As it turns out, Sports Stadiums don't bring economic development
The headline reads: "Want economic stimulus? Don't build a sports stadium."
Although, the headline may have been incomplete. Perhaps it was supposed to say, "Don't build a sports stadium that doesn't have a really sweet batting practice cage."
But then again, maybe not.
For many years the "economic boom" idea of building stadiums seemed to make sense and city after state pumped billions of taxpayer's dollars into such projects. But starting in the early 2000s, economists began to have enough data to show that the claims of beneficial end result of building stadiums was not as advertised.In fact, these days economists that disagree amongst each other about so much have developed a wide consensus based on the belief that sports teams in and of themselves are not great economic engines for a city and that building giant new stadium complexes are not the automatic boon to the area such as they were sold.
The reason that these stadiums are not as great an investment as previously thought is threefold according to Andrew Zimbalist, the Robert A. Woods professor of economics for Smith College and renowned sports economist. Zimbalist spoke in early 2009 to Freakanomics author, Stephen J. Dubner in the pages of The New York Times.
For one thing, Zimbalist says, the money that will be spent on the events held at the new sports arena or stadium is money spent by local residents. This is not new money but money that would simply have been spent on other entertainment in the metropolitan area if the stadium didn't exist. Secondly, the big money that goes to players, owners and investors does not stay in the area but is invested elsewhere. Third, the city or state is often chipping in up to a third of the continuing costs and this is tax money wasted, not revenue made.
Of course, everyone involved with our own "Lemon Bowl" knew this to be true almost instinctively. But since this involved spending OPM (Other People's Money) the usual fiscal constraints (and restraints) did not apply. At that point, emotions and ego take over and a decision that should have been based on "Does this really make economic sense?" became "Don't we want a stadium that Midlanders can be proud of?"
In other words, we spent $40 million dollars to "win" a pecker contest.
And we couldn't even manage to hang on to "Thunder in the Desert."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: As it turns out, Sports Stadiums don't bring economic development.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.jessicaswell.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3048
10 Comments
I would be interested to hear from these people what, exactly, the difference between "quality of life" and "stadium to be proud of" is.
Even if the "stadium we can be proud of" refers strictly to the hardware itself and "quality of life" refers to the "software/programming" then it is still a losing deal.
Although it is music to ones ears to read that others have come about to the same conclusions as proposed here by "disruptive aginers", there is no logical argument that will change a "Progressive's" mind.
I have come to believe that those souls who fervently believe MY money can be used to further THEIR cause believe this to be true in their heart of hearts, because of their feelings.
Progressives are wired differently , possibly because of alien abductions , poltergeists or Big Foot. Nonetheless , their brains will deny logic no matter how it is presented and they will rely on their feelings . If they feel they are right they also feel others will soon feel the same and they can teach the world to sing in perfect harmony....
BAH !
Quality of Life = justifies generating a deficit by operating and maintaining.
Stadium we can be proud of = bowing down to every RockHound want even though the city will not benefit (new suites, batting cage)
It has been a long, long time since anyone has said sports complex wouldn't be a big money pit. City leaders and the RockHounds guaranteed the city would take a bath with the contacts and deals Midland Sports Inc. got in the beginning and since (including six figures to "clean the football stadium").
City officials wanted to build it, open it and enjoy it before doing their homework on the money it would cost to operate it.
Since the RockHounds are the lone non-taxing entity to contact for operations, it was mandatory the city get that contract right. I couldn't guarantee this but it appears they let the RockHounds write their own contract, meaning the team would make money and the city would lose.
One former mayor never had to explain himself for the lack of homework done by city officials when it came to the complex.
And no matter the term you use to describe the money pit, we will be forced to continue a quarter-cent sales tax to pay for operations although supporters of continuing that will say it is not really a tax because other people pay for it.
For what it is worth, we probably need to hear from someone why the city lost Thunder in the Desert. Didn't we have that event even before the complex was built?
In 1997 Zimbalist penned "Sports, jobs, and taxes: the economic impact of sports teams and stadiums." Way back then he noted the economic impact of a minor league stadium project was about equal to the economic impact of a national chain pet store moving into a town.
On Rock the Desert, I wonder if it has to do with Odessa High being the Sponsor and not Midland High?
Thunder in the Desert is a high school band competition, held in our little facility annually until this year (and as an ex-band parent, I support it). At least the competition ends in the early evening.
As a neighbor of the complex, I am further incensed by the "concerts" that run to 1 a.m. No one discussed the effects of renting the facilities to folks perfoming amplified music for the already deaf.
Not to confuse you Shepherd, I just realized, I used the wrong event name! I meant *Thunder* Desert.
Having attended several DCI festivals, I've come to the conclusion that the performance facility isn't as important as the organization that coordinates the housing for the traveling students, schedules the clinics, provides the rehearsal space (outdoor and indoor) and generates the right cut of the proceeds to DCI.
I think the loss of Thunder in the Desert comes down to one of two scenarios: 1) Odessa High out bid Midland High for the event (either in $$$ or amenities) or 2) those Midland High Band boosters / dorectors who coordinated it in the past have moved on and the organization was ill prepared to continue after that loss of leadership.
To Old Otto:..... Pot, I do believe you have a collect call from Kettle. :)
To Ospurt, thank you for putting the responsibility for this event where it should be - on the boosters. It is not always easy putting on events and there may be a slump in leadership. However, no one else can really be blamed for Midland losing the event. If we try to pin the responsibility on anyone else, we might as well point at ourselves. If we are so concerned with the stadium's revenues and Midland's welfare, why did you or Old Otto take up the charge instead of just writing about it?
www.fibrecables.com.au has been set up as an e-commerce site, with our main objective being to offer you an extensive range of quality fibre optic products which will assist in the installation and upkeep of your fibre optic network whilst offering the products at competitive prices. Our aim is to make your shopping experience as easy as possible; the site has been designed so that navigation is simple and ordering quick and easy.
$40 million is a bit low. Try $48 million to $50 million once you include water and sewer, suites upgrades, scoreboard upgrades, turf replacement, etc.
And those people quickly changed their tune once budgets got out of whack to calling it a quality of life facility.