On Saturday the Spurs rallied support, to say yes in November, while on Sunday a non-profit pushed back, saying there are other priorities that need funding now.
SAN ANTONIO — SAN ANTONIO — Two rallies over the weekend brought competing visions for the future of San Antonio’s needs—and the role public funding should play in building a new Spurs arena.
Supporters of the proposed arena project, including the San Antonio Spurs organization, rallied Saturday to build momentum for a “Yes” vote on Propositions A and B in the upcoming November election.
The measures would allocate public funds to support the construction of a new arena and related entertainment developments.
But on Sunday, the nonprofit group COPS/Metro Alliance hosted its own rally—this one opposing the proposal and urging voters to reject Proposition B, which includes public investment in the arena project.
“We want them to understand what our position is going to be, which is to vote no for Prop B, which is the public funding of the Spurs arena,” said Beverly McClure, a COPS/Metro leader, addressing hundreds of supporters.
The nonprofit’s central message: use public dollars for public good.
After City Council opted not to commission an independent economic impact study, COPS/Metro brought in its own experts to evaluate the proposal. Among them were Dr. Geoffrey Propheter from the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs, who joined remotely, and Professor Emeritus Heywood Sanders from UTSA, who spoke in person.
Sanders raised concerns about the term sheet for the project.
“The Spurs have talked about committing $500 million initially, and then over the next 12 years an additional $900 million for $1.4 billion in new private investment in the arena.” Sanders Said.
“What the term sheet lays out is the Spurs aren’t obligated to spend a penny—not one penny—on new private investment,” Sanders said. “They are only obligated to try to find private developers who might make that investment.”
He also pointed out a potential loophole: the proposed private investments don’t need to be adjacent to the new arena.
“We’ve got 20 years of history to show there’s not a lot of interest in investing right outside the door of an arena,” Sanders said. “We did exactly the same, by the way, with the Alamodome.”
For many attendees, Sanders’ presentation validated growing skepticism about the arena’s long-term community benefits.
“Up to now, we felt powerless with the way things were going,” Lesley Rivera said. “But hearing that there’s some validity to our concerns, especially in terms of the financial non-benefits to the citizens of San Antonio, this was really great to hear.”
Meanwhile, Spurs Chairman Peter J. Holt addressed supporters Saturday, emphasizing that the public money outlined in the propositions would come from tourism-related taxes—not local residents.
“The public funding that you’re voting for right now is paid by tourists—hotel taxes and rental car taxes,” Holt said. “There’s no impact on local residents.”
Holt added that passing the propositions is key to unlocking billions in future investment.
“You’re voting for a new arena that will be surrounded by billions of dollars of new investments that can only happen if this proposition passes,” he said.
Voters will decide the fate of Propositions A and B in the general election on November 4th.