Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj1
Again, economic activity is not zero-sum. If you have more amenities, you can get people to spend more. The idea that people come into the city with $50 and would not spend more if there were more options doesn't match economic reality. Do you think that if we demolished Wrigleyville bar scene around the stadium, we would see ALL of the economic activity just shift to Southport? I don't think so and haven't seen an economic report that indicates it would.
That said, your embedded assumption is that if they don't build the stadium, the Sox will continue to play baseball in Chicago and the same amount of revenue will flow to local and state coffers. The reality, as has been reported on local sports radio, is that when Reinsdorf dies, the team will be sold. Without a new stadium, it is likely they will move to whichever city will build them a stadium (Salt Lake, Nashville, Charlotte, etc.).
Losing a professional sports team will mean lower hotel taxes (from fans and opposing teams), lower income tax collections from 81 games of both home and visiting players, lower amusement taxes from each ticket sale, fewer jobs in and around the stadium, lower sales tax on all sales, etc. That would be a direct loss to the state and city.
Nobody wants to give billionaires money, although many people did cheer giving Gotion $500 million. Unlike the Bears, who will never leave Chicagoland, the Sox will very likely to leave without a new stadium. As a state, we shouldn't bend over backwards to those demands, but it is the reality.
|
Instead of everybody making theoretical arguments, it's worth looking at what the research on this says.
https://media.clemson.edu/economics/...Management.pdf
"The peer-reviewed literature typically finds little or no evidence that the construction of new professional sports facilities results in significant increases in any type of measurable economic activity including personal income, wages, employment, tax revenues, or tourist spending (Coates & Humphreys, 2008). In addition, the privately funded consulting reports that frequently accompany stadium proposals, and which invariably tout large economic benefits from subsidized stadiums and arenas, have been shown to suffer from significant theoretical flaws that make their conclusions suspect at best, and simply false at worst (Crompton, 1995). In fact, some academic economists suggest, only partially in jest, that if one wants to know what the true economic impact of a stadium project will be, simply take whatever number the consultants project and then move the decimal point one place to the left."
That paper does go on to discuss when there might be an argument for a positive subsidy for stadiums, but it's careful to note that the arguments don't actually determine the *size* of the subsidy.
Another one:
https://college.holycross.edu/hcs/Re..._LitReview.pdf
"This paper reviews the empirical literature assessing the effects of subsidies for professional sports franchises and facilities. The evidence reveals a great deal of consistency among economists doing research in this area. That evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation, those arguments most frequently used by subsidy advocates."
This one from a much better journal than the first two:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.14.3.95
"Team owners have argued that sports facilities boost local economic activity; however, economic reasoning and empirical evidence suggest the opposite. "
I'm totally open to the argument that this is just a bunch of economists, and economists are wrong about pretty much everything. But the arguments being made here -- on both sides -- are largely economic, and so it seems worth understanding what the economic research says.
Prev
Linear Mode
