L
luvDkings
Guest
I must be the only one with internet in Sacramento because there are massive amounts of evidence that sports arenas suck cities dry.
For example, sports economist Brad Humphreys, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
“The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area, Humphreys and Coates noted in the report. The researchers found other patterns consistent with the presence of pro sports teams. Among them:
-- a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;
-- an increase in wages in the hotels and other lodgings sector (about $10 per worker year), but a reduction in wages in bars and restaurants (about $162 per worker per year).”
Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys analyze the economics of arenas and conclude that:
“The evidence suggests that attracting a professional sports franchise to a city and building that franchise a new stadium or arena will have no effect on the growth rate of real per capita income and may reduce the level of real per capita income in that city.”
Patrick Crouch, Rhodes scholar:
“After examining both the costs and benefits of sports arenas, it may well be the case that the benefits outweigh the cost. However, the degree to which this is true is unknown due to externalities. It should be noted that the actual benefit of sports arenas typically is far less than the benefit estimated in promotional studies.”
The new arena in Dallas had to offering tax incentives to businesses to move nearby. I guess it hasn't attracted the mass influx of companies that was expected.
“The minimal economic effects of a new stadium or arena on a city have been written about by many authors. Economic studies of these effects by many authors show only a small positive or negative impact on a city's economy, if any. Critics of economic development strategies which focus on sports often point out that many other alternatives might yield a better return on investment than that of sports.”
“The SBC Center, which opened next door to the coliseum three years ago as the home of the Spurs, has yet to bring the much-talked-about economic revitalization to the East Side neighborhoods surrounding it.”
Harvard did a study of the impact arenas have on local communities. It stated that never has any arena ever paid off to the promises of the team owners and backers.
So, an arena is not guaranteed to provide a big stimulus to the overall Sacramento economy or "quality of life," but should rather be seen as one more complementary amenity.
So why are we pursuing this? For starters, it's the astute civic and business leaders of the government dole that are behind it. They apparently think the MCI Center in D.C. revitalized that town, although urban scholars don't think the arena had that much to do with it.
“A report by the St. Louis Federal Reserve reveals that 55 arenas were built or refurbished between 1987 and 1999 in the United States at a cost of more than $8.7 billion, of which nearly $5 billion was paid by hard-working taxpayers in the form of government subsidies. The Fed's report also suggests such public-arena investments come at the expense of higher priorities - including schools, infrastructure and lower taxes - that produce solid returns to a larger segment of society.”
So, revitalization is the new snake oil mantra cast in the "show me the arena" spell. This pick pocket trickery seems to work every time. Some say Cleveland's on a comeback because of a baseball stadium and an indoor arena. But for many familiar with Cleveland's situation, the hype hasn't been met.
When this was on the ballot in '90," said W. Dennis Keating, professor of law and urban studies at Cleveland State University, "the promises and advertising were inflated."
Among the promises: an increase in employment with 28,000 permanent jobs, housing for the homeless and $15 million annually for city schools. So far, Cleveland hasn't seen those projections ring true, which bolsters what many economists have been saying for years -- sports stadiums do not bring the economic benefits that supporters trumpet.
Despite all this, the question stays in my head. Why does just about every civic and business leader on the government dole seem to support this arena? Why are they trying to censor the Sacramento Bee from making any negative comments on Measure Q and R?
The explanation may come from Phil Porter, director of the Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the University of South Florida. He says a sports arena financed by taxpayers can hurt a region's economy along with its "quality of life." But he goes a step further, enlightening us on the fixation of new arena measures by Sacramento's civic and business leaders on the dole.
“Politicians, though, are attuned to the possibility of losing a professional sports franchise and the negative fallout that would come with it. Nobody wants to be the mayor that lost the hockey team," But the question we ought to be asking is, “How much taxation is any team worth to your quality of life?” Porter said.
No matter how much fancy multimillion dollar big city make-up the Yes on Measure Q and R campaigners put on this pig, it's still a pig, a big fat pork-barrel pig. Our astute civic and business leaders of the government dole have to be careful, if a weak levee washes this arena deal down the drain, the public will no longer fall for ego-driven arena projects supported by weak urban cost/benefit analysis. That may mean the next ridiculous Downtown Revitalization Project will have to be (gasp) privately funded.
And if a sellout crowd of 17,317 of the most devoted fans of basketball at Arco Arena for every game since it opened in 1988 isn't enough for the Maloofs, then all their sincerity about how committed they are to this community is just another snake oil mantra in the pick pocket trickery of the "show me the arena" spell.
Citizens can only bear so much new taxes. Nothing personal. But it wasn't that long ago in Sacramento when pick pockets, snake oil grifters, and thieves were flogged and thrown out of town.
For example, sports economist Brad Humphreys, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
“The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area, Humphreys and Coates noted in the report. The researchers found other patterns consistent with the presence of pro sports teams. Among them:
-- a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;
-- an increase in wages in the hotels and other lodgings sector (about $10 per worker year), but a reduction in wages in bars and restaurants (about $162 per worker per year).”
Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys analyze the economics of arenas and conclude that:
“The evidence suggests that attracting a professional sports franchise to a city and building that franchise a new stadium or arena will have no effect on the growth rate of real per capita income and may reduce the level of real per capita income in that city.”
Patrick Crouch, Rhodes scholar:
“After examining both the costs and benefits of sports arenas, it may well be the case that the benefits outweigh the cost. However, the degree to which this is true is unknown due to externalities. It should be noted that the actual benefit of sports arenas typically is far less than the benefit estimated in promotional studies.”
The new arena in Dallas had to offering tax incentives to businesses to move nearby. I guess it hasn't attracted the mass influx of companies that was expected.
“The minimal economic effects of a new stadium or arena on a city have been written about by many authors. Economic studies of these effects by many authors show only a small positive or negative impact on a city's economy, if any. Critics of economic development strategies which focus on sports often point out that many other alternatives might yield a better return on investment than that of sports.”
“The SBC Center, which opened next door to the coliseum three years ago as the home of the Spurs, has yet to bring the much-talked-about economic revitalization to the East Side neighborhoods surrounding it.”
Harvard did a study of the impact arenas have on local communities. It stated that never has any arena ever paid off to the promises of the team owners and backers.
So, an arena is not guaranteed to provide a big stimulus to the overall Sacramento economy or "quality of life," but should rather be seen as one more complementary amenity.
So why are we pursuing this? For starters, it's the astute civic and business leaders of the government dole that are behind it. They apparently think the MCI Center in D.C. revitalized that town, although urban scholars don't think the arena had that much to do with it.
“A report by the St. Louis Federal Reserve reveals that 55 arenas were built or refurbished between 1987 and 1999 in the United States at a cost of more than $8.7 billion, of which nearly $5 billion was paid by hard-working taxpayers in the form of government subsidies. The Fed's report also suggests such public-arena investments come at the expense of higher priorities - including schools, infrastructure and lower taxes - that produce solid returns to a larger segment of society.”
So, revitalization is the new snake oil mantra cast in the "show me the arena" spell. This pick pocket trickery seems to work every time. Some say Cleveland's on a comeback because of a baseball stadium and an indoor arena. But for many familiar with Cleveland's situation, the hype hasn't been met.
When this was on the ballot in '90," said W. Dennis Keating, professor of law and urban studies at Cleveland State University, "the promises and advertising were inflated."
Among the promises: an increase in employment with 28,000 permanent jobs, housing for the homeless and $15 million annually for city schools. So far, Cleveland hasn't seen those projections ring true, which bolsters what many economists have been saying for years -- sports stadiums do not bring the economic benefits that supporters trumpet.
Despite all this, the question stays in my head. Why does just about every civic and business leader on the government dole seem to support this arena? Why are they trying to censor the Sacramento Bee from making any negative comments on Measure Q and R?
The explanation may come from Phil Porter, director of the Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the University of South Florida. He says a sports arena financed by taxpayers can hurt a region's economy along with its "quality of life." But he goes a step further, enlightening us on the fixation of new arena measures by Sacramento's civic and business leaders on the dole.
“Politicians, though, are attuned to the possibility of losing a professional sports franchise and the negative fallout that would come with it. Nobody wants to be the mayor that lost the hockey team," But the question we ought to be asking is, “How much taxation is any team worth to your quality of life?” Porter said.
No matter how much fancy multimillion dollar big city make-up the Yes on Measure Q and R campaigners put on this pig, it's still a pig, a big fat pork-barrel pig. Our astute civic and business leaders of the government dole have to be careful, if a weak levee washes this arena deal down the drain, the public will no longer fall for ego-driven arena projects supported by weak urban cost/benefit analysis. That may mean the next ridiculous Downtown Revitalization Project will have to be (gasp) privately funded.
And if a sellout crowd of 17,317 of the most devoted fans of basketball at Arco Arena for every game since it opened in 1988 isn't enough for the Maloofs, then all their sincerity about how committed they are to this community is just another snake oil mantra in the pick pocket trickery of the "show me the arena" spell.
Citizens can only bear so much new taxes. Nothing personal. But it wasn't that long ago in Sacramento when pick pockets, snake oil grifters, and thieves were flogged and thrown out of town.
