New Stadiums do not help the economy

[kcshocker11]

You might read the story of what the NBA team means to OK City in USA today sports section yesterday 1/23/09. Perhaps you could schedule a trip down there to tell them how wrong they are ABC!

[ABC]

That article is a perfect example of what I am saying.

KC, don't you like using facts as part of your arguments? Or is it all feel-good stuff, which is typical of leftism.

OKC taxpayers spent $125 million and apparently what they got for it was not having a Starbucks close and lots of people saying how having a NBA team is neat. Nothing in that article refutes the premise in the WSJ article, or my primary argument that sports stadiums don't help the economy.

I am not saying OKC is wrong in anyway. But the Thunder isn't going to cause OKC population or economy to grow. Do you have anything to counter that, KC?

[kcshocker11]

Hold the presses, all major league cities to drop all sports! Apparently they have all been wrong all these years, these sports teams have all been bad for their economies.

ABC why waste my time digging up facts and statistics to support my views. Both Cold and myself tried that earlier, and no matter how strong the evidence, your rooted to deeply in your ideology. So why argue with you! If you think your so right I'm sure the city leaders would love to hear your views.

8)

[ABC]

Please. You never had any facts on this topic, nor did Cold, so the next time will be the first.

You must have trouble reading. Sports franchises follow growth, they don't precede it. It isn't complicated.

Are you saying the pro sports is an economic boon for a community ?

Is New York City the largest city in the US because they have nine major league sports franchises?

To use the limited logic I think you are proposing, would be for Wichita to better succeed and offset the aviation layoffs, there should be a 2 cent sales tax to entice a NBA or NHL or NFL team to move to Wichita and everything in the local economy will be great. Brilliant.

Maybe you should actually read the opinion piece in the WSJ the started this thread.

[kcshocker11]

Hold the presses, all major league cities to drop all sports! Apparently they have all been wrong all these years, these sports teams have all been bad for their economies.

ABC why waste my time digging up facts and statistics to support my views. Both Cold and myself tried that earlier, and no matter how strong the evidence, your rooted to deeply in your ideology. So why argue with you! If you think your so right I'm sure the city leaders would love to hear your views.

8)

I stand by the above! Sports teams and pop. have little correlation. Sports do affect the economy usually in a positive way. Layoffs in aviation and sales tax for sports are unrelated.


Heres a little tidbit just from oneseason in OK City with the NO Hornets. This was such a failure they went out and got their own NBA franchise.

http://ocib.org/ocib/web.nsf/pages/2006-07-05.html 8)

[ABC]

The study you cited didn't calculate the public cost - so it is incomplete at best and useless at worst.

Just because public bodies decide to spend money (like the stlimulus bills) doesn't mean it is good economics. So what if OKC decided to get a team ?

Just b/c Philly spent a bunch of money on their core doesn't mean it makes economic sense.

Is that the best you can do ?

So you are still arguing that spending public money on sports facilities and teams will increase a local economy? Using your logic sales tax for sports will offset aviation layoffs; thus using your logic they are related.

[kcshocker11]

Its impossible to come up with enough for you ABC, you have proven that time and again. Like I said take your case to City Hall and let them hear your arguments. I'll know if you have won when Pro sports starts vanishing across the nation. Have Fun

[ABC]

Provide enough facts for me? You provide very, very little. Are you kidding?

I will give you credit for providing some facts - as flawed as they were.

And KC, you clearly aren't getting my point. I am not saying pro sports should vanish. But let's not pretend they provide benefits that they don't.

Agree or not?

[ABC]

Interesting stuff in the weekend's Wall Street Journal.

From an article entitled, "Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail? ", the author discusses pro sports in light of the economic downturn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123328241772832043.html

"First, franchises have become accustomed to the public financing of stadiums and arenas. During the construction boom of the 1990s, some 50 ballparks, stadiums and arenas were built in the U.S., according to BusinessWeek. On average, taxpayers footed 70% of the bill -- even though team owners reaped the benefits. In baseball, for example, Forbes calculates that the median ballpark is worth $100 million to a team, or a quarter of a franchise's total value. In the '90s, teams argued that new stadiums added to a city's economic vibrancy. Yet studies now show that subsidies for sports stadiums actually create a slight drag on the local economy. "