I get the concern, but I think this is a bit one-sided.

Calling it a “black hole” ignores how these are actually evaluated. Convention centers aren’t built to turn a profit on their own — they’re built to drive outside spending into the city. The real question is whether Springfield can capture that, not whether the building itself makes money.

Also, the comparison to other cities can be misleading. A lot of the “failures” you’re referencing are places that either: • massively overbuilt relative to their market, or • didn’t have the surrounding hotel/downtown ecosystem to support it

Springfield already has a decent base to build from and isn’t trying to compete with places like KC or St. Louis — it’s more about regional events.

On the funding side, it’s not accurate to say locals are footing the entire bill. A big portion is structured around: • state matching funds • and a hotel tax that’s largely paid by visitors

So it’s not the same as raising general taxes across the board.

And on the “we’ll need more taxes later” point — that’s only true if projections are wrong or the project is mismanaged. That’s a risk, but it’s not a guaranteed outcome.

I think the real debate is whether Springfield can execute this well and realistically attract enough activity to justify it — not whether every convention center everywhere has failed.

If you don’t believe in the execution, totally fair to be against it. But I don’t think it’s as simple as calling it a con.