Spurs arena city funding
Debate continues over the city's contribution to a roughly $1.3 billion new Spurs arena and Hemisfair entertainment district (Project Marvel). County voters already approved their share; the mayor sought a public vote on city funding (denied by council), pushed to lower city infrastructure exposure significantly (reported toward ~$35M), and excluded arena roadwork from the bond, preferring special taxing zones. Supporters cite jobs and tourism; opponents prioritize basic services and affordability.
How should San Antonio fund its share of the new Spurs arena and related development?
Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.
How important is this to you?
✓ You told us where you stand
Sources
Sports Business Journal — https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/08/04/san-antonio-mayor-seeks-public-vote-on-spurs-arena-funding/
Ongoing debate over the city’s contribution to a new ~$1.3B Spurs arena and related entertainment district. ... Mayor pushed for a public vote on city funding (denied by council) and reduced city exposure, citing the deficit/affordability.
Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones — https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/san-antonio-mayor-bond-plan-spurs-arena-22465440.php
Her bond framework explicitly excludes arena-related roadway improvements, arguing special taxing zones (hotel tax, TIRZ) should cover it instead of general obligation bonds.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
- Reject any public subsidy and require the Spurs/private partners to fully fund the arena
- Limit city help to minimal infrastructure paid only by hotel/TIRZ taxes, with a public vote
- Provide reduced city infrastructure funding without using general-obligation bonds
- Approve substantial city contributions for the economic and tourism benefits
- Maximize public investment including bonds to secure the project and surrounding district