Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
Anecdotal evidence can never be called insurmountable. It's anecdotal. Especially when there are countless independent studies that have found negligible growth from the construction of stadiums.
You also have to look at the opportunity cost of the money. As an investment manager, I'm sure you have pulled the plug on a few investments where the returns were less than ideal. That money could be better utilized in a different investment, that could grant higher returns.
Cities have the same issue. Yes growth is good. Do stadiums provide it? most signs point to no, if very little. Could cities make better use of the money? they sure could. Even the economist in the John Oliver segment noted that the city could see a greater ROI by simply throwing a billion dollars out of an airplane over downtown.
Cities shouldn't always look at their ROI when deciding to fund a project, as they are in the business of providing public goods, first and foremost. But, when something controversial like this enters the conversation, where the main benefactor from the project will reap immense income from the project, and where said benefactor touts the economic benefits to the city as main factor in contributing public dollars to the project, then it's important for the city to look at the financial aspect of the project and see if it works.
|
I think it's a question of how much of the fringe benefits involve people starting businesses around the stadium and than end up growing available capital to be spent as a whole?
I suppose there is the argument that you're just displacing spent income from one area to another but I don't necessarily buy that. I'm aware some people work off a budget, but I'm fortunate enough not to and if there is maybe a new restaurant or recreational thing in a part of town I haven't tried before, I might go spend money on that that I wouldn't have spent otherwise. Or would have spent on some makeup at Sephora, which doesn't exactly keep my money in my community.