Legality of spending public money on private enterprise
<p>I am wondering about spending public money on private enterprise. In particular, for the city of Santa Fe, NM, USA. The enterprise is an <a href="https://%20https://www.santafenewmexican.com/sports/team-owner-says-new-arena-soccer-team-will-be-good-for-santa-fe/article_a125ee28-a4e8-11ed-8363-f30a7b6a37a5.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">indoor soccer franchise</a>.</p>
<p>The city is being asked to cover the $250k to $500k renovations and rent back time to the soccer clubs. The ROI would be 40+ years (based on the numbers in the article).</p>
<p>For reasons not entirely evident, the mayor is pushing hard for this. There are lots of outdoor, full size soccer facilities in Santa Fe.</p>
<p>Can you describe legal ways in which this might be challenged?</p>

<p>The government is allowed to spend public money on private enterprise. For example, the Small Business Administration gives grants to qualified businesses. Stadium subsidies have been a feature of government operations for decades, running in the billions of dollars. <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here is a list</a> of various larger businesses that received government bailouts.</p>
<p>There is a procedure for approving such expenditures, such as the legislature of a state or city council. The mayor cannot usually unilaterally declare that the city will spend money on such a project, unless the city council has created a discretionary fund for the mayor, to support projects that the mayor deems will &quot;benefit the city&quot;. Unless there is some flagrantly illegal about the funding, there is probably no legal means to challenge the decision in court, it is a purely political matter. In rare circumstances (<a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.99N&amp;full=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">like this</a>) a law can be passed that limits making stadium construction a taxpayer duty.</p>

united-states business sport new-mexico