Jump to content

Public funding for stadiums?


Phils Phan

Recommended Posts

If someone from New York has two season tickets to 49er games and was flying in for those two games when they were playing at Candlestick but is still coming when they moved to Santa Clara. That's not someone who's money you can attribute to the new stadium. That person would be coming even if the Niners played in a toilet bowl.

Yes, but none of that money is going to San Francisco now. It's all staying in the South Bay. That makes a sizable difference to the cities of San Francisco and Santa Clara, doesn't it?

Your argument is considering the entire Bay Area as one single municipality, with a unitary tax authority and revenue stream, when that quite obviously isn't the case.

It has to be someone who's coming in only for the new stadium/arena and not because of the team or significance of the game. That's a very hard thing to measure.

The precise effect can be hard to measure, that's true. But I think we can look at Safeco Field, to name an example, and say that there's more money coming in to Seattle from Seattle Mariners games than there would be coming in to Seattle from Tampa Bay Mariners games.

Your argument only holds water if you look at a new stadium in the same city as the old one. When you factor in the possibility of losing a team, even if only to a neighboring municipality, the math can change quite dramatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

People go to Wrigley, Fenway, Yankee, et al. just to see the stadium. Most of these people really don't give a :censored: about the Cubs. They just want to drink beer and watch baseball. Granted, these are bad examples because Wrigley and Fenway are old stadiums, but the argument that fans don't travel to new stadiums is as unprovable as fans actually traveling to new stadiums.

Most of the big All-Star game and Super Bowls only occur because of new stadiums. How many Super Bowls were in New York or San Francisco or Indianapolis prior to 2010? Therefore, I can certainly attribute the impact to the new stadium.

And fan bases aren't as nearly localized as they once were. Thanks to the internet, fan bases are now "nations" that spread the continent and the world.

Camden Yards offers a reasonable, albeit anecdotal, case study. In my experience, very few Yankees and Red Sox traveled to Baltimore to watch games at Memorial Stadium (and I am 47, so I have actual memory of this). On the other hand, Yankees and Red Sox fans frequently come to Baltimore to watch games at Camden Yards, often making a full weekend of it for a weekend series.

There is no guarantee this would happen with any new stadium. However, there are at least some instances where this phenomenon has contributed to the local economy.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone from New York has two season tickets to 49er games and was flying in for those two games when they were playing at Candlestick but is still coming when they moved to Santa Clara. That's not someone who's money you can attribute to the new stadium. That person would be coming even if the Niners played in a toilet bowl.

Yes, but none of that money is going to San Francisco now. It's all staying in the South Bay. That makes a sizable difference to the cities of San Francisco and Santa Clara, doesn't it?

Your argument is considering the entire Bay Area as one single municipality, with a unitary tax authority and revenue stream, when that quite obviously isn't the case.

It has to be someone who's coming in only for the new stadium/arena and not because of the team or significance of the game. That's a very hard thing to measure.

The precise effect can be hard to measure, that's true. But I think we can look at Safeco Field, to name an example, and say that there's more money coming in to Seattle from Seattle Mariners games than there would be coming in to Seattle from Tampa Bay Mariners games.

Your argument only holds water if you look at a new stadium in the same city as the old one. When you factor in the possibility of losing a team, even if only to a neighboring municipality, the math can change quite dramatically.

The Santa Clara comment I think your completely misinterpreting. What I'm speaking of has nothing to do with tax code, metro area size or anything of the such.

Its simply attributing any value added by this fan to the team itself, not the quality of the stadium. Regardless of how much is spent on a new stadium, or who its coming from, this guy is still coming.

The idea of losing a team is interesting. The threat of a move has gotten many of these things built over the years.

Its obviously a market factor but not one I'm sure is naturally occurring. Because of revenue sharing, every owner would have a vested interest in making sure every other team is as profitable as possible. That means the league itself stands to benefit any time a new stadium/arena is built.

Whenever a city negotiates a new stadium/arena deal with a team, its never just the team. Its also the league itself.

When both the Rams and Raiders left LA, I think you could have justified at least 1/3 of the teams in the NFL as being better off moving to LA, even if they had to play in the LA Coliseum. Yet not one team seemed to even consider it.

Its just taken for granted that if you can't build a new stadium/arena for a team that wants it, don't bother asking any other team to come there either, unless its with a new stadium.

To me that would be like if Apple came to Cupertino asking for them to build a new corporate headquarters and right after, the city also got calls from Microsoft, Dell and IBM all saying that if you don't build Apple a new headquarters don't ask us to come there either. I think most everyone would point to that as a clean sign of a monopolistic practice. All these companies clearly entered into some type of non competitive agreement with each other in an effort to drive down costs for all involved parties.

Yet it happens all the time in sports and nobody even bats an eye. It was taken as a given that no team in the NBA would move to Seattle after the Sonics left if it also meant playing in the KeyArena.

There's only one example I can come up with where a team moved to another city without also having in place a new stadium or an agreement to build a new stadium when they came in and that was the LA Raiders who were sued by the league for violating non-competitive agreements the NFL owners have amongst itself such as territory rights.

So I think as other people hear have pointed out, it may not be so much that cities and states are investing in these places so much because they make good economic sense. They may just be victims of monopolistic practices and if the leagues themselves didn't excerpt the type of influence that they do, you would see far less public investment into these facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When both the Rams and Raiders left LA, I think you could have justified at least 1/3 of the teams in the NFL as being better off moving to LA, even if they had to play in the LA Coliseum. Yet not one team seemed to even consider it.

The Seahawks considered it. They started moving some team facilities to southern California and would have been goners if not for Paul Allen.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simply attributing any value added by this fan to the team itself, not the quality of the stadium. Regardless of how much is spent on a new stadium, or who its coming from, this guy is still coming.

But what I was saying is that, in the end, it doesn't matter to Santa Clara if your 49er fan would have attended games at Candlestick. He wouldn't have spent his money in Santa Clara if they hadn't built a stadium. Nothing else matters to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When both the Rams and Raiders left LA, I think you could have justified at least 1/3 of the teams in the NFL as being better off moving to LA, even if they had to play in the LA Coliseum. Yet not one team seemed to even consider it.

The Seahawks considered it. They started moving some team facilities to southern California and would have been goners if not for Paul Allen.

Actually wasn't aware of it.

As far as if the Seahawks would move to LA without a stadium deal in place, even if they couldn't get one in Seattle, I think the only answer anyone can give with any degree of certainty is you don't know.

But I think the larger point still remains in that a lot of teams probably turned down moving to LA more because they went against the long term financial interests of the league itself as opposed to what would have been good for the team financially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simply attributing any value added by this fan to the team itself, not the quality of the stadium. Regardless of how much is spent on a new stadium, or who its coming from, this guy is still coming.

But what I was saying is that, in the end, it doesn't matter to Santa Clara if your 49er fan would have attended games at Candlestick. He wouldn't have spent his money in Santa Clara if they hadn't built a stadium. Nothing else matters to them.

A stadium (meaning any stadium) is not the same as a new stadium.

If they built a 75,000 glorified high school stadium and this guy is still going, then you can't attribute it to the stadium. If however he was only going to one game in this run down high school stadium, but would have gone to two in Levi's, and assuming there's nobody taking his place, that would be value added or subtracted by stadium quality.

I'm separating the quality of the stadium from the location. Your assuming their all one in the same, and they're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand your point.

From Santa Clara's perspective, the quality of a stadium is largely beside the point. There's a huge difference between a stadium that's in their town and one that isn't. You can attribute his spending money in their town to it. Would you agree?

That's (in part, at least) why Santa Clara agreed to build the stadium. Because your fan went from attending no games in Santa Clara to at least one game in Santa Clara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand your point.

From Santa Clara's perspective, the quality of a stadium is largely beside the point. There's a huge difference between a stadium that's in their town and one that isn't. You can attribute his spending money in their town to it. Would you agree?

That's (in part, at least) why Santa Clara agreed to build the stadium. Because your fan went from attending no games in Santa Clara to at least one game in Santa Clara.

Again your taking the value the Niners present, the value the location presents and the value the stadium presents and throwing it all into one bucket as being what stadium is bringing into the city revenue wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't separate out the value the Niners bring in. It's essential, because Santa Clara isn't building a palace for an AFL2 team.

And location can't be removed either, because if the stadium isn't in Santa Clara than there's no incentive for them to pay for it. Obviously, the specific location within Santa Clara makes a difference in terms of maximizing revenues, but I don't know enough about the area to do other than presume they got that right. At least for the purpose of this discussion.

Again, I'm talking about the possible benefit to Santa Clara of building a stadium in their city, which previously did not have one. Not the value to the Niners, or how many new/old fans it attracts versus Candlestick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't separate out the value the Niners bring in. It's essential, because Santa Clara isn't building a palace for an AFL2 team.

And location can't be removed either, because if the stadium isn't in Santa Clara than there's no incentive for them to pay for it. Obviously, the specific location within Santa Clara makes a difference in terms of maximizing revenues, but I don't know enough about the area to do other than presume they got that right. At least for the purpose of this discussion.

Again, I'm talking about the possible benefit to Santa Clara of building a stadium in their city, which previously did not have one. Not the value to the Niners, or how many new/old fans it attracts versus Candlestick.

You absolutely can break it down by location, team value and stadium. Forbes Magazine has their team valuations broken down that way. If you can do it from the team's perspective, you can do it from the city's as well.

If you don't think you can though that's your call. I'm not explaining how it works. I'll just what your saying especially in that first sentence is just flat out wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, although the Red Bulls are currently embroiled in a dispute over taxes they claim they don't have to pay.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/12/court-red-bulls-must-pay-2-8m-in-property-taxes/

And the proposed private investment in the area around the stadium has not materialized. Take heed, Cobb County. You can't just plop a stadium down in the middle of nowhere and expect real neighborhoods to suddenly take root around it.

My basic argument is in-city investment is good.Sometimes stadium investment is good, but who knows?

That's partially what I mean about luring other businesses. You can use a stadium as an anchor to an entertainment or business district, or to draw investment to a district in need of gentrification. That wouldn't be reflected in the stadium's own ledger.

Clearly, you've never been to Turner Field or have much knowledge about the area where they're going to build the new Braves stadium.

For 50 years, there's been nothing but neighborhoods surrounding the stadium where the Braves played (both Turner Field and Atlanta-Fulton County). No train station. Maybe one bar/restaurant that was on the backside of the stadium. A public bus that only shuttles to a train station with trains that don't go very far. There's a failed-and-closed putt-putt course and arcade that's been sitting there for like 5-6 years now, at least.

With their location in Cobb (which is less than two miles from the city limits of Atlanta), it offers the opportunity to mix in living spaces and bars/restaurants to go to before/after a game. It'll be a stadium where the Monday through Thursday crowds can get to the stadium easily (since the ballpark will be closer to the bulk of the Braves and money fan bases) as well as becoming a day-long destination place for the weekend attendances with places to go to before/after a game. And, get this, Cobb County and northwest suburbs of Atlanta are on the rise in population and businesses in the immediate and surrounding area. It really is just an extension of Atlanta now. (I believe the mailing address for that area has been "Atlanta" for years, anyway.)

Despite being downtown, you have no reason to go anywhere near Turner Field unless you're going to a game or you live there. There's nothing there. It's pretty cutoff from the rest of downtown Atlanta. The city and the state had 50 years to do something, but didn't. The Braves called the city's bluff.

Now, how successful these future businesses and apartments and such will be around the new stadium remains to be seen. Likely will be more positive than negative. But based on their current location, any small amount of success in Cobb will trump Turner Field. And even if it's a small fail, it'll still be a better situation for the Braves than Turner Field.

Any negatives about SunTrust Park are negated by all the positives about being in Cobb as opposed to staying put. Let Georgia State turn the Turner Field-AFCS sites into an actual looks-like-a-college-campus multi-functional area, like having their own football or baseball park and a Commons and other college amenities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Atlanta shouldn't have been so self-defeating in its urban development and designed public transit that actually went places people want to go, instead of saying that rapid transit doesn't work and then designing a system to prove it.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's that.

There's a certain element in American politics that keeps shrieking that the system doesn't work, chiefly because they keep sabotaging it.

A lot of stuff is self-sabotaged through corruption, not necessarily by people who don't want the system to work.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consensus I get from most folks around here about Marta is that they would use it more often if it were better operated and actually went close to where they needed to go. I only use Marta once a year...for the Peachtree Road Race. But I'm still driving downtown, parking (and free parking helps that) at work, then driving home.

I'm already over halfway to work by the time I reach the closest train station. Leaving at the same time, I can get to work faster driving all the way there than driving part of the way, then taking the train. That shouldn't be the case with public transportation.

Atlanta doesn't make the wisest decisions when it comes to transportation. They've built a streetcar line in the past year. It was supposed to open this past spring. Still hasn't gotten running yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.