[maerF0x0]

FWIW I actually prefer we simply tell private businesses that it's their responsibility to provide the environment/setting their employees work in. By that I mean if ticket master wants a monopoly they should have to build the stadiums too. No taxpayer money, incentives, land, or other interest group perks given.

[cogman10]

I'm ok with either. Though I tend to think public ownership makes more sense because a city can only support so many venues in general.

[maerF0x0]

Most cities have lots of venues of various sizes, I like a market place of them rather than a publicly owned monopoly. (Hence why I dont like Canada healthcare either)

[trumpdong]

¿Por qué no los does? The city owns a few venues, so private venues have to be better than the city ones to make any money.

[maerF0x0]

For sure, a mix is good too. Just not a monopoly :)

[cogman10]

I'd argue that the city owning the venue can't be a monopoly as the next city over is a different owner. That might be different if we were talking about the county or state taking ownership. IMO, these things shouldn't be state or federally ran.

But otherwise, yeah I'm happy if their is private competition with the city. I just give more priority to the city owning venues as the people in the city have the ability to vote out the politicians running the venue if they displease them.