Disclaimer: Dax has served for 6 years as a board member of Spurs Give, the non-profit of the San Antonio Spurs. 

This November, San Antonio faces a defining choice: whether to extend hotel and rental-car taxes to help fund a new Sports & Entertainment District downtown. It’s a decision about more than a venue; it’s about whether we still believe in betting on ourselves.

We’ve done it before. HemisFair ’68, the River Walk, the Pearl.  None were perfect bets, but each changed how we experience our city. They were messy, ambitious, and essential. Together, they told the world that San Antonio was serious about its future. This generation now faces the same test: move forward with an investment that creates a new anchor of our city’s identity for the next 25 years, or stay stuck in neutral, wondering what if?

The vote is straightforward. A “yes” uses visitor-driven taxes to fund a district that strengthens our tourism economy and supports a more walkable, connected downtown.  Creating the kind of density needed to assist next-level economic development efforts.  A “no” is a delay we’ll pay for twice: once in time lost, and again in dollars. There’s no property-tax increase here, just a choice about whether we leverage our own success to build the next chapter of it.          

Why a district at all? Because San Antonio needs a downtown that thrives seven nights a week,  not just on game days or the occasional world tour rolling through town. A walkable mix of venues, dining, culture, and hospitality gives people a reason to explore, experience, and spend. As we have seen, the River Walk alone can’t carry that burden in a changing economy. A district creates predictable foot traffic and local opportunity, the lifeblood of small businesses, all year long.

Big civic moves require accountability. Public money must create public good. A “yes” vote keeps that work going by creating space to finalize a community benefits agreement that guarantees local hiring, small-business access, and room for San Antonio’s own operators. Just as important, the numbers should be public, the analysis open, and success measured in steady downtown activity for the long-term. That’s how cities grow responsibly. You can’t build a future by rejecting every blueprint.

So let’s apply the No Test:
If you oppose the district, show us your Plan B. Outline your funding sources, your milestones, your measurable goals for downtown activity, and how you’ll replace the visitor-tax revenue we’d forfeit. Publish it. Debate it. Own it. But do something with gains, not just imagined reallocation of tax dollars without a source generating them. Because rallies and comment threads aren’t urban planning, and rejection without replacement (hint, light rail) has cost this city more momentum than any failed project. Ever.

San Antonio has too often hesitated when it should have built. We have a story worth showing the world, and I want us to be seen for it. A “yes” vote shouldn’t end at a ribbon-cutting. It should deliver real wins for the East Side and nearby neighborhoods, backed by timelines, dollars, and accountability. Walkability shouldn’t be a vibe; it should be standard. Short blocks, shade, ADA-first design, and micromobility should define how people move through the district. That’s the kind of hospitality that reflects who we are: welcoming, practical, and forward-looking.

There’s a history of cities that hesitated, then scrambled to win back what they’d lost. Seattle said no to a new arena deal and lost the SuperSonics in 2008, a wound they’ve spent more than a decade trying to heal. Houston lost the Oilers in 1996 and fought their way back to the NFL just three years later, after promising a new stadium. Charlotte saw its Hornets leave in 2002, then fast-tracked a new team and arena by 2004. Each case tells the same story: when a city loses its major-league identity, it doesn’t save money; it just pays more later to get it back.

Because if this district doesn’t move forward, the consequences are clear. Saying “no” isn’t a pause; it’s a path that tells the country who we are for the next 25 years. Cities that let their identity stagnate lose more than conventions or concerts; they lose confidence. They fade from the national map long before we notice the decline at home. And yes, there’s reputational risk in appearing unsure about our future. But the greater risk is the slow decay of relevance that comes from sitting out when we have the chance to build with great partners.

If the measure passes, the work begins. Let’s post a public dashboard tracking local leases, workforce commitments, community reinvestment schedules, and VIA mobility improvements that put people before cars. Progress is credibility measured in deliverables, not press releases.

I’m voting yes. Not out of blind optimism, but because San Antonio’s history proves that bold bets move us forward. The River Walk, HemisFair, the Pearl; each began as a leap of faith that others called risky. And each paid off because visionaries who believed in us and our city refused to settle for inertia.If we’re not building this district now, then what are we building? If there’s a credible, funded Plan B that delivers the same downtown vitality and small-business growth, show it. Otherwise, “No” is not a strategy. It’s surrender.