snyder is pushing this, right?”

        Damn! Suck one GOPer in and it’s a JDRFU!

    2. Hey! You got me into a lot of trouble using the words “black blood” the other day! I knew I shouldn’t have taken the bait 😉

      1. Lay off Sevo, he is like 100 or something.

        1. Only joking! I can’t believe the explosion of comments that have occurred about that Shaneen lady as a result though!

          1. Right? It’s such a ridiculous name! Just like ‘avocado’ or ‘pilsner’ or ‘Urquhart’!

            1. I like the word bonobo. It always makes me smile.

    3. As Ilitch might say “Chicken! Chicken!”

  4. Shikha clearly misses the unmitigated good that this building project will result: it will be built by undocumented immigrants and, upon completion, will host a sport that employs thousands of Canadians, Czechs, Russians, Swedes, Fins, and assorted Slavs.

    Immigration win!

    1. DEY TUK ER JERBS!!11!!!!!

    2. In Detroit?

      Naw – it’ll be built by overpriced UNION labor! Solidarity, bitches!

      1. It’s all Canadian illegals there, anyway, right?

        1. Yep, hangin’ out by the Belle Tire, waitin’ for work…

  5. I’m liking these infographics. Hopefully they will appeal to audiences who would typically bypass a full-fledged article.

    1. Thank you! I hope so too.

        1. I always capitalize on an excuse to draw zombies.

          1. Are you new at Reason, Jason?

    2. Yeah! Reading sucks! More pictures!

      1. For many if my millinial brethren, pictures will draw them in.

        1. +1 Libertarian moment picture book

            1. It seemed so self-evident to me that it would be that I didn’t even think to be explicit.

  6. Infographic protip: Graphics are there to help the reader visualize the difference between numbers. So any piece of visual information should always a) have the accompanying number right there so you don’t have to go hunting for it, and b) be exactly proportional to the numbers being discussed, since you have pixel resolution control.

    Those who pays/who profits bars, for example, are out of context and can be easily dismissed as hyperbole. Spell out the terms that are laid out in the proposal, if you have them. If you don’t, then find something else to visualize.

    1. There you go again, using your logic privilege.

      1. Also the theme is all out of whack. None of the visuals have anything to do with life or life being sucked. And since when do zombies suck the life out anything? That’s vampires!

        1. Zombies suck brains out, which is exactly why there are no zombies in Detroit. A population without a food supply is doomed.

          1. Only zombies outside my preferred canon.

          2. Look man, in order to suck you have to have lips to create a seal and working lungs to create a vacuum. Not all zombies do. That’s why they claw, bite, and tear.

        2. They have to get the skull open first. They’re not clever enough to use the Egyptian trick of yanking the brain out through the nose.

          Gnaw, then suck. Vampires bite then suck. But hey, they’re both undead…

        3. Mafia usually makes the best methaphor for government since thats where they learned most of their extortion games from. This may be the equivalant of selling off all a businesses goods on the street and then setting it on fire and collecting the insurance.

  7. /climbs desperately out of the muck of the thread below.

    A Shikha article? Fuck it, I’ll take it.

    Anyway, I like the graphic. Simple and makes it’s point pretty easily. Fuck crony sports team owners.

    1. I spent about half-a-minute in that clusterfuck. It’s like some people are begging for shotgun bukkake.

      1. Go on….

        1. When you lie down with trolls you get up with their jizz in your mouth.

          1. I thought that was from eating squid

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..claim.html

      2. For real.

        It’s worse for me today than normal.

        Irish posted a Twitchy link about the riot in Ferguson last night which I followed and started reading the comments for. The stupid was so strong that I actually registered on Disqus and began to engage them. Then, completely infected from this contact I went to CNN to see what they had to say about it and the comments there made YouTube commenters seem thoughtful and sophisticated by comparison.

        I came to my sense and shut of my computer hoping to purge the damage from the experience with a little help from HnR and the first thread I read is an absolute chuckle-fuck.

        I blame BOOOSH.

      3. “Shotgun bukkake” new tv show?

        1. the janitors are hard to keep around.

        2. Sounds like a great band name, though.

      4. I think that Brian feller is Bo on nitrous.

    2. People lose their damn minds when it comes to sports teams. It’s sick.

      1. agreed.

        People also lose their minds about college. No matter how much they agree that costs are out of control, education like a sports arena, is always “worth it”.

    3. I don’t know what to say about that one.

  8. And this is why Reason is always on the side of the billionaire fatcats.

  9. There’s enough demand for Detroit’s bonds? Who’s buying, CalPERS?

      1. Why the chuckle? I’m certain your company would jump at some Detroit muni bonds. Right?

        1. Well, they like government debt…but if they won’t touch Greek, Italian or Portuguese bonds…I doubt Detroit is making its way into my master’s vast portfolio.

    1. I think they’re state bonds.

  10. Maybe someday if everything goes right, you will be able to sell the wiring and other goodies off for $500K.

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/…..0-in-sales

    I hate to say it, but if they had decided to keep the Metrodome intact and sell it for $583K, I would have been working my buddies to see if we couldn’t swing that much money. Just for the fun of it.

    After a year or so, we could have sold the copper and made most of our money back.

    1. Better article about the original sale for $583K

      http://www.detroitnews.com/art…../911170327

  11. This is an original six team, and you want them to skate in a barn like Joke Louis for the rest of Babcock’s tenure? Detroit has to have some pride.

  12. It’s not like they could use that money to pay off bondholders or anything, right?

    That said, I’m not hugely impressed with the infographic. Specifically for this: Money originally used for poor inner city children will fund a billionaire’s boondoggle.

    So, basically, the argument is that they shouldn’t spend it on this derp. They should spend it on some other derp. I mean, really, does anyone really want to tell me what the expected return on free shit for the CHILLLLLLLLDRRRRENNNNNNN!!!! is?

    1. I think it should be voluntarily given via charity, but yes, I do think assistance to the poor and needy can have pretty significant returns for everyone.

      1. Care to substantiate that? It might be a good and generous thing to do, but the entire point behind giving them money is that they have no means of earning any themselves. “I give you money and you go out and spend it” isn’t exactly a recipe for outsized returns, Bo.

        1. And if you think it is, maybe we should get together on figuring out your investment portfolio.

          1. The returns would, of course be diffuse, almost like ‘public goods.’

            1. That word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means, Bo.

              1. The ” around it are there for a reason.

                1. So, what, you’re going to try to tell us the little tykes’ll start building ROADZZZZ!!!one1!!

                  1. Er, no I mean that it has some aspects of a public good in that when it works everyone benefits from it in a diffuse rather than particular manner.

                2. Doesn’t make any sense even with the quotes around it.

        2. I’m thinking less about giving people money and things like having places like Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, Food banks, parks and libraries available to poor young kids to perhaps get their head outside of the commonly pathological culture their families and neighborhoods offer. When it works the kid is much more likely to contribute to society and take care of themselves rather than be taken care of by welfare or prison.

          1. So, basically, even less efficient income and wealth redistribution.

            Because receiving free shit has always been the surefire recipe for avoiding welfare and prison.

            1. I’m curious, how do you think children should be turned around from ending up on welfare or prison, which we all end up paying for?

              1. I think you are right about private charity. That is the wonderfully thing about non-coerced charity. People like to help others but they don’t want to throw their money away. A charity that seems to nothing is going to get less donations than a charity that really helps people. Who knows, with enough variety of projects someone might stumble on the way to really end the cycle of poverty.

                1. Charity is always going to be superior to any government program. No one participates in charity unless they genuinely want to help the subject, and people that need help can tell when someone is genuine and when someone is doing it because they are being paid (other people’s money) to do it, and it’s hard enough to get someone out of that cycle without having the additional barrier of being perceived as insincere. I think its a critical element that makes charity always better than government (even apart from the NAP benefit).

                  1. My mom always gives to this charity for impoverished people where you buy animals for them to raise. Like a chicken, but they teach them how to care for the animal for maximum profit, like harvesting eggs or raising chicks instead of killing the chicken. The idea is to help them become self sufficient instead of dependent. I don’t know how effective it is but it is different than a handout and probably better.

              2. Well, obviously, send the little scamps off to work my uranium mine and monocle factory.

                You miss the point. It isn’t our responsibility to “turn them around”. Moreover, there’s virtually no evidence that it is within our ability to accomplish. Hell, you can’t even look at welfare and prison in the same context. Welfare, we can simply not give out. It is, at the end of the day, an optional expenditure. And there’s virtually no evidence that we can “buy” non-criminality.

                1. It isn’t our responsibility to “turn them around”.

                  No one said anyone is responsible, but some people look at their fellow man and WANT to help. Bo is saying it is better to scrap welfare in exchange for a free market of charity. Also when it is not coerced I have the option of not giving a nickel to a healthy 20 year old and giving to a child that needs clothes.

                  1. Except it isn’t clear that there’s a return on doing so. It may be a nice, sweet, considerate, thing to do. But, let’s face it, you aren’t going to be collecting much in the way of yield. That’s why they call it charity, and not investment spending. Bo’s claim is that there is such a return. He’s simply wrong on that count.

                    1. I may be reading it wrong but I think he means a spiritual kind of return. Helping a kid learn to read does nothing for me financially but it makes me feel good. The fact that the kid may cure my bone-itis one day is a ROI that I will probably never see, but is theoretically possible.

                    2. I also mean in the sense of saving tax dollars and the thing you talk about, when someone becomes productive and helps others, even if only growing the pie.

                      Liberals aren’t wrong when they note that kids diverted from pathology end up saving lots of money in general, they’re just wrong in how to go about it

                    3. Here’s the thing, Bo. You don’t know any better than the liberals do how to go about doing that. Neither do I. Neither does any of us. And the best evidence I’ve seen, so far, is that there probaly isn’t a way to turn them around outside of their family or their own consciousness.

                      And, if that’s the case, spending that money might be great as a means of feeling good about yourself for relieving someone’s suffering. But, it isn’t a meaningful return in any way.

                    4. Well, fuck, if it’s a spiritual kind of return we’re talking about, just about any damned thing can be justified, including the bright, shiny, new stadium that Detroit residents can puff their chests out about. Or why don’t they just go out and buy the Louvre? I’m sure it will make them incredibly proud of how cultured they are.

                      And don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to attack you or Bo’s charitable impulses. Those are good things. I even give money to homeless people myself. But, unless we want to mangle the language, we can’t call it an investment or pretend it has a return.

                    5. Except the stadium and welfare are paid for through theft with no feed back from the people whose money is being stolen. If no charity does a good job at curbing poverty or taking care of those in poverty, people will either try something different or give up on helping. I’m not sold on ROI for philanthropy simply because I don’t think it can be objectively measured, for the record.

                    6. If no charity does a good job at curbing poverty or taking care of those in poverty, people will either try something different or give up on helping.

                      Which isn’t what I claimed. Actually, I think your position is probably closer to mine than you think. Taking care of those in poverty may well be a noble thing. The question is whether there is a return, some creation of value. That isn’t at all clear to me.

                2. There are kids who are on a path to prison, and we are going to pay for that. If they can be put off that path we all save, including you. It seems worth a try.

                  1. And if we spend a trillion dollars and just one child avoids that fate….

                    Except the evidence is that we’re going to pay for that regardless of whether we spend the money trying to turn them around. Free stuff doesn’t make Little Johnny become a law abiding citizen.

                    1. I think that’s demonstrably wrong as a general statement. Maybe you’re right that as a net not enough can be diverted to justify the expense, but I don’t see that that’s obvious.

                    2. Which statement?

                      Except the evidence is that we’re going to pay for that regardless of whether we spend the money trying to turn them around.
                      or
                      Free stuff doesn’t make Little Johnny become a law abiding citizen.

                      Because, on the contrary, all the evidence I’ve seen is that both statements are accurate. As to the former, barring a complete revocation of the drug war, we’re probably going to continue to lock the kids up in prison, even if you found some policy that was completely effective (none, so far). As to the second, just bear in mind that the actual surge in violent crime in the 60s-80s actually coincided with an explosion of spending on the poor.

                3. I’d say it is absolutely in the best interest of anyone interested in shrinking government to generously support effective private charity.

                  A shortcoming in private charity has and will continue to be used as an argument for needing government social programs. In today’s world, people will demand some form of assistance to the poor.

              3. “I’m curious, how do you think children should be turned around from ending up on welfare or prison, which we all end up paying for?”

                You assume that there is some magical program that can “turn them around”, but there likely isn’t. Some are going to turn out OK, others are not, no matter what you do.

                The problem we’re having is with kids increasingly growing up in broken families. And the reasons for that are simple: it’s become socially acceptable, and we actually reward it financially.

            2. You know given the choice (and let’s be honest because of our current system none of the options are “don’t spend that money at all”), I’d rather my tax dollars be given to 1,000 poor inner city kid then one billionaire douchebag.*

              *SLD applies.

              1. Yeah, it’s not like Detroit’s bondholder’s had to take a markdown or anything. It’s not like Detroit couldn’t do with lower taxes. The only choices you had for spending are inner city kids and billionaire douchebags.

                1. Did you not get the SLD apply part of his comment?

                  1. Okay. What does it stand for?

                    1. “Standard libertarian disclaimer”

                2. If you could get lower taxes passed through their dem controlled city council and state gov, obviously that would be the best choice.

          2. There is little evidence that giving more money to these institutions have any beneficial effects on kids.

            What kids need is intact homes and families and a strong motivation to work, and the kinds of policies you advocate are detrimental for that.

    2. Well, the point is that this is funded by money diverted from the Michigan School Aid Fund (which is in the infographic). Yeah, that’s not particularly relevant to libertarians, but I’m pretty sure Reason is trying to appeal to a broader audience.

  13. I heard something this morning about some car company, maybe Toyota, helping to bail out some Detroit art museum so it doesn’t have to sell off its artwork. Huh?

    1. Several of the car companies are helping to bail out the Art Museum, Toyota being one of them.

      Actually, they’re contributing money to insulate the Art Museum from being liquidated to pay off Detroit government debt during the bankruptcy.

    2. How do you say “irony” in Japanese?

      1. It’s the same word as “opportunity”.

      2. Fukka yoo, big three?

      3. Irons in the steam
        Hat is hatwee-ah

      4. I think its close to

        Trans-sexual Chased by Dinosaur Make for Great Television Amusements!”

        1. Most dishonorable, Gilmore-san 😉

  14. Detroit needs a hugely expensive, taxpayer-funded sports stadium about as much as it needs an infestation of drover ants. Slightly less, in fact.

    So far as I can see, the only city or town in the United States that has a halfway reasonable relationship with its sports team and stadium is Green Bay Wisconsin.

    1. It’s so reasonable, the NFL, NBA, and MLB have prohibited it from being replicated anywhere else, lest localities start getting it in their heads that they should be equal partners with sports teams that bare their names.

      There must be an anti-trust lawsuit in here somewhere…

  15. I’m surprised there are enough people in Detroit with money to spend on hockey/baseball/football/basketball tickets.

    1. In Detroit, no.

      But the Detroit metropolitan area has about 4 million people, and there’s lots of money here.

      Visit neighborhoods in Birmingham or Grosse Pointe Shores and see multi-million-dollar mansions. And there are expensive restaurants and bars that are full every night. There’s money here. Just not so much in the political division of Detroit proper. And even there there’s a bunch of start-ups and high-tech firms with twenty-somethings living in the city, with money to burn.

      Drop by and I’ll buy you a drink at one of those bars.

  16. Someday, in the near future a prog intellectual will be walking through the rubble of a once vibrant American city. And he will mutter to himself “How did this happen? How did civilization completely fall apart here? We had everything, expensive schools, sports stadia, mono-rail, union jobs to protect wages, make work projects, extensive welfare, no guns, we taxed the shit out of everything to increase fairness. Yet all we have to show for it is a burning hole in the ground that used to be a city.”

    He will then blame market failure.

    1. Uh, that’s pretty much the case with Detroit today. Proggies blame capitalism for its decline. No, really.

  17. DDA bond yields are around 5%. I wouldn’t invest someone else’s cash for that mediocre return (given the risk).

    1. It is tax free.

      1. It could end up “return free” too, yes?

        1. High risk, no return. Technically, that is an investment strategy.

            1. I can get you an ROI of, say, -6%. Interested?

    2. In a ZIRP, that’s junk.

      1. Those bonds are junk under any monetary policy.

        Still, point taken.

    3. From the infographic, the bonds will issued by the state. The state is in slightly better shape than the city and, regardless, as a sovereign it will be very difficult for them to run away from the obligation (it can’t file bankruptcy like Detroit).

      (Though the state may very well set up a redevelopment agency to actually issue the bonds.)

  18. They were posted for mockery, but aren’t these two statements 100% true, if unintentionally revealing?:

    In 1999, William Ford Jr., whose family owns the Detroit Lions, said that a new stadium would “showcase the city’s turnaround.” In 1997, Michigan Governor John Engler stated that the stadium would symbolize the city’s renewal.

  19. Building that stadium is helping poor children.

    Krugman told me so.

    1. And you should say three Hail Krugmans every morning….then go out and break some windows.

      1. Starting with some of his, would be my vote.

  20. Seattle is *still* paying off the Kingdome, even though it’s been torn down. Probably not the only such example.

    1. And we’re paying for two new stadiums and are bucking for a third!

  21. Stipulating that publicly-financed stadiums suck, I expect better from Reason than to lazily say that the money for this was diverted from poor kids. (Among other things…would that our children could be so lucky as to starve the Detroit Public Schools to fiscal death.)

    The Detroit DDA has two income streams: A one-mill surcharge tax on commercial property owners within the DDA and tax increment financing. The money going to repay the arena bonds is captured from *new* tax receipts driven by updated assessments on improved properties, over and above what the schools already get. Saying that schools are taking a cut while their actual dollars received remains static is disturbingly close to federal budget logic in which growing the budget at less than expected is considered a budget cut.

    So, argue that Ilitch shouldn’t get any tax dollars of whatever provenance to build a stadium, and I’ll happily agree with you. But lay off the “For the chillllllllldren,” please. And “taxpayers,” while correct, ought to be clarified to note that it’s only commercial property owner taxpayers within the DDA district who’re paying off the bonds for the arena, not Joe Detroit Taxpayer like me.

    Also, and most importantly, “Red Wings” is two words.

    1. it’s only commercial property owner taxpayers within the DDA district who’re paying off the bonds for the arena, not Joe Detroit Taxpayer like me.

      That’s almost never correct.

      Lost of cities claim that “these monies” or “those monies” will be used to pay “this program” or “that program” when in reality, a lot of those monies end up in the general fund. The gist being that “these or those” monies will be enough to cover the expenses.

      It’s also been pointed out before, that these types of allocations are done mostly by tradition or memo, not so much by any law.

      Bottom line, if “these” or “those” monies end up not covering– or being able to cover the costs of the stadiums, the money ends up being taken from the general fund.

      1. And even aside from that who actually pays a tax is different from whom the government collects the money. The former is governed by tax incidence, and is largely independent in the long run of from whom the government collects the money.

    2. Interesting, you think that the tax incidence is such that taxes on commercial property owners will in no way be passed onto employees or customers, not even a fraction?

      Seems pretty unlikely.

    3. Also, and most importantly, “Red Wings” is two words something you get awarded for eating out your lady during that time of the month.

      1. TIWTNLW

    4. Of course, taxes on the commercial sector (either on property or profits) end up getting passed along to you via higher prices, so Joe Detroit Taxpayer still gets stuck with the bill. They just hide how you’re getting stuck by taking a less direct approach…but the money is still going to come out of your pocket.

      1. Damn, everyone else hopped on that one quickly.

    5. Thanks for the feedback. I’ve corrected “Red Wings” (as a Wings fan, I should know better). And you’re correct that the DDA payments come from property taxes, but state taxpayers can be on the hook if these DDA payments don’t materialize. Ilitch, however, assumes no risk.

    6. “The Detroit DDA has two income streams: …”

      It really doesn’t matter. In the end, it’s the people of Detroit who pay for it, either directly or indirectly, in higher prices and/or lower wages.

  22. Russia: Plans Humanitarian Intervention into Ukraine

    NATO Believes this is merely a pretext to enter the ongoing civil war and expects them to attempt to replace existing Ukrainian Regime with leadership more accommodating to Russian interests

    Which is totally, like, a tactic they just invented

      1. My point was more to the fact that no one in the media has yet pointed out that =

        “Russia’s blatant unilateral insertion of themselves into a civil conflict with a humanitarian pretext but an obvious motive to undermine and overthrow the existing regime”

        bears some mild resemblance to the recent US “blatant unilateral insertion of themselves into a civil conflict with a humanitarian pretext but an obvious motive to undermine and overthrow the existing regime

        Coverage of these events are somewhat similar to Libya’s recent descent into civil war – in the sense that the Media seems to have developed a severe case of memory-loss about ‘context’ and ‘intent’ and actual consequences of/connections to US Foreign Policy.

        1. Oh, I agree absolutely. Russia and China are only going to act as “good” as we do. And if we have our imperialist hat on, then I feel sorry for Ukraine or Hong Kong.

          1. Russia and China are going to do what they think is in their best interest. If they can make the U.S. seem hypocritical, that’s a secondary benefit in their eyes.

            1. i think you may have missed the point.

              But whatever.

              i think we should have stayed the hell out of Iraq (again); whereas, i think we should be sticking to our agreements in the Budapest Memo, and ensuring Ukraine’s independence isn’t threatened

    1. You know who else invaded a country just to help out?

      1. On the tip of my tongue……..

      2. Santa Claus?

        Every year that SOB is in everybody’s airspace. “For the children”, so he says…

      3. Princess Di?

    2. I was expecting this. We’re coming to save the children! Welcome Ukraine, back to Mother Russia!

        1. We’ve always been at war with EastEurasia

    1. How does his vacation time stack up with other recent presidents? It seems like he takes a lot, but I honestly haven’t paid much attention.

      1. He has taken a fair amount – but its more the cost and when he does that stick out. Plus his own words being right there.

        Round of golf anyone?

        1. “‘you give me this office, then in turn…. I am giving myself to you.”

        2. “Swiss Servator, spare a franc?|8.11.14 @ 4:22PM|#

          He has taken a fair amount – but its more the cost and when he does that stick out.

          Following from my above comment = I think it is in fact a helpful coincidence that Obama chooses to be ‘unavailable’ at the same time as he has effectively strong-armed Iraqi leadership out of power, and re-engaged the US military in a war that he campaigned behind “ending”

          Does he want to appear as though he’s actually “in control” while this is going on? I doubt it. The entire thing is to create the impression that US ‘Humanitarian’ (bombing) intervention is merely co-incident with the shakeup in Baghdad

      2. How does his vacation time stack up with other recent presidents?

        Even when he is in DC, he generally seems to be on some kind of “stay-cation”, so its hard to say . . . .

        1. I’d rather the President and Congress be on vacation all year long. The less time they spend in D.C. the less damage they can do.

  23. Mediocre info-graphic team…

    Also, what’s the deal with labeling the owner as “billionaire” Mike Ilitch? Class warfare much? All that was missing (besides most of the numbers and the specific sources) was the ominous music when you used favorite prog. tactic of creating a gap between subject and audience by pointing out his wealth as if it is a taboo.

  24. I definitely do not support taking money away from kids, but the article fails to mention that the stadium, one that the Wings do need, is part of a 43 block entertainment district. This is how you draw young people to live in the city. The city will never turnaround unless people are drawn in to become residents. The exodus is what killed the city and bringing them back in is how to fix it.

  25. What life?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.