That's a very good point. A little Googling came up with some reporting on that study. Interestingly, the most prominent results on Google came from groups that I'd normally consider to be pro-business. I guess they represent the fiscally conservative wing of the Republican party that's gone missing in recent years.
It is telling that pro-corporate welfare lobby haven't been able to fund a single "study" to refute these findings. It seems like they're able to do so for just about everything else that effects them. >From the Cato Institute: "Yet such facilities once were and continue to be built privately. The only reason more franchise owners decline to construct their own stadiums is because taxpayers so often relieve them of the need to do so. But there's no reason to sacrifice the interest of taxpayers to that of sports fans. Stadiums are not a good financial investment. Public finance experts Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist concluded: 'no recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment and no recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues.'" http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-25-04.html "[Robert Baade at Lake Forest College in Illinois]'s study showed 27 of the 30 metropolitan areas that had a change in the number of stadiums or arenas, had little or no discernible change in per capita growth. The three remaining areas (St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland and Washington, D.C.) actually had a negative impact in per capita growth after the stadiums were constructed." http://www.dailyrepublican.com/subsidiesdry.html Is there an Economic Rationale for Subsidizing Sports Stadiums? by Robert A. Baade Summary: 1. Very few private firms are investing in sports facilities. 2. An oversupply of sports facilities has led municipalities--at taxpayer expense--to offer expensive subsidies and concessions to sports teams. 3. In the short term, subsidization of sports cannot be justified on economic grounds. 4. In the long term, subsidization of sports merely shifts employment to the service sector of the economy and does not produce true economic growth. http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/sports/baade1.htm BTW, I don't think this should go to a referendum. Call me crazy, but I prefer to elect people, then hold them accountable for their decisions. The last thing I want to do is spend time campaigning for or against ridiculously worded referenda. -Ed Kohler >Mark Anderson replies: >I don't know the details of this very well. But what I do know of is the >economist (in Chicago I think?) who has shown that no community comes out >ahead economically when they invest in a stadium, at least when it comes to >the hard, quantifiable costs. This is just one economist, and he could be >wrong. But I've seen no serious rebuttals by pro-stadium advocates, so my >guess is that he's pretty close to the truth. That by itself is good enough >evidence for me to be against any government spending on stadiums. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
