Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Haha well first of all, I wouldn't be using John Oliver as your primary source first and foremost; as much as I love Last Week Tonight and am a huge fan, he creates content based on the premise of comedy and cherry picks and chooses his stories, clips and delivery to support that. He's not wrong in his personal position, I just would put an asterisk next to anything that is primarily created as entertainment for ratings. HBO isn't the New York Times, The Economist, BBC or the Harvard Business Review.
Secondly, did you take a look at the report in the link I provided above? It is an economic impact analysis on the Rivers District completed by Ernst and Young, not by CSEC. It outlays the economic impact of a new stadium in replacement of an old one, in addition to other developments in that area. I think you should have a read through this, as it's a much more relevant and layered position and helps to understand how certain developments can be catalysts for success.
|
Last Week Tonight is not my primary research, it is a good summary of the reality I have seen, and in that video he cites primary research you are welcome to go read if you don't trust his analysis. My primary research includes the knowledge I have gained in a Finance degree, CFA designation (as well as other finance designations) and MBA, as well as academic research from the Chicago Booth School of business for one, which is considered one of the premier economics schools in the world.
Academic research is emphatic that that benefits that are spouted in reports such as the EY one almost never come true, and any benefits are largely at the expense of other areas. For example, presumably an office tower is built to house office workers. A shiny new arena does not materially change the demand for office space, so that comes at the expense of other parts of the city. Just like the bar thing I referenced in my last post.
The EY report is paid for by the proponents of the district development (the rivers district development team wants to build stuff). The biggest problem is that things like this tend to move around where development is, not create new development. On a city wide basis you are rearanging teh economic deck chairs and robbing Peter to pay Paul.
There are lots of reasons to build an arena, but economic benefits to the city have not been shown to be one of them.
Do you have any academic/non proponent research that suggests otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
As for McMahon, it's a dump, and an embarrassing piece of infrastructure for a city such as ours, and I stand by that. How we end up paying for a replacement stadium is irrelevant to that point anyways - it'll still be dump until something new is built.
|
I don't disagree with this point, but I don't see how that impacts whether or not there is a financial benefit to the city.