New Stadium Developments...hmmmm

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Again, I am pointing out that the French Quarter is a place that many sporting fans gravitate to while they are there during a big event because that is where people party. When they show city shots during the SB the FQ figures in pretty prominently. I found it pretty seedy myself though there were some nice places as well. Hell, most of the bars were kind of tacky to me. If we had a SB here you would be more likely to find people in the gaslamp district for the nightlife. I've seen it once and I don't have to go back. Now Boston is a town I'd like to go back to.

That is certainly your choice.

The Quarter is what it is. It's also a historical district that is architecturally unlike any you will encounter in the rest of the country. I think it has some redeeming value from that perspective but like Times Square, I don't want to spend too much time there. It has a reputation and when people think of NO that is primarily what they think of. When people think of SD, I can assure you that they do not primarily think of the Gaslamp, as nice as it is. To your point, on the broadcasts, it's beach, beach, beach. Occasionally they'll show some Gaslamp or Old Town. As you know, there is more to San Diego than that. New Orleans is no different. The prime difference is that it really is like tourists only going to or envisioning the Gaslamp (or wherever) when going to SD. NO is a great city, with very beautiful areas and great family destinations that have nothing to do with the Quarter. Is NO my favorite city? No. I'm just saying that most tourists only see this one area and that helps to create a certain mindset. I'm only saying that it's a lot more than hurricanes, strip clubs and t-shirt shops. I'd also point out that the NO has a very rich and discernible culture, unlike a lot of modern American. To me, that's the most interesting part of a visit there. If you can't appreciate that culture or think it's limited to or represented exclusively by the Quarter then perhaps its not for you.

Boston's great. Have spent a lot of time there. Hated it in the winter (every damn time), but love it in summer and late spring.

[blahblahblah]

You're my favorite message-board poster. Is this where you post most of your stuff, or should I subscribe to a different board?

Aren't you the one who used to give an analysis of offensive line play? Or was that Pacstud?

To answer your question. I'd go to the library as long as it was affordable. Right now, free books and free parking are the best deals out there. If I had to pay $5 once a week to get the 2 or 3 books I get for free, I'd probably still use the library just as often. This really has nothing to do with my main point - that NFL stadiums aren't a good thing for the average taxpayer.

I realize tax revenue pays for stuff. But is that tax revenue coming from sports stadiums? Is the tax revenue generated by NFL stadiums really more than the cost that sports stadiums suck out of revenues? I don't know. But the only legitimate studies I've ever found (albeit old studies) have found that not to be the case. In fact, the difference between the cost of a stadium to taxpayers and the amount of tax revenue generated was significantly in the wrong direction.

Yes, I know there was a study done a couple years ago that claimed that Petco Park was a financial windfall for the city. But that was conducted by the very people who had to justify its expense. It wasn't an unbiased study.

The Brookings Institute, in 1997, found that stadiums were a bad deal. And a couple University of Illinois economic professors in 2004 found that sports teams have a negative economic impact on cities. Neither of these studies were biased.

I know that's not much of an argument for my side. But, after doing Google searches for some legitimate studies on the economic impact of stadiums and professional sports teams, I found nothing that supported stadiums as an economic benefit to city government or the general resident of a city.

I'm sure the bars and restaurants that are right outside a stadium benefit. But that's just entertainment money that would most likely go elsewhere in the city if there weren't a stadium. It's not like a guy in, say, Arkansas, wakes up and thinks, Gee, I have money to burn on some fun, but, because we don't have a professional sports team here, I'm never going to spend this money.

Again, for all the people who are so upset about what I've said - I'm on your side. I want a stadium built because I want the Chargers to stay in San Diego. I'm just not pretending I want it built for anything other than my illogical love for my team.

That's a much more reasonable position. You have to keep in mind a couple unique items about SD.

1. SD has an effective 11% "Transient Occupancy Tax". This is basically a tax on hotel rooms. It has a negative effect on tourism and a positive impact on revenue. However, when there is an event you have a captive market. ToT is roughly 9%-10% of city revenue.

2. February is off season for SD tourism revenue so a huge event in this time frame has a massive effect on revenue. The windfall from the last SB was something like $12M in tax revenue. And that was ONLY the SB, other events at a well constructed site will bring in further money, though not as large of lumps. This is basically the entire justification of the CC expansion.

3. Such events have a similar impact on sales taxes. This is much harder to quantify, but it's also a large cut of revenue. Most of SD has a 0.5% sales tax rate above state levels. By my recall the windfall from the last SB was something like $3M. This also means that something like $600M extra was spent in the SD over that week.

4. I interned for a professor working on this problem way back when. The last SB in SD had a net tax windfall of ~$20M and a net economic benefit to the region of ~$120M.

5. If a stadium is built in such a way as to cause redevelopment you're also going to see a hike in property tax revenue. This will be yearly of amount unknown.

6. The city of SD is currently burning something like $15M a year on the Qualcomm site and is carrying a large amount of unfunded liabilities (~$70M). I would assume a the unfunded liabilities would be wiped out and the annual costs would significantly decrease or be wiped out. This would be part of negotiations, of course. Assume a recurring cost of $5M would save $10M/year. Of course this would be $5M/year over no maintenance, but then you have a $70M hit to the books as well as the demolition and remediation costs. All told closing Qualcomm because of the loss of the Chargers would probably cost about $150M, one time (hopefully).

7. Redevelopment of the Q site would bring in financial benefits. Don't know what the plan would be.

8. Loss of the Chargers also means loss of rich people. I don't know how much the Chargers network pays each year in property and sales tax, I assume it is not insignificant.


It's a complex situation that warrants unique consideration, not some generic university studies. If you take a basic model of net tax benefit of $15m/year plus a windfall of $20M/5 years a $300m investment pays off in 15 year less bond financing costs. A combination of a CC expansion and a QC rework would also allow us to target SF and LV levels of ToT tax, which is potentially a huge windfall.


Unfortunately this city is run by (and occupied by) a bunch of dunces so a full cost/benefit study will never be done or even considered. Without full knowledge we cannot make an informed decision.

The ROIC on the new library, however, is infinity. It costs more to operate than potential revenue. I think there's some argument about consolidating OpEx by closing branches, but those branches could have been closed anyway. There are 3 university libraries in SD.

[thelightningwill]

That's a much more reasonable position. You have to keep in mind a couple unique items about SD.

1. SD has an effective 11% "Transient Occupancy Tax". This is basically a tax on hotel rooms. It has a negative effect on tourism and a positive impact on revenue. However, when there is an event you have a captive market. ToT is roughly 9%-10% of city revenue.

2. February is off season for SD tourism revenue so a huge event in this time frame has a massive effect on revenue. The windfall from the last SB was something like $12M in tax revenue. And that was ONLY the SB, other events at a well constructed site will bring in further money, though not as large of lumps. This is basically the entire justification of the CC expansion.


3. Such events have a similar impact on sales taxes. This is much harder to quantify, but it's also a large cut of revenue. Most of SD has a 0.5% sales tax rate above state levels. By my recall the windfall from the last SB was something like $3M. This also means that something like $600M extra was spent in the SD over that week.

4. I interned for a professor working on this problem way back when. The last SB in SD had a net tax windfall of ~$20M and a net economic benefit to the region of ~$120M.

5. If a stadium is built in such a way as to cause redevelopment you're also going to see a hike in property tax revenue. This will be yearly of amount unknown.

6. The city of SD is currently burning something like $15M a year on the Qualcomm site and is carrying a large amount of unfunded liabilities (~$70M). I would assume a the unfunded liabilities would be wiped out and the annual costs would significantly decrease or be wiped out. This would be part of negotiations, of course. Assume a recurring cost of $5M would save $10M/year. Of course this would be $5M/year over no maintenance, but then you have a $70M hit to the books as well as the demolition and remediation costs. All told closing Qualcomm because of the loss of the Chargers would probably cost about $150M, one time (hopefully).

7. Redevelopment of the Q site would bring in financial benefits. Don't know what the plan would be.

8. Loss of the Chargers also means loss of rich people. I don't know how much the Chargers network pays each year in property and sales tax, I assume it is not insignificant.


It's a complex situation that warrants unique consideration, not some generic university studies. If you take a basic model of net tax benefit of $15m/year plus a windfall of $20M/5 years a $300m investment pays off in 15 year less bond financing costs. A combination of a CC expansion and a QC rework would also allow us to target SF and LV levels of ToT tax, which is potentially a huge windfall.


Unfortunately this city is run by (and occupied by) a bunch of dunces so a full cost/benefit study will never be done or even considered. Without full knowledge we cannot make an informed decision.

The ROIC on the new library, however, is infinity. It costs more to operate than potential revenue. I think there's some argument about consolidating OpEx by closing branches, but those branches could have been closed anyway. There are 3 university libraries in SD.

Was Dr. Real the dude you interned for?

Where are the numbers you used published?

Not exactly sure why you think my position is more reasonable when it is the same.

[blahblahblah]

Was Dr. Real the dude you interned for?

Where are the numbers you used published?

No. Not published, private commission. The ToT revenue is available in time series on some official SD website. Just looked it up and occupancy rate and room rate is down significantly since 2006. This happened even before the economic downturn. SD is just being out competed for tourism right now despite some massive natural advantages.

[thelightningwill]

No. Not published, private commission.
The ToT revenue is available in time series on some official SD website. Just looked it up and occupancy rate and room rate is down significantly since 2006. This happened even before the economic downturn. SD is just being out competed for tourism right now despite some massive natural advantages.

I just found out Indianapolis lost a million dollars by hosting the Super Bowl. I have my doubts about your unpublished numbers.

Tourism is likely down everywhere. I doubt this has to do with not building a stadium.

[blahblahblah]

I just found out Indianapolis lost a million dollars by hosting the Super Bowl. I have my doubts about your unpublished numbers.

Tourism is likely down everywhere. I doubt this has to do with not building a stadium.

Fine.

CIB != Indy. CIB is a tourism board and does not capture total economic impact, just what is within its defined borders and a narrow tax structure. Capital expenditures are not operating expenditures, shouldn't even have to say this. They pulled in much less in tourism than SD. SD ToT revenues are published. Look em up, not hard to see the trend. Looks like SD took in over 3x as much in revenue. It does look like the NFL hammered CIB on tax allocations.

Like I said, it's a unique situation and subject to negotiations. Like every city and every SB.

[Mister Hoarse]

Bourbon street smells like a cross between a South American dump and an infected asshole.

I've also been Bourbon faced on Shit street.