$342 million on a Stadium will people still suffering

[Canuck Carrie 1]

And here I thought that it was FEMA that covered 90% of the $185.4 million for it.

[Heracles 417]

I just realized, I hope Alexandra (Alex+r) doesn't see this post. I was half asleep and used will instead of while in the heading

And here I thought that it was FEMA that covered 90% of the $185.4 million for it.

So it was USD..

90%!!! ######

[Alex+R 0]

I just realized, I hope Alexandra (Alex+r) doesn't see this post. I was half asleep and used will instead of while in the heading

I actually opened the topic because I was drawn in by the strange spelling in the heading.

[Canuck Carrie 1]

I don't know much about FEMA, who determines how & where FEMA funds are distributed? Is it FEMA itself or the LA politicians that decided the stadium was worthy of the money rather than roads, houses, etc?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Most people in the US would want a new stadium than better schools. So sad.

[hockeygal 0]

Most people in the US would want a new stadium than better schools. So sad.

In canada, they would rebuild the ice rink first!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most people in the US would want a new stadium than better schools. So sad.

In other situations where local cities (Seattle, Phx) have gotten the taxpayers to foot the bill for stadiums, I've been adamantly opposed. However, this stadium already existed, housed thousands of people after one of the biggest natural disasters in U.S. history, and condemning it would have cost millions in clean up. I think this was a good decision and when looking at the dollars per person - it's about $387, which is really isn't that much in comparison to the costs needed to rebuild the city.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is it just the stadium we're talking about here? Seems to me that to "fix" it in such a way that it could once again host major sporting events, its inevitable that the surrounding infrastructure (roads, transport linkages etc) would have to be fixed as well.

But that's just stating the obvious.

[no name 1]

I have N.O. friends who were glad to see last night happen.

As one said:

"There are many homes completely repaired in new orleans. and thousands completely ruined. But repairing the superdome brings millions of dollars into new orleans so it is good for everyone that it was fixed early."

and

"The fact that it has returned has really lifted the spirits of many new orleanians - a little piece of "home" is back."

Edited September 26, 2006 by devilette

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Most people in the US would want a new stadium than better schools. So sad.

In other situations where local cities (Seattle, Phx) have gotten the taxpayers to foot the bill for stadiums, I've been adamantly opposed. However, this stadium already existed, housed thousands of people after one of the biggest natural disasters in U.S. history, and condemning it would have cost millions in clean up. I think this was a good decision and when looking at the dollars per person - it's about $387, which is really isn't that much in comparison to the costs needed to rebuild the city.

In many cities they want a shiny 'new' stadium to replace an older perfectly serviceable one. I have a problem with that.

[almaty 19]

it's football baby.....

i guess, they could have given the $$$ to haliburton like before for trailers, not used..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most people in the US would want a new stadium than better schools. So sad.

In other situations where local cities (Seattle, Phx) have gotten the taxpayers to foot the bill for stadiums, I've been adamantly opposed. However, this stadium already existed, housed thousands of people after one of the biggest natural disasters in U.S. history, and condemning it would have cost millions in clean up. I think this was a good decision and when looking at the dollars per person - it's about $387, which is really isn't that much in comparison to the costs needed to rebuild the city.

In many cities they want a shiny 'new' stadium to replace an older perfectly serviceable one. I have a problem with that.

I do too and when I first saw this posted, my initial reaction was the same. I absolutely hate when teams want cities to pay for stadiums with tax money and threaten to move the team elsewhere if they don't get what they want. In this case, that is not the situation, IMO.

[incanada1234 0]

NO is becoming (has already become?) quite a joke of a city.

[sarah and hicham 3]

I saw this on ESPN last night I think. I was pretty surprised to see communities that no one could even return to because they were totally destroyed and still are however they were able to build or work on the huge stadium. That's stinky!

[Cassie 8]

Most people in the US would want a new stadium than better schools. So sad.

In other situations where local cities (Seattle, Phx) have gotten the taxpayers to foot the bill for stadiums, I've been adamantly opposed. However, this stadium already existed, housed thousands of people after one of the biggest natural disasters in U.S. history, and condemning it would have cost millions in clean up. I think this was a good decision and when looking at the dollars per person - it's about $387, which is really isn't that much in comparison to the costs needed to rebuild the city.

In many cities they want a shiny 'new' stadium to replace an older perfectly serviceable one. I have a problem with that.

I do too and when I first saw this posted, my initial reaction was the same. I absolutely hate when teams want cities to pay for stadiums with tax money and threaten to move the team elsewhere if they don't get what they want. In this case, that is not the situation, IMO.

Please also factor the $15 million given from the NFL to speed up the rebuilding of the stadium.