This is like talking to a schizophrenic child. You have to know how full of it you are. Nobody can possibly be this retarded.
This has nothing to do with the discussion.
Neither does this:
I am obviously not retarded, and I feel like I'm clearly a lot better at critical analysis of situations than you are.
How--by doing nothing but calling for "academic research" while offering none yourself. No, you're not.
What is not effective is acting like a baby, "Waa waa, I want an arena, and you don't want one, so you are retarded
Do I want an arena. . .?:
I'm just commenting generally--seeing as how there are currently no tenants I've never been able to figure out quite why kc needs such a project.
Nope--you can't even get straight the position or motives of the person you're debating. But you're easily "confused" so it should be no real suprise.
Ignoring that, I still don't see where it (globe article) says anything about increasing the population density or attracting residents, which is what I was talking about.
"What you were talking about" was addressed by the fenway development links I posted--you ignored it--remember? The article was posted in response to the economic impact issues which were raised:
They do produce revenue, but a good question is how much revenue? A couple extra sales tax dollars is all we're really looking at.
Or did you forget that you said that? Confused again? The links and mention of other projects in and around boston arenas were posted to rebut the first adaptation of your silly extreme position:
I have seen zero evidence that arenas draw residents (or do anything but turn people off) -- which is, of course, why I asked to see some.
And you got some
--the fenway stuff--which you ignored because it proves that you hold an untenable position--which you've now revised and softened. Moreover, neither constitues a project from "1912", both are since 2000. More "confusion" (I call it, Being Retarded).
I've also shown that there is indeed a positive economic effect, showing real life numbers and occurances that ultimately rebut any silly idea otherwise. Nowhere have I advocated for a $200 milllion subsidy--or even an arena at all.
the article you posted makes a lot of speculative, forward looking statements on things that may or may not (and often don't) meet expectations. What you provide isn't academic research, friend, it looks like someone at the Globe got a press release from Boston's CVB, who are notorious for flubbing statistics.
I've never heard anything regarding the propensity of a CVB to "flub" stats--another empty retort--"they're wrong cuz they're wrong". And what possible motive would these people have to lie? The paper is simply reporting here--it's not an editorial--nobody involved in this article is trying to "prove" anything. The paper is simply getting these numbers and expectations from the businesses themselves--why would a small restaurant or any business owner want to lie about how well they're doing? What possible interest does it serve? You (as always) failed to bother with any solid reasons why--just another empty unsubstantiated accusation which in your small mind qualifies as analysis. If anything, I would think they wouldn't want to give this impression of themselves at this time--then they wouldn't have to answer to those who question why they haven't been hiring in this economy (see how it's done--this "analysis" thing??).
Here's the post-game info for you: http://business.bostonherald.com/busine ... icleid=534
The reality of the situation is that new arena development and existing arenas HAVE supported, HAVE prompted, HAVE directly caused the very kind of effects you're claiming they can't, won't, may not, cannot or whatever adaptation of your position you're currently using. So you can "academic research" yourself into a stupor--unless you have unchallengeable "acedemic research" that irrefutably proves the nonexistence of the us cities of boston, minneapolis (target center) columbus, cleveland, baltimore & denver then any call for "academic research" amounts to a worthless, empty retort--especially when you've
posted absolutely nothing which amounts to what you're calling for.
But to satisfy all of your current "positions", in all of the above mentioned cities, the arenas (in annotated form):
a. DID help to attract new residents
b. DID spur and attract development and residents and
c. DID "suck in tons" of residents, WAS a catalyst for people moving to
the area and WAS NOT a catalyst for people moving from
You obviously don't understand the purpose of such social research anyway--it's simply meant to serve as a rough guide as to how or how not to go about doing something. It's not like physics or chemistry--there are no laws of nature as in those disciplines. Any social scientist would be the first to admit this. That you can't understand this, that you totally base your position on something which not only can be contradicted by simply offering up another study (by another group, with a contrary agenda), but which also contradics reality itself speaks to your lack of credibility and intelligence. And your inability to actually foment any thoughtful analysis.
If you're so into the research angle why didn't you bother to even try to rebut my response to this goofy thing you posted:
from 1980 to 1995, the population levels in downtown areas in cities with downtown sports facilities declined more than in the other communities."
You already indicated your propensity to believe it--even to just take it at face value w/o "researching" it yourself (what nonsense). So back it up. Make no mention of outside sources, "research" or "studies" because I didn't. Prove you can offer something other than empty retorts such as
"And regarding the copy/paste job, whoever wrote that needs a sharp stick in the eye and a brief lesson in Econ 101. If I were feeling ambitious I'd take it point-by-point, but I'm pretty sure there's not much, er, point to doing so"