OT: The Economics of Sports Stadiums and bye-bye to the Oakland A’s

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

I don’t believe this is necessarily true. The area that housed the Coliseum is pretty industrial. I don’t believe the stadium itself served as an economic linchpin the same way the Giants stadium does. When Pac Bell Park opened in 2000, it totally revitalized Mission Bay. I worked in the area for many of those years. The transformation was shocking.

Civic pride (or “psychic” pride if you prefer) is another thing. Oakland is the birthplace/hometown of Bill Russell, Rickey Henderson, Marshawn Lynch, Dame Lillard, Gary Payton, and numerous other luminaries. It has a very rich athletic pedigree. It seems strange for the Town not to have a professional sports team.

Yeah, agreed. There is an argument here that all public subsidies of sports stadiums is bad. It probably all breaks down to individual deals, both location of stadium and the financial support. All I can speak for is two cities I have watched, Baltimore and Denver, and I really dont know what the public spent, but the effect on the urban neighborhoods where those stadiums sit is obvious. If the cities didnt help too much, win win. But, yeah, there are awful deals, the Olympics always coming in as the worst.

Unfortunately, we are all prisoners to the decisions of politicians and sports team owners, both of which are not the brightest bulbs.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

I agree that always saying 'it depends' is of little value. That's why it doesn't make sense to always say that.
In this instance though, when all variables are considered, it may make sense for Memphis to invest when it doesn't make sense for Seattle to invest. There is simply no single cut and dried answer because the amount matters, the % share matters, the location matters, etc etc etc.

I agree with you that projections can show something is of value while they can also show that same thing is not of value. People have agendas and will push to find support to meet that agenda.

Cities use public funds to help bring private revenue all the time. They give tax breaks on property to bring a company in, with the expectation that the reduced tax revenue will be more than made up with sales tax, residential property tax, attracting more business, and more.
^ the above has been shown to work. It has also been shown to not work. It's almost as if it depends on the details.

I get it, not being black or white can be frustrating. But that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I am not making my claim on a utilitarian basis. I disagree with all government special treatment schemes. Once they get into the business of incentivizing one industry over another , one business over another, it is all downhill. Everything is then justified as some kind of jobs program by extension, we do that right now with weapons, we justify military expenditures as as jobs programs. ***!!!!! This is why for me it does not depend.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I am not making my claim on a utilitarian basis. I disagree with all government special treatment schemes. Once they get into the business of incentivizing one industry over another , one business over another, it is all downhill. Everything is then justified as some kind of jobs program by extension, we do that right now with weapons, we justify military expenditures as as jobs programs. ***!!!!! This is why for me it does not depend.

As a mayor or city council member, your position would continually result in large business considering your town and developing elsewhere.
But it is a consistent position, so you got that going for ya.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

"Studies" have biases. You can't convince me that some sports teams don't have enormous impacts on local economies. To me, it's obvious. Or, to put it another way, watch Oakland descend into even worse problems without that economic activity.

When multiple sources conclude the opposite of what you believe, it's a weak argument to just claim that all those sources are biased.

[Mr. Pink]

Well, Ok, first, post links to these studies. Let's get specific then. (I feel like Musk saying, give me one example of hate speech)

Then, second, tell me who funded these studies. Always follow the money.

[dbh]

Yeah, not sure I'd use the Ravens stadium in Baltimore as a "good" example of public funding for sports stadium. Fortunately for the city of Baltimore, much of the $300,000,000 public subsidy to build the stadium and woo the Browns from Cleveland was borne by the state, not the city. That said, the stadium is hemmed in by parking lots, highways, railroad tracks, and light industry. Not exactly a stadium that's going to catalyze much in the way of urban development in Baltimore. There's a better argument in favor of its neighbor Camden Yards, which at least sits adjacent to downtown and is used for 81 games a year. Plopping a football stadium in the middle of a city surrounded by parking, which will be filled a handful of times each year is a much much more dubious a proposition in terms of its overall economic potential. Camden Yards is really one of the only examples I can think of where the initial public investment in an urban stadium likely contributed to broader economic development benefits over time to justify the initial and ongoing subsidies. There are very, very few other examples I can think of. For Oakland, I just hope that when they bulldoze the Coliseum, they put the land to good use and help chip away at the East Bay's housing crisis. If they can rezone the land and attract a commercial developer to build several thousand units of workforce and middle class housing, that would be far more impactful for the city than a new stadium.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Well, Ok, first, post links to these studies.

You can start with this recent study:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4340483

To save everyone the trouble of reading 77 pages, this is the first paragraph of their conclusion:

The extensive study of the economic effects of stadiums on host communities demonstrates that sports venues have limited economic and social benefits, which do not justify the significant public subsidies that they typically receive. Even if limited spillover benefits exist, subsidies are no more warranted for sports venues than they are for other private businesses that confer inframarginal external benefits on surrounding community that typically operate without public assistance (e.g., fine restaurants, amusement parks, and shopping malls).

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by dbh

Yeah, not sure I'd use the Ravens stadium in Baltimore as a "good" example of public funding for sports stadium. Fortunately for the city of Baltimore, much of the $300,000,000 public subsidy to build the stadium and woo the Browns from Cleveland was borne by the state, not the city. That said, the stadium is hemmed in by parking lots, highways, railroad tracks, and light industry. Not exactly a stadium that's going to catalyze much in the way of urban development in Baltimore. There's a better argument in favor of its neighbor Camden Yards, which at least sits adjacent to downtown and is used for 81 games a year. Plopping a football stadium in the middle of a city surrounded by parking, which will be filled a handful of times each year is a much much more dubious a proposition in terms of its overall economic potential. Camden Yards is really one of the only examples I can think of where the initial public investment in an urban stadium likely contributed to broader economic development benefits over time to justify the initial and ongoing subsidies. There are very, very few other examples I can think of. For Oakland, I just hope that when they bulldoze the Coliseum, they put the land to good use and help chip away at the East Bay's housing crisis. If they can rezone the land and attract a commercial developer to build several thousand units of workforce and middle class housing, that would be far more impactful for the city than a new stadium.

Camden Yards sits right next to the Ravens stadium. I've used the same parking for Camden.

Are you sure about that 300 million number?

Btw, many cities have tried housing projects. Many of them are horrible slums and some have been bulldozed. I'll take football, instead.

[bigbill]

I think Washington DC is a good example. The Nationals stadium was built in an area that was previously high crime. I used to travel to DC often to do work at the Navy Yard and I would stay at the Marriott Navy Yard which was about five blocks away. The walk to the Navy Yard was something you only did during certain hours when security officers would be posted every 50 feet along the way in front of the DOT offices. I've been there several times since the stadium, and it's a developed area with restaurants, parks, and much of the public housing has been cleaned up and renewed.

I live about 90 minutes from Vegas. The sports teams (football, hockey) have a good local following and tourists treat the games like another show. I expect baseball to be the same.

[dbh]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Btw, many cities have tried housing projects. Many of them are horrible slums and some have been bulldozed. I'll take football, instead.

I love how the idea of building middle class housing is somehow equated to "housing projects" and "horrible slums." Try being a middle class family and finding affordable and decent quality housing in a major east or west coast city. In DC where I'm from, at least there's a robust debate about saying no to a new football stadium so the city can use the land for much needed housing. Oakland's housing crisis is no less acute. Here's hoping that they can find a way to put the land that the current coliseum sits on to better use.

In Baltimore, the Ravens are hitting up the state for another $600 million for "improvements" to their stadium. https://www.baltimoresun.com/politic...cye-story.html. The state killed a major transit improvement project in Baltimore with massive federal matching $, which was designed to better connect low income neighborhoods to job centers in the city because of fears of cost overruns. But stadiums that are built for for-profit private businesses, there's always a way to find more public money.

[nickl]

Originally Posted by Mikej

Just look up the financial history of The Meadowlands- built in 1974 it still held $264 million in debt when it was torn down to spend 1.6 billion on a new stadium in 2010. 34 years later. Because of the tax payer is the only way this can happen. If billionaire owners could make money off of a private stadium they would. But they can’t so we have to subsidize there fun. It’s a game.

This is not just about subsidizing the fun. Those billionaires are in these sports as a business and are in almost every case making sizable profits….in many cases with a ROI much greater than in their other enterprises. It’s the taxpayer, including those that have no interest in the subsidized ‘fun’ that are being gamed.

[Mike V]

If you ask me John Fisher is doing a good job driving up the sale price of the club. Then let the new owners work out the money part.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by bigbill

I think Washington DC is a good example. The Nationals stadium was built in an area that was previously high crime.

Including interest and finance fees, the city will have paid $1billion for Nate park.

That money could have been spent on any number of other programs in Southwest/Navy Yard area.

The neighborhood has certainly changed for the better in the past 15 years or so. But, was building a stadium the optimal solution? I don't know, but $1billion is a LOT of money by any measure.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

You can start with this recent study:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4340483

To save everyone the trouble of reading 77 pages, this is the first paragraph of their conclusion:

Great research. Thx.

[donevwil]

Originally Posted by Mike V

If you ask me John Fisher is doing a good job driving up the sale price of the club. Then let the new owners work out the money part.

We can only hope and that view is gaining traction (evidently called a pump and dump). Why would the A's stick with the "working with Oakland" stance for so long only to sabotage it at the last minute? Because actual progress was being made. Why have the A's repeatedly thrown additional hurdles into the negotiations over the past few years? Same reason.

Why would Las Vegas want the A's anyway? Wait a few years and get an expansion team without the cheap, greedy, dysfunctional (I guess pick two) ownership.

A's fan since '74 when my dad took my brother and I to opening day. These last few years, and this year especially, have been tough to watch.