[VERVE]

Originally Posted by morgin

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...8&postcount=96

Read the rest of the thread.

I see I am given studies presenting conclusions in contrast to mine and to which I am told “I have no idea of what I am talking about”. Like all studies, there are research papers that provide views presenting all sides. It is easy to cherry pick data to fit your model and skew the curve to make it so. It happens all the time. This particular case it is not a control study meaning there are so many tangibles and variables that differ from one model to another that a slight change could make a huge difference.
__________________________________________________ ______

“One of the noted benefits associated with the construction of a new sport facility is the creation of jobs. Initially, there will be many construction jobs created. Once the construction is complete, individuals will be needed to run the facility, from ticket collectors to concession stand workers to maintenance personnel. Another benefit is when these supporters and employees spend money in the local community. The tourist attraction also serves as a benefit because these tourists bring in outside money and spend it within the community. It is argued that this new spending has a “multiplier effect.” In other words, as income within the community increases, there will continue to be more new spending and, as a result, more jobs created (Feng & Humphreys, 2008).

Most studies have set out to prove the impact on jobs, income and tax revenues, while the intangible effects have been mostly ignored. Sports facilities and teams tend to have an impact on the community’s quality of life. This is an intangible benefit that is often related to civic duty and pride, community visibility and the enhancement of a city’s image. However, intangible benefits are extremely hard to measure and are, therefore, often omitted from these economic studies (Coates & Humphreys, 2004).

Does it make sense to use public funds to attract and retain sports franchises? Many studies say no if the only benefits are increases in economic activity and tax revenues. However, when considering the quality-of-life benefits, one can often justify the large public spending. These quality-of-life benefits are not always included in the debate on subsidizing sports facilities because it is so difficult to measure these types of benefits. It is hard to argue, though, that one main benefit of a new sports facility comes from the improved quality of life of the surrounding community. One thing for sure is that this debate will continue to be a hot topic of discussion worldwide, especially with the crisis facing our economy today.
http://thesportdigest.com/archive/ar...rts-facilities
__________________________________________________ _________________________
But new research done in the past decade by Rosentraub (a University of Michigan professor who consulted on downtown arena projects in San Diego and Los Angeles)and by other leading sports economists shows that arenas, if designed and financed correctly, can revitalize a downtown.
"I still agree that at the regional level, this (a pro sports arena) has almost no effect, but if you concentrate it in the downtown area, if you build a mix of commercial and retail, and you re-orient the planning around it, it can have a profound effect," Rosentraub says. "You can have some very positive outcomes."

His new report for city council, done with the University of Alberta's Dan Mason, looked at whether a downtown arena district will hurt other downtown businesses. Rosentraub studied property values in five U.S. cities (Kansas City, Cleveland, St. Paul, Columbus, Minneapolis) and found that the declines in those downtowns either stopped or were turned around after downtown arena projects were built.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=f218e5b5-da03-4a94-a24f-ba922b181e9a&sponsor
__________________________________________________ __________________
What happened with the NationWide Arena District:

The District has also emerged as desirable place to conduct business, as the over 1 million square feet of office space has a 95% occupancy rate. All of this activity has also made the District a desirable place to live. There are currently 6 apartment and condominium projects in the District, with at least two new projects in the planning stages. The synergies of entertainment, office space, and housing development provide an important economic stimulus to the central Ohio economy. In 2006 alone, we estimate that the District generated $1.6 billion in sales. The success of the project is manifest both in terms of the continued development around Arena District and in terms of the model of mixed use development around a sports arena becoming the new norm.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...2aiMApK8_5kW4w
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
“They’re accurate when they just talk about all the jobs and the taxes that are happening in the Arena District,” Greenbaum said of the city and county leaders who hold up his and Buser’s reports. “What is not accurate is if they are saying this is all new net jobs and economic activity.”
Having a vibrant district is a benefit in itself, Greenbaum said. “A lot of the people who have done cost-benefit analysis don’t find that the benefits exceed the costs,” he said. “But you could do that with a lot of the things the government spends money on, parks or other things that make a city a nice place to live. They’re difficult to quantify in terms of costs and benefits.”

Robert T. Greenbaum, a professor at Ohio State University’s Glenn School of Public Policy, was hired by the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...renaboost.html
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Measuring the True Costs + Benefits:
Deciding whether or not a city should subsidize sports stadiums can be a difficult decision for both voters and policy makers. It becomes increasingly difficult to decide these matters when lobbyists from both sides produce statistical data that is so seemingly contradictory. In order to filter through this information it is important to understand the geographic scale considered, the considerations taken in measuring opportunity costs, and the ways in which employment data is compiled. In general, it is important to commission, or study the works produced by entities that are as thorough and unbiased as possible.

Stadium Design: Site Selection, Mixing Uses, and Integrating Interests
No two cities or sites are the same. That being the case, it is critical to realize that the stadium being proposed in any given community will undoubtedly produce a different set of results than any case study that will influence your decision-making. In negotiating whether or not to subsidize construction of a new stadium, it is important to consider whether or not the proposed stadium is sited and designed in a fashion that integrates the interest of the team, the neighbors, and the city at large. It is also important to ask whether or not this facility might be able to share in some of the infrastructure costs that the city might be ready to spend on projects, and how expenditures on stadium subsidies might integrate with other public interests. With these issues properly addressed, one will be better equipped at deciding whether or not subsidizing sports stadium construction in your locale fits within the greater interests of the constituents at play.

http://www.umich.edu/~econdev/stadium_subsidy/