Quote:
Originally Posted by spetch
That's a bit of a stretch to say the out of towner would of spent that money in the city anyways. Not impossible, but very very unlikely.
I can use use an actual example that I know was fact. 10 people that I am aware of went to Garth. 2 couples stayed at the Fairmont $300x2. 8 of us went to Ruth's Chris for supper ($700) and 2 others went to the melting pot (no idea their cost say $75). Breakfast/coffee/gas on the way out for the 4 of us that stayed over ($160)
That is $1535 that was not going to Edmonton businesses if it wasn't for the concert.
Things can be spun anyway. I don't have a say cause I am an out of towner, all I can give is my thoughts. I know I will be giving up my seats after next season. 20ish% of the reason being the dome/parking which CalgaryNext was gonna make even worse
|
I agree with you and your hypothetical, which is why i said it wasn't necessarily correct.
I think the Garth Brooks concert scenario is a one- time thing and really dont think they will be doing that again, so its tough to hang your hat on.
The funny thing about your anecdote is the money being pumped into the economy is mostly going to foreign owned Fairmont, Ruth's Chris, Melting Pot.. hell im sure the gas and snacks were all foreign-owned. So outside of some low paying retail/service jobs, who is really seeing that benefit? (not to mention the fact that all those places mentioned were there before the arena). Does John Smith, power engineer living in Edmonton see that benefit? because he paid for the damn thing.
Even without that, im sure on average, the amount of actual tourism dollars from out-of-towners like you has a negligible effect on the City - or atleast not enough to justify the hundreds of millions in initial capital costs, and most likely an operating loss for the city in the future.
Again, im not saying there isnt a benefit (although all economic studies are unanimous that the benefit is negligible), Im saying the economic benefit argument is way overrated.