Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
It is a huge assumption because it is pretty much the backbone of the argument.
Without full substitution, by definition there must be a benefit to having the team.
|
Not entirely.
less than 100% substitution can be beneficial to the city based on multipliers. A sports team's multiplier is insignificant whereas spending money on other things in the city has a more substantial effect.
Substitution is a factor in the conclusion that arenas don't bring positive economic impact; but it isn't the only one.
We are also assuming that the Flames are here (with zero input from tax payers) vs the Flames leaving. In reality, that isn't the case, the City potentially has to kick in millions of dollars to keep them here, so even assuming that 100% substitution was the correct way to measure economic benefit, you would need to factor in the cost of keeping them here.