Stadium doesn’t add up for taxpayers

THANK YOU for your coverage of the bond issue for a potential new stadium. One omission in Geoff Grammer’s reporting is the overall cost to taxpayers for upkeep. Those facts were not included in the breakdown of insight into any of the stadium operations mentioned. Also not included were the financials regarding stadium signage sponsorships, which United has said it would keep, and the concessions revenue.

The city would receive $900,000 a year for rent (and stadium revenues). Period. For a minimum $70 million stadium where the team is putting up only $10 million. Not including the cost of the land and upkeep, it would take over 50 years for the team to pay the city back.

There is a second glaring omission, the benefit to female taxpayers who make up 50% of the population and do not see their fair share of financial taxpayer support for their private enterprises. Ninety-eight percent of the jobs, executives and high-paying positions in every major sports organization belong to men. Why should women be on the hook for supporting yet another stadium and opportunity that is sexist in root?

Lastly, USL has referred to itself as the upcoming “largest stadium builder in the world, with 30 stadiums over the next five years” — soaking taxpayers along the way, taking credit for the tolerance of taxpayers and fans to pay their price for building a private, for-profit enterprise.

Albuquerque cannot afford this without hurting other necessary support its citizens so desperately need. Please vote “no.”

SARAH BONNEAU Albuquerque