- Both are public expenditures serving relatively small portions of the populace (Stadium: Minor League Soccer Fans, Hill: Boy Scouts)
- Both are using tax monies during times of fiscal duress.
- Both are non-essential budget items that are being cost-justified with questionable claims regarding "tourism income".
Yet, Radack's Hill has been loudly mocked by the ChronBlog's Jr.
Other than the party affiliation of those championing the projects (and the price) I can't find much difference at all that would warrant such differing responses from such ideological purists.* (Or, more accurately, those who have no qualms selectively their outrage concerning corporate welfare based on party.)
*Of course the answer is that NEITHER project should have been green-lighted in the first place.