New Stadiums do not help the economy

[ABC]

Great article from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123214881023691891.html

Here's a bit from the piece:

If there ever was a time to crow about the wonders of rebuilding a city around a professional sports team, this would be it. Three of the four teams remaining in the play-offs hail from cities -- Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh -- that in recent years spent billions rebuilding their downtowns around pro sports facilities and other community "anchors."

Except that there's a problem. The teams might be competitive, but the cities definitely are not. All three continue to shrink in population, and have stagnant job markets and crumbling public schools.

Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were prototypes of the economic development fad of the 1990s: government-financed "investments" in economic development. They all practiced what was called "tin cup urbanism" -- the belief that the rest of society owed large taxpayer transfers to the urban cores from which most of us have fled. They all supped from the same cup: center city stadia, aquaria and subsidized retailia.

Philadelphia practiced "the core, the core, the core" as a development strategy while perfecting the art of the tin cup under the guidance of then Mayor (now Gov.) Ed Rendell in the late 1990s. The feeling in Philadelphia was that the city was being crushed by economic forces outside of its control, and that the country owes cities, owes them big, and should pay up.

We did pay up, although Philadelphia's population declined 4.3% in the 1990s. And we will likely pay much more under Barack Obama's "stimulus" plan to spend hundreds of billions on new infrastructure. But based on experience, we won't see much renewal.

[kcshocker11]

I doubt the leaders of these cities were building their entire economies around their sports franchises. Though Major sports are important in KC you would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes they are the main cog that turns the economic wheel.

Then to try to tie iy to what or what not Obama will do is silly.

[ABC]

The link to Obama is obvious.

It is attacking the notion that public spending equals economic growth.

And maybe you haven't lived through the campaigns when leaders of these cities do in fact tie the future of their communities to have major league sports and stadia.

The KC area has arguments and discussions about this constantly.

[kcshocker11]

Its one thing to try to sell a product, but reality is that the sports in this area are only one part of our economy. I might add that hardly anyone wishes these teams to go away and I doubt whereever there is major league action there isnt any economic benefits.

Didnt we have this discussion earlier? Remember! You , Cold Me!

PS Have fun storming the castle! 8)

[ABC]

Yeah I remember, which is one of many reasons I posted the article.

Just a few more facts you can't seem to address directly.

You say there are benefits; are you saying the Cleveland, Baltimore and Philadelphia would have lost even more population if they hadn't built the stadiums?

[Veritas]

Having lived in Center City Philadelphia, I can write that the new football, baseball, and basketball facilities (all located in South Philly) have added to the pride of Philadelphia. Additionally, I still own property in Center City and the entire area is engaged in urban renewal that didn't exist 10, 5, or even 3 years ago.
Did the new stadiums help? Probably.

Urban areas must make it attractive for people to stay. The urban blight of decaying buildings, weed and grass choked parking lots, and depressing environments make people want to leave. Note that in Europe, most of the slums are in the suburbs in contrast to the US. The reason is that the US does not invest in its infrastructure in downtowns, and urban hubs.

I do think it really depends on the city. I don't think it would help a Kansas City per se, but I do think it helps certain urban areas such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc...
All the more reason for Wichita to really make a point to invest in the area surrounding the Intrust Bank Arena. There is tons of potential there. Hopefully, the city will take advantage of it and make us proud.

[shocks771]

Having lived in Center City Philadelphia, I can write that the new football, baseball, and basketball facilities (all located in South Philly) have added to the pride of Philadelphia. Additionally, I still own property in Center City and the entire area is engaged in urban renewal that didn't exist 10, 5, or even 3 years ago.
Did the new stadiums help? Probably.

Urban areas must make it attractive for people to stay. The urban blight of decaying buildings, weed and grass choked parking lots, and depressing environments make people want to leave. Note that in Europe, most of the slums are in the suburbs in contrast to the US. The reason is that the US does not invest in its infrastructure in downtowns, and urban hubs.

I do think it really depends on the city. I don't think it would help a Kansas City per se, but I do think it helps certain urban areas such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc...
All the more reason for Wichita to really make a point to invest in the area surrounding the Intrust Bank Arena. There is tons of potential there. Hopefully, the city will take advantage of it and make us proud.

Veritas, you better be careful. Your opinion about nice facilities adding pride to a city might not go over well here. A large majority of the conservatives here in the midwest, especially in Wichita, don't like change. It threatens them and makes them cringe about the possibility of having something new and exciting happening. ABC seems to make it a point to post every story with any sort of negative undertone to it and I really don't understand the point of it. The decision has been made and the arena is getting closer to being finished yet the negativity still spews from his keyboard. It really is sad.

[RampageWSU]

I'd hate to say it...and I didn't read the whole article, but what about economic impact? I mean, even if the City populations are going down, the stadiums are full. Full stadiums = Sales Tax Money, Etc... did the article address that?

[ABC]

Facts are sad? I think the arena is great. I like new sports stadiums too.

I would just like the arguments to be fact-based, which they usually are not on this subject. Your response, 771, is exhibit A. Sports stadiums and arenas don't help the economy. I guess I haven't been clear on the subject.

Veritas, you say that Philadelphia gained from having the new stadiums. But in the article referenced, it states that Philly lost population. How do you reconcile this ?

Wanting policy makers to make decisions on sound economic principles is hardly being against change. I am sure you know that, but that is a typical argument from the left. If you can't refute or address the facts head-on, do a divurgence to a personal attack.

[ABC]

I'd hate to say it...and I didn't read the whole article, but what about economic impact? I mean, even if the City populations are going down, the stadiums are full. Full stadiums = Sales Tax Money, Etc... did the article address that?

Fair points.

Typically the increases in sales tax revenue, if any, doesn't offset the public money used to build the stadiums.

And entertainment money is very fungible. There are studies out the wazoo that indicate that locating a major league sports franchise in a city is a financial wash. You'll have restaraunts, bowling alleys etc. close b/c those discretionary entertainment dollars are simply shifted to sports events.

I realize that "everyone" loves downtowns. I do too. However if everyone really loved downtowns, then so many people wouldn't be living in the suburbs or ourskirts of town, and downtown facilities, especially retail (a la Water Walk) wouldn't have to be subsidized. That is a clear and obvious market signal.

[Veritas]

ABC, I think in Philadelphia's case, there has been a flight for the suburbs due to jobs and for quality of life.
Philadelphia is an extremely old city and keeping the old city running is terribly expensive. Tax rates go up, industry moves to the suburbs, employees follow, local tax base goes down, city starts to crumble, more residents leave for quality of life. It becomes a cycle.
How do you break the cycle? Investment - both private and gov't.

However, the identity, pride, and sense of community can all be enhanced by the investment in a city's core and infrastructure. These translate into more people wanting to stay in a city and continue to invest in the city.

In Wichita's case, the city leaders have an opportunity to make the area around Intrust an area with which Wichitans can be proud. I hope they take the taxpayers' gift of the arena and make all of the area between Old Towne and WaterWalk a positive attraction. The mix of taxpayer investment in the arena, roads, lights, parking coupled with private investments in bars, hotels, shops, and housing will surely make the area one in which we all want to return.
Or, they can take the cynical way of investing in failure. Put a crown jewel arena in a blighted area with no parking, no upgrades in roads, or lighting, no vision and no marketing of the vision to private companies and then say "I told you so".
Which way will it be?

[ABC]

Veritas,

So Philly has made all of these investments and people still flee the city.

So what gives?

FWIW, I lived in Philly in 88-89.

[Veritas]

ABC, where did you live while in Philadelphia?

As previously written, I believe jobs left and people chased those jobs to the suburbs. Additionally the quality of life seemed better in the suburbs when faced with decaying neighborhoods as local gov't turned a blind eye to urban blight and failed to invest in the city and infrastructure. However, I think in Philadelphia's case the cycle will start to turn.

I lived in a development called Naval Square near 24th/South Street. If you haven't been back to Philadelphia since the 80s, you'd not recognize the area where I lived. It is certainly going through an urban gentrification similar to what Denver's LoDo and parts of San Francisco have experienced.

I also lived in Boston, and excluding the cost overages, saw the positive impact the Big Dig had on the city.
Now, if I can just get the city of Wichita to invest in the area around and near Intrust Arena. :)

[BenWSU]

Now, if I can just get the city of Wichita to invest in the area around and near Intrust Arena. :)

Higher tax dollars = Progress

[ABC]

I lived near the 69th street subway terminal in Philly.

Few doubt that many, but not all, of the inner city building projects are good. The question is whether it is worth the cost.

I also believe that cities have an obligation to maintain public facilities like streets, sidewalks, parks and the liek.

People move to suburbs for lots of reasons and they continue to do so even with so much being spent on revitalizing core areas.

But back to the topic at hand. All of the public money spent on stadia doesn't appear to impact the population trends. And for the big cities whose arenas and stadiums will be leased by major league teams who have big profits, it amounts to corporate welfare.

Take the new Busch Stadium. A few years ago, I stayed in a downtown hotel and took the metro to the game. The metro was filled with middle class folks from the Illinois suburbs who were going to a tax-payer supported stadium. So the poor, and others in St. Louis, are subsidizing the entertainment for middle and upper middle class folks and subsidizing the transportation to get there.