Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't understand what Smith College has to benefit from stadiums being not publicly funded. I guess its easier to just throw out the word "biased" without knowing who funds the studies.

Let me try my best Glorioso response - "Someone needs to take a look at Smith College's downtown real estate interests.  I have conclusive evidence that a Smith College sophmore once sublet a downtown condo for three months while here for a summer internship.  Clearly Smith College is influenced by their own economic self-interest".  

[GRID]

max, do you seriously think that Andrew Zimbalist's work is not biased, not looking at more of the big picture and not taking into account variables such as how different sports might effect the KC economy vs the Boston or San Fransisco economy?

[KCMax]

I think it is far less biased than any other study I've seen. I have yet to see why it would be biased but I'm certainly open to hear why it might be. His methodology is available for other academics to critique so if there are problems with his analysis, they certainly will be exposed.

Its easy to just say a study is biased, with no evidence or even a motive. I don't doubt that the study isn't totally accurate, or even a bit biased. That still doesn't mean its totally wrong.

Look, I don't have an axe to grind or anything here. If you go back a year ago or so, I was for spending public subsidies on renovating the K. I got Zimbalists book, read some other sports economists, and they make a lot of sense and point out a lot of flaws with the studies showing teams provide millions in economic benefits to cities. If they're wrong, I'm willing to support subsidies for teams - after all I'm a huge Royals fan. My heart tells me spend the money on the Royals, my head tells me its not a wise investment. Many of you are voting with your heart. That's cool. Sometimes we should vote with our hearts instead of our heads. But that doesn't mean the teams are worth millions in economic benefits to the city.

[GRID]

I vote with my heart 90% of the time.  You only live once and life is too short not to enjoy it.

And yea, I'm thinking of the next generation too.

Of coures his studies are biased.  I have read them too.  This is how he makes a living now for crying out loud.

You can find studies just as biased the other way.

Sometimes you do have to "vote with your heart".

[mean]

That's fine, just understand that it's a mistake, it's irrational. One of the great things about being a human is we can reason through things and we don't have to just make decisions on irrational emotional impulses. We often do, but it's usually not the best decision in retrospect.

[KCMax]

Like I said, there are less tangible reasons to vote FOR this project. I'm just saying the tangible ones are grossly exaggerated by the Glorioso group.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There is hardly ever a truly unbiased report.  Especially when it comes to economics.  There are so many factors to take into consideration, how you weight those factors, etc.  And, of course, how do you factor in the intangibles, which they never do.  However, the most important factor to consider is "who is paying for the report, study".

And do not think that intangibles are unimportant.  Many economic decisions are made with intangibles considered.  Many mergers and acquisitions are made at a purchase price above the book value of the companies.  Why?  Intangibles.  An old term used was "goodwill".

When people vote on these issues the deciding factor will be emotion, or an intangible factor, and not economics.

[GRID]

AKP, for the first time in like 2 years, I agree with your post! 

[warwickland]

:0


my god, so do i


eee. except i am taking economics into consideration, coupled with emotion. 

[jerry12]

please. there are so many studies out there that say both, back and forth, all of the time. is there not a study published, today, in the star, that says that the city will reap 400m in benefits annually from pro sports?

Studies like these measure economic impact.  A hail storm has a tremendous economic impact on a city.  Hundreds of roofers, building suppliers etc make lots of money.  But if hailstorms could make a city prosperous, KC would be.  A partial list of cities that have lost football or baseball teams in the last 50 years:  New York, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angelos, Houston, Cleveland, Montreal, Baltimore, Washington, Seattle, Milwaukee,  Oakland. St. Louis and Kansas City.  

[lock+load]

And yea, I'm thinking of the next generation too.

So why leave them stuck with another 25 years of 1960s design and location mistakes?  If you want to prepare this city for the next generation, a renovated TSC is not the way to do it.

[GRID]

So why leave them stuck with another 25 years of 1960s design and location mistakes?  If you want to prepare this city for the next generation, a renovated TSC is not the way to do it.

I'm not even taking sides on the TSC here.  Simply debating the idea that stadiums are a drain on the economy and sports do not add to our quality of life etc, regardless of where the stadiums are located.

I guess if Jackson thought like so many people do today, we would not even be in this situation.  We would be building minor league stadiums via star bonds and tiffs (get the taxpayers from behind).  Oops, we do that too and that's ok I guess. 

And we all know how much minor league sports do for our economy.  Scrap the Hyatt and Westin. The Drurry in will be just fine.

[lock+load]

And we know what two major league stadiums doo, a Clarion, Denny's and a Taco Bell.  In 50 years we'll look back and wonder why we were all so stupid to use tax dollars to fund stadiums at all.

[GRID]

And we know what two major league stadiums doo, a Clarion, Denny's and a Taco Bell.  In 50 years we'll look back and wonder why we were all so stupid to use tax dollars to fund stadiums at all.

Those teams and stadiums have a greater impact on Downtown, Plaza, OP and KCI hotels than the area around I-70 and Blue Ridge.  The development (or lack there of) around the stadiums has far more to do with the demographics of that area, the fact that the county has had control of all that land and did nothing with it and the highway accessibility of the TSC than anything.  You can (and people do) stay in a plaza hotel, drive to the ballparks and then drive back to the plaza.

Again, I'm not endorsing the TSC plan, but I think having the stadiums is a positive for the community, regardless of how they are funded and their locations.

[kcdcchef]

Those teams and stadiums have a greater impact on Downtown, Plaza, OP and KCI hotels than the area around I-70 and Blue Ridge.  The development (or lack there of) around the stadiums has far more to do with the demographics of that area, the fact that the county has had control of all that land and did nothing with it and the highway accessibility of the TSC than anything.  You can (and people do) stay in a plaza hotel, drive to the ballparks and then drive back to the plaza.

Again, I'm not endorsing the TSC plan, but I think having the stadiums is a positive for the community, regardless of how they are funded and their locations.

the anti tax crowd, all 12 of the regular ones here, love to attack that clarion and taco bell. they are the only tangibles for them to grasp at. i hope that a new hotel gets built up there, and a couple of more restuarants, JUST so lockandload has to reach even more when bitching about the location. the fact of the matter is, very few people that come into kansas city to see the chiefs or the royals stay at the clarion/adams mark. why do you think crown center, care of the hyatt regency and the westin crown center, are endorsing this plan so much?? or the hotel and restaurant association of kansas city in general, which, is behind this, why would they endorse a plan, that according to lockandload, ONLY benefits the drury inn and clarion? because the financial impact of pro sports is a far reaching one in any city, and in kc, when people come to town to see either team, they stay on the plaza, at crown center, near worlds of fun, they plan MANY other things in their trip then a 3 hour day at the k.

but, again, run these teams out of here, and lose those dollars to denver and st louis, and then tell me the teams do not benefit the city.

So why leave them stuck with another 25 years of 1960s design and location mistakes? If you want to prepare this city for the next generation, a renovated TSC is not the way to do it.

what difference does the year of the design make? does it make them any less attractive of stadiums? does it make them any less nice to look at? classic 60's ballpark architecture are 3 rivers, riverfront, shea, kingdome, the tsc, was, and is, ahead of its time. and you know it, you are just reaching, as normal.

There is hardly ever a truly unbiased report.  Especially when it comes to economics.  There are so many factors to take into consideration, how you weight those factors, etc.  And, of course, how do you factor in the intangibles, which they never do.  However, the most important factor to consider is "who is paying for the report, study".

And do not think that intangibles are unimportant.  Many economic decisions are made with intangibles considered.  Many mergers and acquisitions are made at a purchase price above the book value of the companies.  Why?  Intangibles.  An old term used was "goodwill".

When people vote on these issues the deciding factor will be emotion, or an intangible factor, and not economics.

i agree, i think emotion will be part of it, but, in more than one facet. you have the emotion of someone like myself, that, can vote there, that, will say, yeah, i remember sitting here, in august of 1980, watching george brett, raise his arms to the air, with the giant 18 story scoreboard behind him flashing .401. or, i sat there and saw motley catch van slykes fly ball for the final out of 85. or i sat here and watched dt sack dave kreig 7 times that day, to set the record. or i was sitting there, when, tamarick vanover ran it back 98 yards. you will have those emotional people, that, say they want their kids to experience it where they did, but, more than anything, i think those of you that are against this, fail to realize, even if this fails, there is a HUGE camp of people in kcmo and jacko in general, that just love having pro sports, and understand, we have to do something for these teams to help keep them competetive with newer stadiums, to keep them here, and, oh yeah, understand that it would be assanine to lose 2 stadiums this nice.

if this fails april 4th, which, i think it probably will, due to a shitty campaign, it will be because a lot of the sentimentalists did not get the message of what they are doing, or did not get it in enough time, or, heard the propoganda of 810 dickwads too much.

either way, those of you against this, have to realize, the tsc plan will not die. it may go down in defeat, but, it will not go away. it will just resurface in august, with glass and hunt putting in 15m more a piece.

[KCMax]

Re: emotion

I don't agree with their issue, but that Save Our Stadiums commercial with Hank Stram and the Super Bowl parade is brilliant. Glorioso may be many things, but he's no political dummy.

[lock+load]

I am not reaching at all on 1970s design.  Look at almost all the stadiums built in the last 15 years, and they are all a totally different beast than the K.  The K is a monument to the motorcoach as much as it is to baseball.  Why can't I get a hot dog without either going into the stadium or bringing my own damn grill to the parking lot?  Why can't I buy Royals merchandise without going into the stadium or 7 miles down the street to the mall?  Why can't I stand outside and protest an event at the K?  The TSC is a monument to 1960s/70s planning with its focus on the car and not a lot else.

You continue to refer to the NO side as small (the numbers always change, which is not suprising considering they are coming out of your ass).  You continue to refer to the NO sides positions as "propaganda."  Well, what do you call the YES sides message?  What the hell does Hank Stram or Slugger in a hospital have to do with a sales tax for stadium renovations?  That seems to me to fit the propaganda mold well.  The NO side sites legitimate studies, and raises reasoned arguments.  You talk about 5 gazillion ballplayers sleeping at the Hyatt each night as a fundamental reason we must pass this tax.

[kcdcchef]

The K is a monument to the motorcoach as much as it is to baseball.  Why can't I get a hot dog without either going into the stadium or bringing my own damn grill to the parking lot?  Why can't I buy Royals merchandise without going into the stadium or 7 miles down the street to the mall?   

well, after the good people of jackson county pass the referendum on april the 4th, a lot of what you mention will change. but, where, exactly, and in what cities, can you buy your teams merchandise or hot dogs without going in? cincy, philly, pitt, toronto, baltimore, all have these groovy dt stadiums you pine for so much, but, there are not hot dog eateries and souvie stores nearby. now, in a lot of cities, they do allow independent vendors to do those things, but, even in those cities, that is more nfl them mlb. only times they do it for mlb is opening day and postseasons, when, the crowds are biggest. do not judge the tsc based on this, the fact that there are not vendors selling hot dogs, and shirts near the k and arrowhead, has nothing to do with the teams or location, it has to do with city ordinances that suck.

  Look at almost all the stadiums built in the last 15 years, and they are all a totally different beast than the K. 

i agree, and just like those parks of the 70's, they are all starting to look alike. sure, there are a couple, like oriole park that stand out, but, look at the basic design of cinnergy, pnc, coors, man, that shit is all starting to look alike. and there are others on this board who have said that.

kauffman, and arrowhead stood out in the 70's, because they were built in the same decade as 19 other stadiums that no longer exsist. and they still manage to look great, and are still considered top notch. but of course, you do not care what the national stage thinks of kc, i keep forgetting.

You continue to refer to the NO sides positions as "propaganda." 

it is propoganda on the no side. all this horseshit about how it will cost 900m or a bil, in the long run, then, in the same breath, look at stlouis, buildinga new busch for 350m, when, 1) st louis post dispatch has ran stories this winter about how it is over 400m now, and 2) the construction loans in stl, are 25 year loans. so, the price of that, is not 350-400m, it is in actuality, just like this, so, then, it is a 650m project. all other cities, seattle, pittsburgh, philly, are all doing this 25 year bonding for their improvements, so, why does the no side so constantly say that it will REALLY cost you this much over 25 years, whereas, you could have what pittsburgh or denver or seattle did for so much less? beause it is bullshit, or, propoganda, whatever you wish to call it.

What the hell does Hank Stram or Slugger in a hospital have to do with a sales tax for stadium renovations? 

without having the royals, and chiefs, we do not have slugger, who, does an assload of charitable work in kc, or hank stram, a hall of fame coach.

. You talk about 5 gazillion ballplayers sleeping at the Hyatt each night as a fundamental reason we must pass this tax.

no, i dont. you guys love these studies that say there is minimal, or no impact financially, and the FACTS prove there are over 10,000 room nights at the hyatt and westin, annually, for just players and team personel, and oh yeah, the meals those 10,000 consume. do not tell me there is no financial gain. that is ridiculous. 10,000 heads in beds that eat while they are in town, is a LOT of money. and that again, does not take into account one single fan coming to kc.

  The NO side sites legitimate studies, and raises reasoned arguments. 

both sides have commisioned studies. so what.

[kard]

...
but, again, run these teams out of here, and lose those dollars to denver and st louis, and then tell me the teams do not benefit the city.
...

Chef, I don't have much time right now, so I can only respond to one point.  I am not a fan of the current ballot initiative--I think we can all do better.  I don't want the teams to leave--you and everyone else (including me) who say the teams make the city a better place to live are absolutely right.  I'm not even against using some tax money to pay for the things.  I've read that the smaller a market is, generally the more public money is put in to pay for stadiums, etc, and that makes sense.

I think, generally speaking, most of the "no" sayers just wish for a better deal:  to have the renovations scaled back a bit, or have a wider tax base share the load.  Sure, you might be "proud" to say "hey, I helped pay for that!", but I'm all for letting others help out and feel proud, too.

So my point is:  please don't ridicule us by saying we want the teams to leave.  We don't.  We just wish for a better deal, and we hope that by sending a message with a no vote, we'll get that.  If that means letting the Kansas side of the metro in on things, then I'm for it, regardless of how much I like the K or a DT ballpark.  I hope whatever the next vote is for will involve both sides of the state line, is for 5-10 years and then over with, so we can all get on to the next thing on our wish list.

[kcdcchef]

Chef, I don't have much time right now, so I can only respond to one point.  I am not a fan of the current ballot initiative--I think we can all do better.  I don't want the teams to leave--you and everyone else (including me) who say the teams make the city a better place to live are absolutely right.  I'm not even against using some tax money to pay for the things.  I've read that the smaller a market is, generally the more public money is put in to pay for stadiums, etc, and that makes sense.

I think, generally speaking, most of the "no" sayers just wish for a better deal:  to have the renovations scaled back a bit, or have a wider tax base share the load.  Sure, you might be "proud" to say "hey, I helped pay for that!", but I'm all for letting others help out and feel proud, too.

So my point is:  please don't ridicule us by saying we want the teams to leave.  We don't.  We just wish for a better deal, and we hope that by sending a message with a no vote, we'll get that.  If that means letting the Kansas side of the metro in on things, then I'm for it, regardless of how much I like the K or a DT ballpark.  I hope whatever the next vote is for will involve both sides of the state line, is for 5-10 years and then over with, so we can all get on to the next thing on our wish list.

kard, read what is getting said. there are PLENTY of posters on here who are all about fuck the teams, let them leave. it is almost as ridiculous as holding out for downtown baseball, when we have a facility as nice as kauffman. sure, a dt park would be great for the city, but, get real, we have a great stadium, and everyone knows it.

a lot of the people here fighting the no cause, are saying bullshit like no i cannot afford it out of one side of their mouth, then out of the other, say, the problem is the k is out there in a huge ass parking lot, we need the stadium downtown. so, which is it? do you not support paying to keep pro sports, or, do you not support it because you cannot have the staduim dt like other cities? you cannot have it both ways.

and there are plenty on here spouting off fuck them, let them leave, but, in the same breath, are all for paying for it if the teams move downtown. now, what kind of stuff is that? senseless, that is what.

if the no vote was spouting, well, we would vote yes if glass put in 60-70m, and hunt put in 125m, but, the main opposition here, is, about wanting downtown baseball, and crying like an 8 year old girl with a skinned knee because you cannot get the majority to want that.

we think it will embarass jacko nationally to vote down this, can you imagine how badly a dt stadium would fail in jackson county? at least if this fails, we will see 55-45, 57-43, 53-47, 52-48, man, if this was for new stadiums, you would see 75-25 in favor of NO.