Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
Studies on anything like this will always have a certain angle on how they quantify benefits. I don't dissagree with you on the thoughts of Opportunity cost..........same could be said for anything that gets built. If you applied Opportunity Costs to everything the city or province does, I guarantee we'd never get another bridge built, never get any new green space or parks, maybe even never see another hospital built.
While I don't dissagree in principal, not much would happen around the world if that angle was taken to every project the province or city wanted to undertake. And you can always argue that every single dollar the province collects should go to the lowest common denominator, such as health care, or solving the homeless problem etc........ but as utopian as that might be, it's also not realistic.
|
I call BS. Go through some of the peer-reviewed research Tinordi posted earlier in this thread and explain exactly what's wrong with how they quantify benefits. Or better yet - find any peer-reviewed research that backs the other side of the argument.
This idea that a new building will jump start the economy and provide a big economic benefit seems logical, but what seems logical isn't always right. Research done by people a lot more versed in this subject than anyone on here is unanimous in the belief that the perceived economic benefit of new stadiums is non-existent.