I understand the criticism of media coverage ignoring the effects of the timing of dollars, which does skew the split in the Jags' favor from an NPV perspective relative to nominal dollars. Another log to add to that fire: the sliding scale if the Jags leave early really means the expected value term of the lease extension is 21.5 years.
However, I don't think it indicts the deal that's been struck. Yes, this may be a far worse deal for Duval taxpayers than stadium deals in other jurisdictions. But what leverage did the Mayor have to force other counties' taxpayers to chip in? Even if the Jags felt charitable and agreed to foot 60% of the bill, why would the NFL owners approve that? They don't care if the taxpayer funds are concentrated or distributed. Keep in mind also that Duval taxpayers benefit whenever Orlando, Tampa, or Miami want to upgrade their stadium/arena facilities because we don't subsidize them with our state tax dollars, either.
Stipulating that stadium subsidies are generally a bad deal for taxpayers everywhere, it's fair to say this is a bad deal primarily because of circumstances outside the city's control. The CBA makes it less bad (my opinion, of course). Alleging that the city is paying $150M now to get an extra $50M deferred is a bit disingenuous, because it assumes the city wouldn't have had to spend any of that $150M otherwise. It seems more like a political maneuver to bundle some of Deegan's policy priorities in with a stadium deal to avoid debating them separately, and I think this read is reinforced by Rory Diamond's immediate opposition to it despite it's popularity with the public. If the city $150M is stripped out, I'd easily bet most of it comes back as standalone spending proposals, but without the extra $50M from the Jags to assist (which is still worth $28.8M in today's money assuming equal annual payments and inflation tracking hot at 4% for the next 30 years). Investing $150M today to realize an increase in present value purchasing power of $28.8M is a 19% ROI. Seems pretty solid to me.
Let's assume miserably unfavorable borrowing conditions. If the city bonds out the $150M at 8% over a 30 year term, assuming the same 4% inflation rate, the present value of future payments is $230M. That's still a 12.5% ROI. Looked at differently, securing $178.8M in purchasing power by bonding out $150M at 8% over 30 years is equivalent to borrowing the full $178.8M over 30 years for about 6.25%.
If the city issues at a 4% rate, inflation offsets the cost of borrowing, raising ROI and imputing a 2.6% equivalent interest rate if the full $178.8M had to be borrowed.
If someone is politically opposed to the priorities included in the CBA money, fine -- that's politics. If someone if philosophically opposed to subsidizing stadium deals, perfectly reasonable. I don't, however, think the inflation-adjusted numbers support the assertion that the CBA itself is a loser at the margins.