Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Are there non-financial reasons that a new modern arena would be beneficial for the city, or do these things always have to measured by their monetary return?
I personally think there are. Having a good arena draws in better events and "puts cities on the map", both on the continent and globally. People like to live in cities where there is more fun stuff to do, and businesses like to locate in cities where people want to live.
From a hockey perspective, there is an intrinsic cultural value to having a team. Whether or not a new arena affects having a team, I don't know. It probably affect having a winning team in some ways though.
|
Economists have measured these benefits and tried to put actual dollar figures to how much the intrinsic value is to people. When push comes to shove these benefits are about two orders of magnitude less than whatever the public cost was.
I've been beating this drum for a while now but there isn't one honest methodologically sound analysis that shows that public subsidies of private arenas is a sound economic decision.
And yes all the arguments you raise have been well explored.
Let's call this as it is. A bunch of billionaires see an opportunity to have someone else pay for their stuff. Who wouldn't try to bilk the unwashed masses and dress it up as civic pride?