What's new

Need your opinions for a paper re: sports and city economics

TSwift25

Muckdog
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
0
Please fill this in truthfully.

Also, I urge you to NOT take your position on the Marlins stadium into account, and rather think of this as team X playing in city Y asking for a new stadium.

This will be used in a paper I'm writing for my senior urban econ class and I'll gladly e-mail the finished product to anyone interested when I'm completed, thanks!

And, of course, feel free to add opinions here and turn this into a debate.
 

FlummoxedLummox

Guest
In case you need how each question was specifically answered:

Generally speaking, are you in favor, opposed, or neutral to public financing of a professional sports stadium?
- Opposed

Do you believe that there should be a limit on how much cost a city can/should assume if/when a stadium is constructed?
- Yes, but the situation should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Do you believe that a new stadium brings an economic benefit to a city that already has a stadium present?
- No. (Personally, I believe that it may bring a very temporary benefit in creating city-planning and construction jobs, but those disappear with the stadium's completion. In response to the argument that stadiums revitalize an area, I would say if that was the city's goal, it should use the money invested into the stadium to rennovate the run-down neighborhood.)

Of the 4 major professional American sports, which do you feel is the most synonymous with new stadium demands?
- Baseball

Do you feel that a team's past success is justification enough for a new stadium to be requested with public financing?
- No

Do you feel that a team's financial situation should be taken into consideration when deciding to publically finance a new stadium?
- No

How old are you?
- 23-25
 

yankeefan21

Muckdog
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
3,058
Reaction score
0
In case you need how each question was specifically answered:
I'm in agreement with you on everything except 2 and 3.

Actually, it was a toss up for me between your choice and my choice of no more than 25%. My actual thought is that it should be evaluated but there should be a max cap of 25% [or less].

I think a new stadium DOES bring in some money, but certainly not enough to justify a huge public expenditure. I do think you are right, though, that the new stadium brings temporary economic benefit in and of itself. When done right, though, there can be ancillary financial benefits to businesses in the immediate surrounding area. This can also serve as an incredible instrument for an urban renewal project. By refurbishing and rebuilding in an area that may have been somewhat economically depressed, you can draw businesses in with the low cost of property and get them to demolish, rebuild, or refurbish dilapidated buildings and bring an immediate increase in property value which, in turn, generates a stronger tax base. The Catch-22 of it in a city with an existing stadium is to make sure that you do not devalue the area the club would be leaving.
 

TSwift25

Muckdog
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
0
Since it looks like we want to have a discussion on this:

The primary problem for a stadium justifying its cost is leakages, not the oft cited substitution effect. Players are taxed in the highest income bracket, owners are too. Leakage one to Washington. Players and owner(s) do not generally live year round in the area where their stadium is, despite most/all of their earnings coming from there. Leageage two.

Stadiums have artificially higher concession prices, many of which are from companies that are not based in the city where the stadium is located. Leakage three.

Finally, owners and players have high incomes. High incomes = high savings. High savings = money into money markets. Leakage four.
 

Flamarlins3

Muckdog
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
7,717
Reaction score
0
I assume you're also getting data from somewhere else too because obviously this poll is going to be fairly skewed imo.

But ya here were my answers:

In case you need how each question was specifically answered:

Generally speaking, are you in favor, opposed, or neutral to public financing of a professional sports stadium?
- Favor

Do you believe that there should be a limit on how much cost a city can/should assume if/when a stadium is constructed?
- Yes, but the situation should be evaluated on a case by case basis. I do believe that this should be a relatively small number though.

Do you believe that a new stadium brings an economic benefit to a city that already has a stadium present?
- Yes. I agree that it brings a temporary benefit which is why I believe that it is ok to be partially publicly funded. In no way do I think a city should have to put forth the majority of the money. In the case of the Marlins, I do feel it will bring economic benefit simply because they are looking at downtown and moving from Pro Player. It may be a different story if the stadium were already in the downtown area.

Of the 4 major professional American sports, which do you feel is the most synonymous with new stadium demands?
- Baseball (although I feel that each sport has gone through a phase where a large amount of teams were looking for new venues and it just so happens to be baseball right now)

Do you feel that a team's past success is justification enough for a new stadium to be requested with public financing?
- Absolutely not

Do you feel that a team's financial situation should be taken into consideration when deciding to publically finance a new stadium?
- Nope

How old are you?
- 18-22
 

FishFanInPA

Guest
I did a huge paper on this if you were interested in some of my sources/findings.....
 

Top Bottom