For a week, the city of Charlotte has asked people to comment online about its plan to spend $650 million upgrading Bank of America Stadium for Tepper Sports and Entertainment.
WFAE obtained the full survey results, which showed that — by a nearly 4 to 1 margin — people who responded are against the project.
But when Charlotte’s economic development director Tracy Dodson summarized the results of the survey Monday she dramatically downplayed the negative reaction to the deal.
Summarizing the themes she said emerged in the comments, Dodson told City Council members that the online comments were mostly about four issues:
- The money should be used for other things.
- The project should be used to create opportunities for local businesses.
- Ensure the city is protected financially.
- People offering opinions the design of the stadium or proposed features, like a canopy.
But a review of the responses shows that roughly 300 of the 450 people who responded online said they opposed the deal. The most common reason they gave: The city should not use public dollars to subsidize a multi-billionaire, David Tepper. People said he should “pay for his own damn stadium.” Many cited the team’s aborted plan to build a new headquarters in Rock Hill as reason to kill the Bank of America renovation.
Under the proposal, Tepper would contribute $150 million to the stadium overhaul, for a total of $800 million, as well as paying more than $400 million more in ongoing maintenance and upgrades over the next 15 years. The Carolina Panthers and Charlotte FC would commit to remain in the city through at least 2039.
There were roughly 85 people who were enthusiastic about the project, saying it would raise the city’s profile.
There were roughly 70 who weren’t for or against it. They just said they wanted things like real grass instead of artificial turf or a canopy over the stands.
In her presentation to City Council, Dodson said the public comments included, “the money should be used for other items. That’s expected.”
She then reminded council members that the stadium upgrades would be paid for from tourism taxes, which, by state law, can only be used for things that benefit the tourism industry.
Dodson added that other people had “opinions on the design and proposed features. And many of the proposed features we heard were about a dome.”
She did not tell council members that most of the respondents are against the deal on principle, that the city should not be subsidizing Tepper, the owner of the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte FC.
Dodson unveiled the plan on June 3. She wants City Council to vote on the proposal on June 24.
At Monday’s meeting, five council members said they wanted to hold a public hearing on the plan at least a week earlier instead of on the same night as the vote.
Council member Dimple Ajmera said the city’s timetable is too fast.
“We are talking about $650 million,” she said. “I know you said you don’t want us to feel rushed, but I feel like we are being rushed. So I just don’t understand the urgency of having to make a decision on June 24 and having a public hearing on the same day.”
Four others agreed: Renee Johnson, Victoria Watlington, Tiawana Brown and LaWana Mayfield.
Mayfield said if council members don’t have at least a week to consider public comments, the city would draw more scrutiny and opposition to the deal.
“I think we put ourselves in a position where we will have a lot more scrutiny from the media that are here about transparency and accessibility," she said.
During that discussion, Dodson initially said would provide council members a more detailed summary of the online survey. Under pressure from council members, she later said she would send them the full results.
It’s unclear if the city will agree to hold a special public hearing a week before the vote. City Council's economic development committee is set to discuss the stadium deal Wednesday afternoon.
