New Stadium Developments...hmmmm

[Den60]

1. It is not the responsibility of the city to use its funds to create jobs. It's the city's responsibility to get projects done. The city is not a "make work" organization.
2. If the benefits to those who are likely to receive these so-called funds are greater than the costs, then something should get done. The businesses should be screaming for a self-tax increase to pay for the new stadium (if that were the case).
3. The city could re-direct these funds elsewhere to contribute much more to the overall health of the local economy than a professional football team.
4. Its a PROFESSIONAL (for profit) football team. It should be self-supporting.

It is also a private organization that generates a lot of money for the local economy which supports the government. Tourism is the second biggest industry in this town (behind the military). The exposure this city gets because of having the Chargers benefits much more than just the Chargers. The benefits of exposure that comes from hosting a SUperbowl is enormous. You can give the city of Detroit a SB every 5 years and it isn't going to do a damned thing to increase tourism there because there really isn't anything in the city worthy of spending a lot of money to visit it.

Personally I see this ending up being one of those things where you don't know how much value you were getting from it until it is gone. And it will be much more expensive to try to get it back that it would be to keep it.

[Viejo Bolt]

No offense, but you're one of those people we were talking about earlier in the thread.

Rich people like the construction workers who would be employed to build the stadium and the surrounding development? Rich people like all of the people that would be employed to staff and maintain the stadium? Rich people like all of the people who would be employed by the stores, restaurants and bars in the surrounding development? Has PETCO Park simply lined the pockets of the rich? Does anyone else benefit from that civic asset? Do only "the rich" benefit from the redevelopment of the Gaslamp District?

You don't think a cash-strapped city could benefit from retiring a declining asset that has been extremely costly for the city? San Diego is spending $15M a year to maintain the Q and the Sports Arena per the Trotter article on cnnsi.com (http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/16/qualcomm-stadium/) from August. They have deferred $70M in maintenance on the Q. Over the next 7 years that combines to amount to $175M. Half of what is being sought from taxpayers to fund the new stadium. And this is just on the cost side.

What about re-negotiated lease rates on the land? Or revenues from a sale? What about sales tax revenue generated by the sale of every ticket, every beer, every fish taco, every bag of Skittles? What about sales tax revenue generated by every plate of ribs, tshirt, vodka tonic sold in the surrounding development (a la Gaslamp?) What about rental car and hotel revenue (sales taxes) generated by increased tourism to individual games and big events like Super Bowls? Hey, get really creative and do what Jerry Jones and Bob McNair are doing. They're hosting non-traditional college games and other events to enhance revenue. Just a couple weeks ago, Dallas hosted ASU-Notre Dame. It also hosts the Kickoff Classic and has hosted the Big 12 Championship. Reliant hosts the Houston Rodeo, Texas Bowl and has its own kickoff game (this year it was Ole Miss vs Ok St). And again, every bag of peanuts, every Coke, security person, parking attendant, vendor, etc.

Intangible benefits like branding of the city? Having an improved civic asset? Retaining the Chargers (who many or most want to remain in SD)? How would San Diego replace all this (http://www.chargers.com/community/index.html) if the Chargers leave? Moving from two franchises to one would definitely be a blow to San Diego's status as a "major league" city, which believe it or not has all kinds of knock-on effects like conventions and relocations of companies to the area. Ask Oklahoma City what having an NBA team has done for it in that respect. Why were Oakland, Cleveland and Baltimore so eager to get teams back in town?

And I'm sure I'm missing some things. But point is, this doesn't just help the rich. It helps the city as a whole. And we're not talking about replacing the Kingdome after a few years. This is now the second oldest stadium in the league, IIRC. It's been there for 50 years, it's falling apart and the city is not keeping it up. It's an eyesore. It's clearly sub-standard. And now San Diego is not getting Super Bowls anymore.

But if you want to talk about helping rich people...how about helping the Chargers. Look at this math from Trotter:



"Local revenue" is league-speak for revenue that is generated by the local team that is not contributed to revenue sharing. What teams make from the sale of the boxes, they get to keep. Sure they can pocket it. They can also invest it in players, coaches, philanthropy and community programs. Want to see your Chargers get better? You have to think that at least some portion of that $60M would be invested in the team. And hey, what's so bad about being on an equal (or nearly equal) footing with your competitors? Hey, who knows? Maybe Spanos would have used those monies to retain Phillips, Bigby, Williams, Jammer, Cason and Franklin. And we'd be Super Bowl bound!

Look, I get the argument. It's been chewed over quite a bit and a lot of the naysayers have cited studies that question the value of both franchises and Super Bowls to communities and taxpayers. But there are counter-studies, as well. In the specific situation of San Diego, I don't think there is any question that a stadium would be a net economic benefit particularly given the bad money being spent today on the Q. Moreover, the public good that comes from having the Chargers in San Diego and a deeply embedded part of the fabric of the city is both intangible and unquestioned. I just don't really see how this is about the rich. This is about the whole community.

Awesome post. System won't let me rep you without spreading some around to others first.

[Den60]

If the extent of your observation is the Quarter then you've missed the point. Unfortunately, that's true of a lot of tourists.

Kind of liking saying PB is representative of SD beaches.

My opinion of it. Saw it once and wasn't all that impressed. That seems to be the place to go when tourists hit the city for a sporting event. As for PB I don't consider that to be all that bad myself. In fact, I think it is a pretty entertaining place if you want to people watch.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Awesome post. System won't let me rep you without spreading some around to others first.

Thanks, LOL. But go rep some random people if you need to LOL

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

My opinion of it. Saw it once and wasn't all that impressed. That seems to be the place to go when tourists hit the city for a sporting event. As for PB I don't consider that to be all that bad myself. In fact, I think it is a pretty entertaining place if you want to people watch.

The French Quarter is the place where a lot of people gravitate because NO has the reputation for being a party town and that's where the party is. Have you ever been to the Garden District? Great restaurants and nightlife. But nothing like the Quarter. No sleazy or junky feel at all. I lived in NYC for seven years. One of my least favorite places in NY is Times Square (and it's not nearly as horrible now as it was during the 70s or 80s with all the peep shows and three card monty scene). But all tourists want to go there. Obviously, its not the only attraction or even the best in NYC. But people go there because of its rep and it's name.

I don't have an issue with PB. My only point was that's a beach area that a lot of tourist-types gravitate to because it's well known. But it isn't representative.

[blahblahblah]

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

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

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

I'll take your word for it. I'm not acquainted with either.

[thelightningwill]

lightningwill, your comments reek of the typical NIMBY attitude pervasive here (even if you don't live here) and is in general pretty ignorant. Glad you don't live here to be quite honest.

Really?

[Den60]

The French Quarter is the place where a lot of people gravitate because NO has the reputation for being a party town and that's where the party is. Have you ever been to the Garden District? Great restaurants and nightlife. But nothing like the Quarter. No sleazy or junky feel at all. I lived in NYC for seven years. One of my least favorite places in NY is Times Square (and it's not nearly as horrible now as it was during the 70s or 80s with all the peep shows and three card monty scene). But all tourists want to go there. Obviously, its not the only attraction or even the best in NYC. But people go there because of its rep and it's name.

I don't have an issue with PB. My only point was that's a beach area that a lot of tourist-types gravitate to because it's well known. But it isn't representative.

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.

[thelightningwill]

I appreciate Lightning playing devil's advocate here, even if he didn't mean it. It brought a lot to the discussion. I think what he's saying is "show me where the revenue went" If a SB is so valuable to a city "show me where the revenue will go." "Don't just tell me it generates tax revenue, show me."

Lightning, that library you go to once a week. If tax revenue started to become sparse and the city had to start charging a "cover" just to get into the library, would you still go? A surge in tax revenue can to be used in many ways around you that you don't usually take notice of. Your police and fire services have expensive overhead costs. Schools could always use extra revenue. Do you enjoy smooth roads you travel on? How about the local business owner who see's a surge in his revenue and can now afford to make updates and/or repairs to his business so it stays profitable? It is a trickle down effect. I know you think that the money will just end up in some politicians pocket or some rich guys, but I don't see the corruption being as plain as that. The surge in revenue that a local business owner will see is uncorruptable, IMO. The taxes he pays on that surge, and the taxes paid by the patron at the time of the transaction, are a grey area that you may not neccesarily "see" the benefit of.

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.

[thelightningwill]

No offense, but you're one of those people we were talking about earlier in the thread.

Rich people like the construction workers who would be employed to build the stadium and the surrounding development? Rich people like all of the people that would be employed to staff and maintain the stadium? Rich people like all of the people who would be employed by the stores, restaurants and bars in the surrounding development? Has PETCO Park simply lined the pockets of the rich? Does anyone else benefit from that civic asset? Do only "the rich" benefit from the redevelopment of the Gaslamp District?

You don't think a cash-strapped city could benefit from retiring a declining asset that has been extremely costly for the city? San Diego is spending $15M a year to maintain the Q and the Sports Arena per the Trotter article on cnnsi.com (http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/16/qualcomm-stadium/) from August. They have deferred $70M in maintenance on the Q. Over the next 7 years that combines to amount to $175M. Half of what is being sought from taxpayers to fund the new stadium. And this is just on the cost side.

What about re-negotiated lease rates on the land? Or revenues from a sale? What about sales tax revenue generated by the sale of every ticket, every beer, every fish taco, every bag of Skittles? What about sales tax revenue generated by every plate of ribs, tshirt, vodka tonic sold in the surrounding development (a la Gaslamp?) What about rental car and hotel revenue (sales taxes) generated by increased tourism to individual games and big events like Super Bowls? Hey, get really creative and do what Jerry Jones and Bob McNair are doing. They're hosting non-traditional college games and other events to enhance revenue. Just a couple weeks ago, Dallas hosted ASU-Notre Dame. It also hosts the Kickoff Classic and has hosted the Big 12 Championship. Reliant hosts the Houston Rodeo, Texas Bowl and has its own kickoff game (this year it was Ole Miss vs Ok St). And again, every bag of peanuts, every Coke, security person, parking attendant, vendor, etc.

Intangible benefits like branding of the city? Having an improved civic asset? Retaining the Chargers (who many or most want to remain in SD)? How would San Diego replace all this (http://www.chargers.com/community/index.html) if the Chargers leave? Moving from two franchises to one would definitely be a blow to San Diego's status as a "major league" city, which believe it or not has all kinds of knock-on effects like conventions and relocations of companies to the area. Ask Oklahoma City what having an NBA team has done for it in that respect. Why were Oakland, Cleveland and Baltimore so eager to get teams back in town?

And I'm sure I'm missing some things. But point is, this doesn't just help the rich. It helps the city as a whole. And we're not talking about replacing the Kingdome after a few years. This is now the second oldest stadium in the league, IIRC. It's been there for 50 years, it's falling apart and the city is not keeping it up. It's an eyesore. It's clearly sub-standard. And now San Diego is not getting Super Bowls anymore.

But if you want to talk about helping rich people...how about helping the Chargers. Look at this math from Trotter:



"Local revenue" is league-speak for revenue that is generated by the local team that is not contributed to revenue sharing. What teams make from the sale of the boxes, they get to keep. Sure they can pocket it. They can also invest it in players, coaches, philanthropy and community programs. Want to see your Chargers get better? You have to think that at least some portion of that $60M would be invested in the team. And hey, what's so bad about being on an equal (or nearly equal) footing with your competitors? Hey, who knows? Maybe Spanos would have used those monies to retain Phillips, Bigby, Williams, Jammer, Cason and Franklin. And we'd be Super Bowl bound!

Look, I get the argument. It's been chewed over quite a bit and a lot of the naysayers have cited studies that question the value of both franchises and Super Bowls to communities and taxpayers. But there are counter-studies, as well. In the specific situation of San Diego, I don't think there is any question that a stadium would be a net economic benefit particularly given the bad money being spent today on the Q. Moreover, the public good that comes from having the Chargers in San Diego and a deeply embedded part of the fabric of the city is both intangible and unquestioned. I just don't really see how this is about the rich. This is about the whole community.

A. Please post the studies that say that NFL stadiums help the local taxpayer. I haven't found one that was unbiased.

B. The fact that our current NFL stadium is costing us money is not an argument for building another NFL stadium.

C. Again. I do want the stadium built because I want the Chargers to stay in San Diego. And, if it helps the Chargers win Super Bowls for San Diego, then I'm even more for it. I'm just not pretending I want the stadium built for any kind of public good.

To me, if NFL stadiums were really worth taxpayer money, there would be all kinds of studies out there showing proof. It would be in the NFL's interest to finance such studies. But it's not going to happen.

If hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on somebody's business, there should be proof the spending is worth it for the average taxpayer.

[thelightningwill]

Miami is also closer to New York, Boston, Philly and DC and Europe. Why do you think that might have an impact on Miami tourism? Miami's problems (like Detroit's) have to do with a lot of factors that aren't controllable through something like stadiums. But where would the city be without the teams, stadiums and events? That's the question you need to ask. Using that logic, why should SD build parks? That's not doing "shit" to bring down the crime rate.

Where would Miami and Detroit be without their stadiums?

How much do parks cost compared to NFL stadiums? Crime in San Diego is not the issue it is in Miami and Detroit. But, to keep with your point, no, I don't think a city with the financial problems San Diego has should be building parks right now either.

I promised myself on another thread not to argue about politics anymore (and I failed myself). So, to get back to normal talk - Go c/-/argers!