The optics of using public funds to renovate a private football stadium in Charlotte are under heavy scrutiny, as reflected in the hundreds of comments recently submitted to the city. The debate centers on the proposed $650 million contribution from taxpayers towards the overhaul of Bank of America Stadium, home to the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte FC.

Community concerns

Local residents have voiced significant concerns about the city’s financial commitment, especially in light of rising property taxes and inflation, coupled with ongoing infrastructure challenges in the region. Critics argue that this substantial investment in a private entity is ill-timed and misaligned with the city's broader needs.

Although the situation around the stadium is of great interest to residents, not everyone is into sports. Some, perhaps including you, are looking for a place where you can take control of your crypto assets or exchange a wide range of cryptocurrencies in one click.

© Ken Fager (cc: by-nc-sa)

Specific feedback

Several themes emerged from the feedback:

1. Demand for a Dome: Many residents believe the high cost warrants more significant improvements, such as adding a dome. They argue that a roof would not only provide shade from the sun but also increase the stadium’s versatility, allowing it to host a wider range of events, including potentially the Super Bowl. However, city officials point out that this addition would significantly raise the project’s costs.

2. Soccer Enhancements: Supporters of Charlotte FC suggest that more should be done to cater to soccer fans, including incorporating more team logos, replacing the turf with a natural surface to reduce injuries, and adding features like a partial roof and safe standing sections.

3. Opposition to a Giant Screen: There is considerable resistance to the proposed exterior video board, seen as an unnecessary expense that would continually consume public resources. Many believe that the budget could be better allocated elsewhere.

4. Performance-Linked Funding: Some residents suggest that the Panthers should show improvement on the field before public funds are committed. There is a sentiment that the team’s lackluster performance does not justify such a large investment.

5. Long-Term Commitment: The deal includes a clause that the Panthers and Charlotte FC cannot leave Charlotte for 20 years, but many feel this term is too short. Critics worry that team owner David Tepper might relocate the teams regardless, drawing parallels to past broken promises.

Many citizens feel the city should not bear such a large portion of the renovation costs. They argue that Tepper, given his resources, should contribute more significantly to the project. This sentiment is amplified by Tepper’s previous abrupt termination of the Rock Hill headquarters deal, which has led to a lack of trust among the public.

© Ken Fager (cc: by-nc-sa)

Alternative uses for funds

A recurring theme among the comments is the suggestion that the $650 million could be better spent on other public needs. Suggestions include improving public transportation, particularly the Silver Line to the airport, boosting the arts scene, developing other tourist attractions, and enhancing public infrastructure.

Some also highlighted the need for better funding for Animal Care and Control, which has struggled with space issues leading to euthanasia of animals.

Supportive voices

Despite the criticism, there are proponents of the renovation. Supporters highlight the need for upgrades, pointing out the stadium’s aging facilities and inadequate amenities. They believe these improvements are essential for maintaining Bank of America Stadium’s functionality and appeal.

© Sherman Hayes