All cities were subsidizing stadiums. The Ballpark in Arlington has been good for the city.
$10 million is closer to what he sold for. I forget the amount but it was under $20 million. He did nothing illegal--it played out on the front-pages.
He made a huge profit because he bought into the investment when it was not subsidized and sold it after it was subsidized. The subsidy made the venture more profitable, so the value of the venture grew. As far as the $50m number, I thought that is what I remembered hearing on the biography channel special. Maybe I was confused with his net worth. If so, I apologize. This does not change the principle of how the money was made.
Look, in general, I like Bush. I just have a problem with what was done with this investment. I do not like the idea of taxpayers subsidizing a private venture. Think about it. Half a percent of every dollar spent in Arlington went to the ballpark. Do you really think it is fair that a private individual can become wealthy through a tax on individuals. I can open a business tomorrow and that would be beneficial. I would hire someone, pay rent, buy supplies, make the market more competetive in a specific industry, but should taxpayers have to pay a tax to reward me for this?