Which of the following is not a problem when using public funds for building a sport venue?

• A. Taxpayers end up bearing much of the cost burden.
• B. Teams stay and play in older stadiums.
• C. The money could be used instead for public education and low-income housing.
• D. The construction of a stadium can create local jobs.

Answer: (D)

When evaluating public funding for a sport venue, the central idea is weighing costs and benefits to the community. The money used comes from public sources, so there’s concern about who pays and what alternative uses are forgone.

The statement about construction creating local jobs reflects a potential benefit of public investment. Building a stadium can generate employment during the construction phase and may spur economic activity in the surrounding area, which people often view as a positive outcome of public spending.

The other points describe common drawbacks. Taxpayers often bear the cost, which means residents fund the project through public finances. If teams remain in older stadiums, the investment may not deliver the modernization many expect. And the money used for a stadium could instead fund public education or housing, representing an opportunity cost.

So, the option describing job creation is not a problem in the same sense as the others; it’s a potential benefit of public funding.