MickeyDavis wrote:A lot of posturing with the team and the city. It's not like they'll threaten to move.
It's not posturing from the City side. Elected officials have a fiduciary obligation to Geen Bay and its taxpayers, and nothing about *liking* the team or *wanting* to contribute makes that legal obligation go away. Green Bay is restricted from throwing an infinite pile of $$$ at a private corporation. The reality is the Packers will be absolutely *fine* without public financial aid. It doesn't meet the "but for" standard routinely applied to TIF districts. (tho not TIF, established rules apply). Further, there's a point of diminishing returns for the City: you help where an entity or critical sector needs an assist to get going or stabilize. You don't throw money at a hugely successful, most-valuable franchise when that $$$ will not appreciably increase positive impacts to the City. Setting a precedent that despite the agreed-upon terms, the City will cede the issue and should somehow magically just give in, would be negligent as hell.
It's blatantly economically inefficient as well: there's no bang for the public buck b/c it's happening with or without public financial aid. Policy-wise only a fool would start negotiations by ceding this and yielding on that when the terms of the existing lease support the City's position. That's a losing strategy, the kind only losers embrace. It'd be like giving the Chicago Bears 8 downs instead of 3 on their FIRST series: they're gonna want eight downs every time they get the ball. Fact is, the Packers don't *need* this. If Green Bay invests instead in adjacent civic improvements ahead of the NFL Draft, it'll accelerate momentum toward economic critical mass and the City as a whole is more likely to massively impress it's global peers when Green Bay THE CITY takes the global stage during the NFL Draft.
