Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
TravisMunroe's and other anecdotes aside, isn't there studies that show that the bulk of entertainment spending doesn't leave a city due to lack of a sports team or concerts? Not trying to be snarky, I just feel I've seen a few of these over the years.
|
As others have said, there is no way to actually have an accurate report on such a thing. If there is said study, I am sure it ignored the benefits to having a pro sports teams. The charities, the foundations, the sense of community, the pride, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Do you think this applies to a new arena replacing the 'dome too?
I don't think anyone is really disputing that there is significant economic activity related to an arena. The question is whether it is worth a 9 figure investment + special annual exemptions compared to other businesses...
FWIW my personal limit is a one-time $99M city contribution (be it land, cash, or otherwise). CSEC owns building, covers maintenance, and pays property taxes. Unrealistic, but IMO it's a more than fair subsidy.
|
Parallex did dispute this with me which is the only argument I am making right now. There are dozens of questions that are up for debate when it comes to a new arena and I am only focussing on Parallexs comment that a new arena isn't going to trigger an economic spike to an area with a new arena without hurting another area. Some other area might see a slight dip in economic benefit but that is a drop in the bucket compared to what the area with the new arena will do from a economic standpoint.
As for the other questions up for debate such as location, who pays what, etc... that's for a different day.
Is there not a way for the flames to make additional profit from everything that is going on, making it worthwhile to put more in the pot? Perhaps attaching large commercial spaces that have big name anchor tenants or own the parking for the convention center with a city imposed cap on what they can charge or any other idea that involves spending more but a greater return? It seems that they want the smallest risk and don't care too much about added financial reward which perhaps is how billionaires look at their hobbies.