Problem
The article under required readings entitled "Progress, Pain for Vikings Stadium in 2015" describes the construction progress of the U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, Minnesota during its construction. One of the items highlighted in the article is the cost-there were some staggering numbers cited by the author in terms of cost overruns! For example, the author states in one year, the project costs had increased by $65 million for a total cost increase from $1.026 billion to $1.091 billion. Since there are public monies being utilized for approximately half of the cost of the facility, there is an entity overseeing the construction on behalf of the public.
The board of this entity approved budget increases at 10 out of 12 meetings in a 12-month time span. The remaining cost was funded by the NFL franchise, the Minnesota Vikings. Even though the Minnesota Vikings absorbed a large amount of the cost overruns, state and city taxpayers were likely concerned that such a large project with a relatively short construction window (31 months) could have been under-budgeted to this degree.
This is a commonly debated issue in the media, so whether you are a sports fan/music lover/theater buff/monster truck fan, it's your turn to weigh in! Use this discussion board as a debate for one side or the other by responding to the following:
1) Does the Minnesota Sports Facility Authority (and any other jurisdiction's construction oversight organization) have an ethical obligation to the taxpayers to keep the project on budget, even if it means that the brand new publicly funded entertainment facility that would last 15-20 years would have to go without or have lesser quality features?
2) Alternatively, should the organization strive for world-class status, with the anticipation of those features attracting larger and better future events in order to stimulate the local economy regardless of the current costs?