Anti-Arena Campaign

[mean]

If you're tired of waiting, I suggest a recall election.

[KC0KEK]

If you're tired of waiting, I suggest a recall election.

After Jesse and Ah-nold, Carl Weathers is the only star from Predator who hasn't become a governor. So if you're going to do a recall, how 'bout a write-in campaign for Carl, albeit for mayor rather than gov?

[mean]

Personally, I was hoping for the partially transparent alien thingy.

[KC0KEK]

Personally, I was hoping for the partially transparent alien thingy.

Okay. Maybe we could bring him in to handle TIF requests.

[bahua]

I understand that some of you are content with the current progress of this city, but I'm not.

Me neither, and something has to be done. But the answer is not hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. That is not something that Kansas city needs. A new arena will not have any appreciable impact to the city, except that the seats at the big 12 tournament will be shinier, and the floors won't be as sticky for a while.

It will _not_ spur the kind of economic development that the city needs, which is more jobs, and better paying ones. It will not attract people to live in town. It will attract people to visit town.

And yeah, recovery would not take ten years, and even if it did, it's not as if there is nothing to do in Kansas City in the meantime. Even in that case, we would get an arena before that, at much less cost to the city.

[QueSi2Opie]

Me neither, and something has to be done. But the answer is not hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. That is not something that Kansas city needs. A new arena will not have any appreciable impact to the city, except that the seats at the big 12 tournament will be shinier, and the floors won't be as sticky for a while.

It will _not_ spur the kind of economic development that the city needs, which is more jobs, and better paying ones. It will not attract people to live in town. It will attract people to visit town.

And yeah, recovery would not take ten years, and even if it did, it's not as if there is nothing to do in Kansas City in the meantime. Even in that case, we would get an arena before that, at much less cost to the city.

If case you haven't heard, developers don't want to build any kind of downtown entertainment/dining/retail district downtown w/out a large arena/stadium to attract visitors. A Hard Rock, Virgin Records, ESPNZone, etc. don't want to be in a place where they attract mediocre crowds every night. They want to at least attract the big crowds during concerts and sporting events to make things even out for the nights they don't attract shit. Face it, downtown entertainment districts are package deals now. I'm sure H&R Block is monitoring the city's arena campaign.

So... If you're anti-arena, you're anti-entertainment district.

[bahua]

Yes, I am. I see no reason to rely on out of town money to turn Kansas City around, because it won't. What will is local investment, and local employment, spurring local residency and local wealth. All the chain establishments you mentioned are simply tourist attractions, and will not atrract residents as much as they'll attract visitors. Visitors are not what Kansas City needs, and entertainment districts can emerge just fine without out-of-town investment. Entertainment districts have a way of following concentrations of people.

I don't want Hard Rock Cafe, ESPN Zone, or a Virgin Megastore in Kansas City. Those places just take up space that could be occupied by more valuable local establishments that the city didn't have to court at all.

But please, don't brand me "anti-arena." I'm not. I like arenas. It's just that the proposal for this one means to rake Kansas City over the coals, with no risk to any developer, and all the risk and expense footed by Kansas City, who can't afford it, and really can't afford it if it doesn't work out.

[QueSi2Opie]

Yes, I am. I see no reason to rely on out of town money to turn Kansas City around, because it won't. What will is local investment, and local employment, spurring local residency and local wealth. All the chain establishments you mentioned are simply tourist attractions, and will not atrract residents as much as they'll attract visitors. Visitors are not what Kansas City needs, and entertainment districts can emerge just fine without out-of-town investment.

I don't want Hard Rock Cafe, ESPN Zone, or a Virgin Megastore in Kansas City. Those places just take up space that could be occupied by more valuable local establishments that the city didn't have to court at all.

But please, don't brand me "anti-arena." I'm not. I like arenas. It's just that the proposal for this one means to rake Kansas City over the coals, with no risk to any developer, and all the risk and expense footed by Kansas City, who can't afford it, and really can't afford it if it doesn't work out.

Can you imagine how many people that an entertainment district could employ? How many people could work at the downtown restaurants, retail, clubs and other entertainment venues? You'd be adding a ton of jobs to the core! As of now, there's more jobs in suburbia than in downtown. JOBS ATTRACT RESIDENTS!!! Some mom & pops shop and a gay/lesbian coffee house isn't gonna turn downtown around. It's unfortunate, but remember the world we live in, and all you anti-tax hippies aren't gonna change that!

[bahua]

"anti-tax hippies?"

I'm trying to have a serious conversation here. I thought you were too. If you are, then please ease up on the caps and attacks.

Entertainment districts don't create residents, and the kind of jobs that Hard Rock Cafe provides aren't the kinds that KC will particularly benefit from, should their employees decide to live in KC.

Jobs definitely do attract residents, but restaurant/CD-store/bookstore jobs do not turn cities around, and create no real wealth. To say that Kansas City will be revitalized by the presence of those kind of businesses is simply not right. They will create low-paying jobs, instead of real jobs, which are what really will attract residents.

[QueSi2Opie]

Jobs definitely do attract residents, but restaurant/CD-store/bookstore jobs do not turn cities around

They don't, but they can make an area more attractive for other companies to locate downtown instead of Crown Center, the Plaza or Corporate Woods. Think about it, is land really cheaper on the Plaza? Certainly not, but companies would rather have their employees there instead of a dead downtown full of tumbleweeds.

Sorry about the "anti-tax hippy" comment.

[bahua]

The point I'm trying to make is that the city needs to just allow the economic machine to run, because they aren't. If they do, the city will have all that it needs, and that its residents want, except maybe quiet. But hey, KC has had quiet for 100 years. I'm ready for some noise.

The thing is, there is this idea that many people have, that the economic machine doesn't, and can't work. That's just simply untrue, yet many(maybe most) people let that thought rule their decisions, and I think that thinking is what is behind the reasoning for most of the proponents of the new arena.

[QueSi2Opie]

But hey, KC has had quiet for 100 years. I'm ready for some noise.

me too! And if that noise comes in a form of an arena, so be it. I won't do anything to hold it back.

[QueSi2Opie]

I dunno about you guys, but when I tell young suburbanites that I wouldn't mind living in a downtown loft, they say,"Why? There's nothing to do down there? I can understand the Plaza, but why downtown?" Maybe 1 out of 10 morons might say "crime", but most say it's boring. (Not that the suburbs are any more exciting)

True story. Several years ago a friend and I was goin' to rent an apartment at the Quality Hill Towers. We was excited about both the cheap rents and the fact that the Power & Light District was goin' to happen (in everyone's mind). We told the guy showin' us the apartment, "We're both excited about this Power & Light District passing and we want to get a downtown apartment before this area explodes with residents and rents sky-rocket." I was surprised when he said,"Most people around here really don't want the Power & Light District. They enjoy living in a quiet neighborhood so close to their jobs." I was shocked!

[mean]

The thing is, there is this idea that many people have, that the economic machine doesn't, and can't work.

It can and does, but I think many people only have a vague understanding of how it works, and assume that it can't work because the current "successful" economic model is suburbia, which tends to be dominated by out of town chains. In reality, the companies which actually help grow the local economy and define a city are the local ones -- Hallmark, Arthur Bryant's.

I visualize Hard Rock Cafe as a giant funnel, sucking all that money back to HQ. It's not bad in small doses, but when it's the centerpiece of an upscale chain tourist district downtown, you gotta start to wonder why we're bothering trying to attract tourists if all the money just leaves town anyway. Yes, a few low paying jobs are created, but as bahua points out, no wealth is created. Not here anyway, it all accumulates and gets spent in other cities.

They don't, but they can make an area more attractive for other companies to locate downtown instead of Crown Center, the Plaza or Corporate Woods.

I agree totally, but I don't think attractiveness is dependent on whether nearby businesses are local or chains. Ideally, a mixture of both, but I don't think an "upscale chain" will provide any exceptional value. Once the people are there, the restaurants, CD stores, and bookstores will follow. Once that has happened, it will be a more hospitable environment for "real" business if we don't continue to allow the infrastructure to deteriorate.

[QueSi2Opie]

Once the people are there, the restaurants, CD stores, and bookstores will follow. Once that has happened, it will be a more hospitable environment for "real" business if we don't continue to allow the infrastructure to deteriorate.

You can build a million new homes on Troost, but most people would never move there because the businesses are few and far. To be honest, myself and the people I talk to will never move downtown unless it becomes a lil' more exciting. We'd especially not pay for a $300,000 loft! Maybe the Plaza, but NOT downtown.

One of the reasons people want to live in downtown Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver and New Orleans isn't because there's available housing, it's because of the excitement. With only housing, KC's downtown would be transformed into suburbia with skyscrapers. A downtown where the only time someone steps outside of their home is to get in the car and drive to Midtown, the Northland or the Walmart in Roeland Park. More residents don't always result in more businesses either...especially when land is cheaper and easier to develop on in the burbs. We're developing the downtown lofts/apartments, so now let's develop some excitement!

Do I want all mega-chains that are only in mega-cities? No! But I don't want downtown to simply be another Omaha's Old Market either. We need a great mixture of both to be considered a great city! I'd like to see a place where you have a Hard Rock next door to a Arthur Bryant's and a Virgin Records next to a Recycled Sounds. Even if the "Entertainment District" did only have exclusive chains to the KC metro, it could spark more local development along Grand, Walnut, Main, Baltimore, Wyandotte and Broadway. There's no guarantees it will, and there's no guarantees it won't. But currently, nothin' is happening now except housing, and for every new place opening, it seems like another place is closing or relocating.

[mean]

We are largely in agreeance. I'm not sure there's enough people living there right now to spur the volume of development needed, but I'm also not sure that putting the budget further in the red to spur development is the right choice. I think that as more people move in, we will continue to see businesses popping up. Many will fail, most businesses do.

If we're talking about chains wanting to spend their own money to locate here, though, I don't have a lot to complain about as long as they don't destroy smaller local businesses. I wouldn't even be opposed to the city helping out, making an investment, if it were a good investment.

[bahua]

The area that they are talking about for the arena isn't downtown, but we're talking about areas that are. The area they are considering for the new arena doesn't have a whole lot of housing now(but it's improving), but it definitely does have plenty of entertainment-centered businesses, and more are coming in all the time. The cool thing, though, is that they are all pretty much independently owned and operated local establishments. Places like that are much more helpful for the city than Planet Hollywood.

As an entertainment district goes, that area is coming right along. Downtown is not, but it seems to me that the only problem there is that places aren't open late enough.

But all around, the area has a lot of filling in to do, and as it is, I'd say the area just south of downtown, and northwest of Crown Center is a viable place to live for single or childless people to live. There's room for 30 or 40 thousand more people in the overall area.

[KCPowercat]

bahua...that's downtown as well...let's not start this again....the majority of residents and the downtown council agree.....when you try and limit KC's downtown to a 1 mile loop, it's no wonder it doesn't compare to any other city.

Just look what STL downtown is defined as an example.

[QueSi2Opie]

As far as a downtown arena, I agree with everyone that an arena alone may not spark other development. However, if the arena comes as part of a larger revitalization effort (entertainment district, H&R and W&R, linear park, condos, etc.) than everyone should be for it!

Published Sunday, January 7, 2001, in the Miami Herald

IF THEY BUILD IT...WILL YOU COME?

Many baseball stadiums help bolster sagging downtowns -- but only when they're built as part of a larger revitalization effort, economists say.

BY CINDY KRISCHER GOODMAN
cgoodman@herald.com

Look no further than Cleveland, Denver, San Diego or Baltimore when wondering whether a new baseball park for the Florida Marlins will bring economic benefits to downtown Miami.

Ballparks in those cities have thrived, but they have not been the sole catalyst for new economic activity. In most instances, hotels, housing and even convention centers have accompanied the sports facilities, part of a larger effort to bring business and people downtown.

In Cleveland, Jacobs Field, home of the Indians, was built on the edge of the city's central business district in 1994. Though the ballpark helped revitalize a blighted area, it was not the only factor. Lee Hill, president of the Downtown Cleveland Partnership, says the effort was boosted by a broader downtown revitalization plan that included bringing in some much needed hotels.

``The stadium's physical location -- it's contiguous to our central business district -- is important because hotels don't just cater to games, they cater to business travel,'' Hill said. ``There's retail that comes with that and some sports bars, moderate restaurants and souvenir shops.''

In Denver, Coors Field was just one part of an aggressive push by Mayor Federico Pena and his successor, Wellington Webb, to bring Lower Downtown back to life through a revitalization plan that included new housing and incentives to developers. The area now is bustling with restaurants, pubs, galleries, housing and pedestrian traffic on game nights.

In San Diego, the Padres said their new ballpark would help redevelop a blighted stretch of the city's downtown. In exchange for $296 million in tax money, the team agreed to build hotels and office buildings near its ballpark. However, the hotel chains that have agreed to come into the city's ballpark development have done so because of the nearby convention center, which is being doubled in size.

And in Baltimore, Camden Yards, the ballpark opened by the Orioles in 1992, was part of a broader renaissance of the city. Redevelopment of the city's inner harbor preceded construction of the Orioles' home and the football Ravens' stadium next door, creating a synergy that brought more visitors to downtown Baltimore.

The sports franchises were only a small piece of the rebuilt Baltimore downtown. There are tourist attractions open year-round, such as an aquarium. New hotels and restaurants exist because people come to the Inner Harbor area every day, not just on game days. And the renovated warehouse that is part of Oriole Park has brought 800 office workers to the area each weekday.

``You have to be careful not to have your expectations too high for what a ballpark by itself can do,'' said Ed Cline, deputy director of the Maryland Stadium Authority. ``A number of things working together changed downtown Baltimore.''

Robert Baade, an economics professor at Lake Forest College near Chicago, agrees that ballparks by themselves don't spur much economic development.

``Professional sports doesn't seem to be that good an investment, and taxpayers know that,'' said Baade, who studied 30 cities that built stadiums before 1987 to see whether they produced measurable economic benefits. He found nothing that was statistically significant.

THE MARLINS' PITCH

John Henry, owner of the Florida Marlins, wants the public to pay at least $266 million, or 70 percent, of the cost of a new retractable-dome stadium for his baseball team. While the Marlins would kick in $72 million in rent, fans would pay $47 million from a ticket surcharge, the city would contribute $26 million from a parking surcharge, the state would give $122 million from a sales tax rebate and the county would put up $118 million in hotel tax revenues.

Henry says the economic benefits of jobs and spin-off spending make keeping the Marlins in South Florida a good investment for taxpayers.

The Marlins say their operations would generate $254 million each year for other local businesses. However, since the team already plays in Dade County, that number does not reflect an accurate net gain.

``If you build a baseball stadium downtown, you might get a little more benefit for Miami -- and less for North Dade County,'' said Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economics professor who is the author of Baseball and Billions and a critic of publicly financed stadiums. ``But for the county as a whole, there is no economic benefit from a new baseball stadium.''

WHY BENEFITS PALE

Economists note a number of reasons why the economic benefits of sports stadiums pale when compared with convention centers or retail/entertainment complexes: The spending generated by sports comes out of the same entertainment budget that local families already spend: They just shift their dollars to sports tickets and forgo other forms of entertainment. Also, except for a handful of administrators and players, stadiums provide mostly low-skill, low-wage service jobs.

Even more, new research shows that subsidies for sports stadiums may actually be an economic drag -- reducing per capita income of the community, according to a study by economists Dennis C. Coates and Brad R. Humphreys of the University of Maryland.

In cities with baseball franchises, for example, constructing a new ballpark is found to reduce income by $10 per person per year because subsidies for sports facilities mean that taxes must rise or that local governments must reduce other spending.

Henry argues that baseball helps define a community. He says new ballparks have become symbols for the cities in which they were built, some even transforming decaying areas.

In Detroit, where the Tigers' new home, Comerica Park, opened last year, supporters hope it will play a big part in revitalizing one of the most depressed urban areas in the country. The prospect of turning downtown Detroit into a vibrant neighborhood is what prompted public officials to put up $115 million for the project. The rest of the $290-million cost came from private sources.

``Comerica Park encourages people to walk around. Comerica Park will help to restore the excitement of urban life that has been missing all too long,'' Mayor Dennis Archer said shortly before the park opened.

But even in Detroit, investors say the ballpark is only one reason for them coming into the city, which is bustling with activity, including the opening of several casinos, theaters and housing developments in the downtown area.

Carl Hirsh, of Stafford Sports Ventures, said even cities that just build ballparks and see little new development tend to follow them up with some additional investment down the road. For example in Houston, where Enron Field opened last spring, construction will start next year on an arena for the basketball Rockets several blocks away. Last November, an investment group announced plans for a new hotel near Enron. In addition, at least two office towers are being built near the baseball field.

So far, the American Airlines Arena in downtown Miami has been open for a year. Though there has been private investment in land across Biscayne Boulevard, there has been little revitalization to the nearby blighted area to the west known as Overtown/Park West.

A BOOST IN ARIZONA

Henry might find some comfort in a 1999 study done in Phoenix after the Arizona Diamondback's Bank One Ballpark opened. The city noted in the study that sales revenues downtown increased 34.1 percent for the first half of 1998, compared with the same period the year before. While some of the spending occurred at the ballpark, most of it occurred at surrounding businesses, the study said.

However, several economists have questioned the report, saying any additional downtown revenue was offset by the taxpayers' $253 million contribution to the ballpark's $358 million construction.

In Miami, how much economic benefit a new ballpark would have may depend on where it rises and what accompanies its construction. At this point, the downtown Miami ballpark would be a stand-alone venture, with no overall revitalization plan proposed.

Politicians and property owners assert that a site on the north side of the Miami River would create more of an economic impact than the team's preferred location in Bicentennial Park, west of Biscayne Boulevard and adjacent to the American Airlines Arena. A third possible site is the area near the Miami Arena.

Miami Commissioner Johnny Winton said the river site has plenty of parking, synergy with the downtown business district, and easy access to public transportation.

``There is lots of surface parking and garage parking throughout the area,'' Winton said. ``That's what's going to drive economic development, pedestrian traffic walking to the stadium. People could open cafes and bars, and that leads to further economic development. Even West Brickell could be enhanced. There could actually be activity where you see none today.''

Philip Blumberg, chairman of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and a downtown real estate owner agrees: ``The real estate impact of the facility where it is proposed in Bicentennial Park is far diminished if it's west of Biscayne Boulevard.''

Blumberg also notes that the investment and higher land values across Biscayne Boulevard already have been realized as a result of the American Airlines Arena.

``There's something to be said about spreading these arenas around downtown rather than concentrating them all in one area,'' Blumberg said. ``It creates a more vibrant downtown.''

[bahua]

Yeah, yeah, arenas are good. We have established that. The problem is that this one costs a gargantuan sum, directly to the city. The city cannot afford it, and nobody wants to admit that.

Let the prosperity go, until a proposal comes along in which Kansas City doesn't have to be the sole investor. Arenas and stadiums are businesses. The problem with this is that it'll never be a business- just a money pit. Cities aren't supposed to finance arenas. Teams and sponsors are.