I would not normally quote the Rants and Raves (But mostly incoherent rants >:() from the Times-Union, but this rant made some sense to me... :D
QuoteWEAVERS' AGENDA
If the 1950s folk group The Weavers endorsed a candidate for Jacksonville mayor, I would consider it a selling point, but the backing of Wayne and Delores Weaver fails to impress me.
It isn't that our local Weavers are not nice people, but their personal agenda is no different than the owners of any professional sports team. All team owners operate from a business model that has the taxpayer paying a significant share of their costs.
Now that the Weavers are conveniently backing both candidates in the mayoral runoff, we can be assured that the taxpayers lose regardless of who wins the race.
Taxpayers will continue to subsidize the Jaguars even if it means closing library branches and laying off police officers.
Source: The Florida Times-Union
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-04-16/story/rants-raves-weavers-have-own-plan#ixzz1JkG2pg59
I've never been a big fan of the rants and raves section. I think if you're going to say something worth hearing/reading, you should sign your name to it.
I agree!
X
With that said, he/she is of course completely correct...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 17, 2011, 07:13:59 AM
With that said, he/she is of course completely correct...
Oh, absolutely. I think the analysis was spot-on. Both backing Moran in the first election was less "risky" because we all knew there would be a round 2, and the ultimate winner will be thankful for support in the winning election, despite where a Weaver might have been in round 1.
i was personally struck with Delores Weavers endorsement and her statement thereafter. She strikes me as one of the cities prominant woman, and with her involvement with the Stockton Street residential project, one who "walks the walk".
But i do admit im prejudiced towards Alvin to point that all his endorsements excite me.
I think the Weaver's have genuine differences in the political outlook like many married couples and don't think that Ms. Weaver is cynical enough to be "hedging their bets."
Even if they had both endorsed Brown and Hogan wins, Hogan would not touch the Jags or the Weaver's. That the third rail of politics around here.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
I think the Weaver's have genuine differences in the political outlook like many married couples and don't think that Ms. Weaver is cynical enough to be "hedging their bets."
I agree - I've heard multiple anecdotes of the Weavers' respective differences in their political points of view just in Vic Ketchman's Ask Vic columns.
The Weavers also are outstanding Jacksonville citizens and charitable givers by any measure. They are passionate about improving Jacksonville and staunch defenders of and believers in the city. They've helped Jacksonville boost its national profile. The lingering resentment toward them as some kind of drain on the city or takers of taxpayer resources is bizarre at best. And the idea that if only the Jaguars didn't exist, the city would be a good steward of its financial resources and better able to fund libraries and police protection is comically off target.
So Wacca, for what you said to be correct, the jags would have to not be taxpayer supported. They are.
Yes and in many ways the Jags support the taxpayers. By attracting industry and tourism to town. They spread the word about Jacksonville more than any other entity. The taxpayers support them also because they support QOL for most in this area.
I've never understood the logic behind how getting people to come watch a football game then immediately go home does much of anything. Other than a one-day increase in traffic at gas stations hotels and some restaurants, the entire economic impact is sucked up by the team operation itself, and contained within the stadium concessions and vendors, e.g. does not go to local businesses. As far as 'promoting the city' how many people decide to open businesses here just because they watched a football game here? Come on, that is just vague language meant to give the impression of importance and a false justification to what is in reality a negative/parasitic economic impact.
The real reason everyone wants an NFL team here is ego and entertainment. And that's fine, but call it a spade.
I like the Jags, and am glad we have an NFL team. But I'm not delusional, I don't think for a minute it pays for itself.
+1, Chris.
There have been a lot of economic studies done on the impact of building stadiums with public money to attract professional sports teams. At best the economic impact is neutral, but usually it is actually a negative impact on the community.
Except for the feel good factor of course.
It would be kinda interesting to compare the economic impact of college games vs. pro games. Of course they are two different animals in many ways, but I have that feeling that some think that after a college game (in G-ville, Tally etc), win or lose, the whole town will still be bustling with school pride as everyone throws their money about as if they were in Las Vegas, but after a Jags game the entire city goes home down 'Expressway-like' State St never to be seen or heard from again until next week. I think that both of those logics are a lil' far fetched, and a lil' over the top, there's a 'happy medium' there somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
I think the Weaver's have genuine differences in the political outlook like many married couples and don't think that Ms. Weaver is cynical enough to be "hedging their bets."
Even if they had both endorsed Brown and Hogan wins, Hogan would not touch the Jags or the Weaver's. That the third rail of politics around here.
I don't think that the Weavers are doing anything underhanded, they are simply wise to the ways of Jacksonville politics. Otherwise, they would have both remained on the sidelines in this upcoming election. Instead, they each took a stand in the race. There is nothing unusual about taking political stands to serve one's self-interests. Politics is a dirty game and they know what side their bread may or not be buttered on. That is not cynicism. That is realism. They didn't create this weird world of politics, but they know how to function in it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 17, 2011, 04:58:33 PM
So Wacca, for what you said to be correct, the jags would have to not be taxpayer supported. They are.
Of course they are. But I resent the notion that the city could solve all of its financial problems if only the Jaguars didn't exist. Not that you were expressing that notion, of course, but I've heard it expressed a number of times from various segments of the community.
I'm not pretending that businesses magically decided to open in Jacksonville because of professional sports, but I do think that the frequent assertions that the Jaguars have a negative or neutral economic impact on the city are short-sighted, primarily because they overlook the Weavers' commitment to improving the city, not just with sweet words in national forums but because they give enormously to local charities, as well as financing the Gorrie School, Range of the Jaguar at the zoo, et al. Given their dedication to Jacksonville, and the fact that they put their money where their mouths are, I resent the periodic implication that they are bloodsuckers enriching themselves at the expense of the city.
I don't deny that the benefits of having a pro team are more psychological than tangibly economic. But that doesn't make it right to say the Jaguars caused libraries to close.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 17, 2011, 08:52:54 PM
I've never understood the logic behind how getting people to come watch a football game then immediately go home does much of anything. Other than a one-day increase in traffic at gas stations hotels and some restaurants, the entire economic impact is sucked up by the team operation itself, and contained within the stadium concessions and vendors, e.g. does not go to local businesses. As far as 'promoting the city' how many people decide to open businesses here just because they watched a football game here? Come on, that is just vague language meant to give the impression of importance and a false justification to what is in reality a negative/parasitic economic impact.
The real reason everyone wants an NFL team here is ego and entertainment. And that's fine, but call it a spade.
I like the Jags, and am glad we have an NFL team. But I'm not delusional, I don't think for a minute it pays for itself.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 18, 2011, 08:21:01 AM
+1, Chris.
There have been a lot of economic studies done on the impact of building stadiums with public money to attract professional sports teams. At best the economic impact is neutral, but usually it is actually a negative impact on the community.
Except for the feel good factor of course.
I know you both want to trivialize the QOL factor I mentioned in the original post which may be true for you but believe me when I say it adds much to most of the citizens living here.
We were maintaining a stadium for big events FL/GA , Gator bowl ect that was going to be defunct one day and need to be replaced. We have attracted other big events and so on and so forth.
The NFL is the corporate league in this country and Jacksonville is in many a corporate conversation. I know you can't tell some Republicans that tickets sales on the Train are not the only factor and by the same token you can't tell some of my fellow progressive that Jags tickets are not the only factor at Everbank Field however both positions are naive. I know you two were taking other things into account but if you do not think the Jags are worth it in local ego and enjoyment you would be very wrong. Things often complained about on this site are Jacksonville's self image and what to do for fun.
Look at what gets the biggest TV ratings in this area to find out what the locals are most invested in. (hint the colors are teal, Black and gold)
Let's not forget we also brought the most benevolent citizens Jacksonville has ever had to town the Weavers with the Jags.
1: The weavers are nice people. That's not what this is about.
2: If I give you $100mm and you give me back $10mm, am I really being charitable?
3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.
I already acknowledged that back in my first post, but that's a different thing than claiming it pays for itself. It doesn't.
1. Ok.
2. I think they are we did not just hand them the cash to them personally.
3. Call it ego and entertainment instead of QOL and I do not care if it is sports, arts or other if we get the bang for the buck of making most local citizens life more enjoyable to me it is justified.
Finally I do not know that it pays for itself quick internet search showed arguments both ways. I do think what we are paying for we are getting what we pay for.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
1: The weavers are nice people. That's not what this is about.
2: If I give you $100mm and you give me back $10mm, am I really being charitable?
3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.
I already acknowledged that back in my first post, but that's a different thing than claiming it pays for itself. It doesn't.
I believe you mean "are you really being charitable," but in any case I would say yes. The govt gave money to your business (which isn't at all true but let's go with that anyway) because it thought it could benefit in some way. Then you take some of your personal money and give that to some other organization (zoo, whatever). "Charity" doesn't require you to give away more than you bring in. Giving $10mil is charitable whether you've got $100mil or $1bil. And if you look at all the things that result from having an NFL team (jobs, food and merchandise production, the gas station, restaurant, and hotel dollars you wrote off, a tiny bit of public transit used, the thousands of people that watch the game at the bars around town, fees collected from speeding tickets written on people who are driving somewhere for the game, fees paid to bail rowdy fans out of jail, airplane fair, etc etc), I don't see how you are not benefiting. Not to mention the several dozen wealthy individuals (Jag players) that are forced to live and spend here at local businesses. And every-other week you're bringing in at least couple hundred people to stay in hotels and eat at restaurants (the other team, media, the chick singing the national anthem and her entourage, etc etc and some of them blow a lot of money).
Granted, the city pays X dollars to rebuild the Gator Bowl or writes off X dollars in rent and the Weavers are not writing a check for X dollars back to the city. But does anyone really expect government investment to be that straightforward? You really have to examine every collateral aspect of the industry to give it a fair accounting of ROI. But I certainly think they could be doing better, especially with downtown retention of game attendees. Some of these examples are obviously ridiculous, but the benefits are truly far reaching.
Then there's all the stuff that impossible to quantify. The team certainly makes Jacksonville more of a national city. They're a big part of the reason that people think "Florida," and not one of the 49 other states with a Jacksonville, when they hear "Jacksonville."
What was this thread about?
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 18, 2011, 10:37:31 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
1: The weavers are nice people. That's not what this is about.
2: If I give you $100mm and you give me back $10mm, am I really being charitable?
3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.
I already acknowledged that back in my first post, but that's a different thing than claiming it pays for itself. It doesn't.
I believe you mean "are you really being charitable," but in any case I would say yes. The govt gave money to your business (which isn't at all true but let's go with that anyway) because it thought it could benefit in some way. Then you take some of your personal money and give that to some other organization (zoo, whatever). "Charity" doesn't require you to give away more than you bring in. Giving $10mil is charitable whether you've got $100mil or $1bil. And if you look at all the things that result from having an NFL team (jobs, food and merchandise production, the gas station, restaurant, and hotel dollars you wrote off, a tiny bit of public transit used, the thousands of people that watch the game at the bars around town, fees collected from speeding tickets written on people who are driving somewhere for the game, fees paid to bail rowdy fans out of jail, airplane fair, etc etc), I don't see how you are not benefiting. Not to mention the several dozen wealthy individuals (Jag players) that are forced to live and spend here at local businesses. And every-other week you're bringing in at least couple hundred people to stay in hotels and eat at restaurants (the other team, media, the chick singing the national anthem and her entourage, etc etc and some of them blow a lot of money).
Granted, the city pays X dollars to rebuild the Gator Bowl or writes off X dollars in rent and the Weavers are not writing a check for X dollars back to the city. But does anyone really expect government investment to be that straightforward? You really have to examine every collateral aspect of the industry to give it a fair accounting of ROI. But I certainly think they could be doing better, especially with downtown retention of game attendees. Some of these examples are obviously ridiculous, but the benefits are truly far reaching.
Then there's all the stuff that impossible to quantify. The team certainly makes Jacksonville more of a national city. They're a big part of the reason that people think "Florida," and not one of the 49 other states with a Jacksonville, when they hear "Jacksonville."
What was this thread about?
Last I checked, grammar Nazism wasn't any more popular than real Nazism. Do you want a Sieg Heil! or something?
And as to the rest of your post, what would you call building a stadium for a private business with taxpayer funds, maintaining it with taxpayer funds, and then giving the private business the revenue generated by the stadium built by taxpayer funds, then? The business generated by the team is largely self-contained within the stadium built and maintained by taxpayers, where the private business gets to keep the revenue. There have been numerous studies showing that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are generally a net negative for the municipality, your horse was dead before it ever left the starting gate on this one.
Like I said back in my first post, if you want to discuss this, let's at least drop the delusion that it pays for itself and discuss the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment. If that is deemed worth it, then fine, we live in a democracy don't we? But drop this nonsense about it being some boon for the local economy. It's not.
Chris I am not saying you are wrong but you seem to have a strong conviction that the Jags are a net negative for the area. As boldly as you are proclaiming this as a fact it may be time to show a study or a published artical that backs your assertion up.
QuoteCHAMPAIGN, Ill. â€" If you build it, they will come … with wallets bulging, eager to exchange greenbacks for peanuts, popcorn, hot dogs and beer, and T-shirts and ball caps with team logos.
At least that’s the theory embraced â€" time and time again â€" by mayors and city council members hoping to lure professional sports teams to their cities by promising to build new arenas for the teams. But one guy who’s not buying it is sports economist Brad Humphreys, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
That’s because Humphreys and colleague Dennis Coates, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, haven’t uncovered a single instance in which the presence of a professional sports team has been linked to a boost in the local economy.
“Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy,†Humphreys and Coates wrote in a report issued last month by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The institute commissioned the professors to study the economic impact of a deal proposed by Anthony Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C.; under terms of the agreement, the Major Baseball League would move the Montreal Expos to the nation’s capital in exchange for a new, city-built ballpark.
The professors based their report on new data as well as previously published research in which they analyzed economic indicators from 37 major metropolitan areas with major-league baseball, football and basketball teams.
“The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area,†Humphreys and Coates noted in the report.
The researchers found other patterns consistent with the presence of pro sports teams. Among them:
• a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;
• an increase in wages in the hotels and other lodgings sector (about $10 per worker year), but a reduction in wages in bars and restaurants (about $162 per worker per year).
Those employed in the amusements and recreation sector appeared, at first glance, to benefit significantly from the presence of a pro team, with an average annual salary increase of $490 per worker, Humphreys said. However, he added, “this sector includes the professional athletes whose annual salaries certainly raise the average salary in this sector by an enormous amount.
As it turns out, those workers most closely connected with the sports environment who were not professional athletes saw little improvement in their earnings as a result of the local professional sports environment.â€
Humphreys, who plans to present data from the report at a Nov. 29 hearing in Washington, D.C., said it is fairly common for city officials â€" blinded by bright visions of dollar signs â€" to pose as cheerleaders for projects aimed at attracting pro teams.
Arena-funding measures vary from initiative to initiative, with taxpayers typically covering most of the tab â€" even though critics of such plans maintain that team owners could easily foot the bill themselves. In the Expos case, Humphreys said, the mayor of Washington, D.C., has promoted his plan by stating that the ballpark would be funded entirely by team owners, ballpark users and the district’s largest businesses, and not by residents’ tax dollars.
Humphreys called the proposal a “novel approach,†but discounted it as disingenuous. “To say taxpayers won’t pay for the construction is really a sin of omission,†he said.
“First, the team’s share of financing the stadium is a 30-year lease committing the team to an initial rent of $3.5 million each year, increasing to $5 million by the fifth year, and then increasing by 2 percent minus $10,000 per year thereafter,†Humphreys and Coates note in their report. But, in real terms, with inflation averaging a projected 3 percent over 30 years, taxpayers will in reality be handing the team what the researchers call a “de facto rent subsidy†in just five years.
“Second,†they state, “taxes will be collected on ticket sales, concessions, parking, and merchandise sold within the stadium.
It is likely that the District of Columbia residents who purchase food, beverages, and clothing while attending games would have chosen to eat and purchase clothes in the district â€" and pay taxes on those purchases â€" in the absence of the stadium and franchise. In other words, revenues generated inside the stadium may not be new revenues, even if they are dedicated specifically to paying for the new stadium.
Humphreys and Coates also take exception to the idea that corporate “ballpark fees†would shield residents from the costs involved. “Whether it is a surcharge or an increase in the corporate income tax rate, this so-called fee is a tax increase, pure and simple. Corporations do not pay taxes, people do.
Whether it is in the form of lower wages for workers, lower asset values for corporate owners, or higher prices for consumers of the goods and services those companies provide, this tax increase will touch D.C. residents in some way.â€
Funding structures aside, Humphreys said government officials lobbying for stadium deals often base perceived economic benefits on flawed impact studies. In the D.C. case, the researchers report that the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development claimed the team and ballpark would create 30 jobs earning an annual total of $94 million â€" or a whopping $261,111 per job.
“The wonder is that anyone finds such figures credible,†Humphreys said. “Yet decade after decade, cities throughout the country have struggled to attract or keep professional sports teams, and the idea that a team brings with it large economic gains invariably arises. As it turns out, claims of large tangible economic benefits do not withstand scrutiny.â€
That’s because such impact studies often are based on skewed data. For instance, when citing multipliers â€" the ripple effect that each dollar spent on professional supports is projected to have on the community’s wider economy â€" impact studies often overstate such contributions and fail to differentiate between net and gross spending. And, Humphreys added, such studies typically don’t consider what economists call the “substitution effect.â€
“As sport- and stadium-related activities increase, other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending,†Humphreys said. “If the stadium simply displaces dollar-for-dollar spending that would have occurred otherwise, there are no net benefits generated.â€
In the end, Humphreys said, while a professional sports team may not be the golden goose that city leaders in the nation’s capital and elsewhere may hope for, there are some benefits to having a home team.
“A baseball team in D.C. might produce intangible benefits,†Humphreys said. “Rooting for the team might provide satisfaction to many local baseball fans.â€
However, he added, “that is hardly a reason for the city government to subsidize the team. D.C. policymakers should not be mesmerized by faulty impact studies that claim that a baseball team and a new stadium can be an engine of economic growth.â€
Good article. I do doubt the claim that the money spent on the local team by fans is a dollar to dollar displacement from other spending. We basically already were spending annually on our stadium so I wonder if aJax specific study has been done. I like the study you posted is a university study but you should post the link.
Personal experience in watching JSO close off downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods to traffic exiting the stadium, and shuttling everyone back out of town on I-95 and I-10, would tell you this one's a no-brainer if you think about it. The out-of-town folks couldn't possibly spend any money at surrounding businesses if they wanted to, when we run them out of town immediately following the game.
And local residents attending Jags games are a net 0, they would otherwise live and spend here anyway. And I'm obviously aware that the Jags are heavily taxpayer-supported, when the stadium was built with public money and maintained by public money, partially as budget line items when necessary and by the Duval County hospitality tax receipts, and then having watched them cry about moving any time an additional opportunity to grab more money came up, like recently with the stadium naming rights. This isn't rocket science.
Google this issue and some of the studies that have been done, if a team is self-supporting and popular then it can be a net benefit to a city, but in the instances where it only exists because the taxpayers support it, not because the market supports it, the ROI to taxpayers is almost always negative. And again, this isn't to say that we should get rid of the Jags, not at all. Just that if we're going to have a legitimate discussion about it, then you have to call a spade a spade and acknowledge it's an ego/entertainment or "QOL" investment, and not something that generates a positive economic return to the taxpayers.
Statues, fountains, and parks don't pay for themselves either, and I don't think we should get rid of those. But when we're discussing them, nobody makes these silly arguments about how they are going to make the taxpayers rich either. Let's acknowledge it for what it is if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.
Fair enough Chris but we should quantify it as best we can to see if it is worth investing in.
Exerpt from a TU article on the Subject.
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091408/met_332043065.shtml (http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091408/met_332043065.shtml)
Quote"There are more important considerations for them," Mallot said. "However, being an NFL city is certainly among the evaluations, and one of the big reasons Jacksonville is such a terrific location."
He said having the Jaguars was one of the most important pieces of the puzzle for companies such as Fidelity National, Main Street America and Deutsche Bank in decisions to move to Jacksonville or open offices here.
Jerry Mallot, executive vice president of the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce
That's typical B.S. puffery from the Chamber. Fidelity in its present form was created when Alltel Financial Services was spun off from Alltel communications. They were always here to begin with. The largest bank in the Southeast, and the three largest banks in Florida were headquartered in Jacksonville for the 100 years before we had the Jaguars, so were some of the largest insurance companies, and a good sized oil company, all before the Jaguars. If the Jags are some magic magnet for corporations, how come none of that remains the case? Shouldn't business growth have gone up, not down? lol The Chamber you have to take with the whole shaker of salt.
Google "sport stadium economics" and you will find all the URL's needed to educate yourself of the topic.
I'm really happy the Weavers are here in Jacksonville too, but let's not confuse the issue about whether or not publicly funded sports stadiums are good economic investments for a community.
Oh, http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html
DW....the point Chris seems to be making is that the Jaguars are at best a no sum game for Jax...it is easy to see that publicly-funded stadiums don't add up, but the team as a whole is another story!
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 18, 2011, 01:12:45 PM
DW....the point Chris seems to be making is that the Jaguars are at best a no sum game for Jax...it is easy to see that publicly-funded stadiums don't add up, but the team as a whole is another story!
They are one and the same Tufsu, the team wouldn't be here without the taxpayer support.
You're trying to draw a distinction where none exists. The taxpayer outlay we're discussing is directly Jags-related.
so is your only financial issue with the Jags the stadium itself?
Quote
Quote"There are more important considerations for them," Mallot said. "However, being an NFL city is certainly among the evaluations, and one of the big reasons Jacksonville is such a terrific location."
He said having the Jaguars was one of the most important pieces of the puzzle for companies such as Fidelity National, Main Street America and Deutsche Bank in decisions to move to Jacksonville or open offices here.
Jerry Mallot, executive vice president of the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce
The main reason Deutsche Bank came here was low cost.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 18, 2011, 01:20:59 PM
so is your only financial issue with the Jags the stadium itself?
My only issue is that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are an entertainment and ego or "QOL" thing. The old threadbare justification about how football teams are some magical economic panacea for their respective municipalities is pretty much complete B.S. that has been thoroughly debunked over the past decade by a string of studies on it. So I was just pointing out that, if you want a meaningful discussion, then we need to talk about the real function. Because the economic impact is almost always negative, not positive.
But I have no issue with the Jags. This is a democracy, and if people want a football team then we should have a football team. Like I said, I don't think we should get rid of parks, statues, and fountains either, and those don't generate any return for taxpayers. That's hardly the dispositive consideration. But we should get away from pretending that the reason we do it is because the economic benefits outweigh the costs.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 01:37:45 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 18, 2011, 01:20:59 PM
so is your only financial issue with the Jags the stadium itself?
My only issue is that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are an entertainment and ego or "QOL" thing. The old threadbare justification about how football teams are some magical economic panacea for their respective municipalities is pretty much complete B.S. that has been thoroughly debunked over the past decade by a string of studies on it. So I was just pointing out that, if you want a meaningful discussion, then we need to talk about the real function. Because the economic impact is almost always negative, not positive.
But I have no issue with the Jags. This is a democracy, and if people want a football team then we should have a football team. Like I said, I don't think we should get rid of parks, statues, and fountains either, and those don't generate any return for taxpayers. That's hardly the dispositive consideration. But we should get away from pretending that the reason we do it is because the economic benefits outweigh the costs.
Very well put.
I acknowledge that its my ego, my pride when i say," I LOVE THE JAGUARS!!!"
God, I'd die if they left. I remember when i was up in NYC and i had ordered my Jag jacket (pre copyright infringment) and a friend got some tics to Giant stadium as the giants were out of the playoffs. We went and i wore my Jags jacket and EVERYONE LOVED IT! I fell in Love w/ jags teal then and there!
Sorry, i will get back to the thread. I know Chris favors the home team!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
Last I checked, grammar Nazism wasn't any more popular than real Nazism. Do you want a Sieg Heil! or something?
And as to the rest of your post, what would you call building a stadium for a private business with taxpayer funds, maintaining it with taxpayer funds, and then giving the private business the revenue generated by the stadium built by taxpayer funds, then? The business generated by the team is largely self-contained within the stadium built and maintained by taxpayers, where the private business gets to keep the revenue. There have been numerous studies showing that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are generally a net negative for the municipality, your horse was dead before it ever left the starting gate on this one.
Like I said back in my first post, if you want to discuss this, let's at least drop the delusion that it pays for itself and discuss the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment. If that is deemed worth it, then fine, we live in a democracy don't we? But drop this nonsense about it being some boon for the local economy. It's not.
Yes, grammar nazism, you caught me. Or perhaps the entire meaning of your question reverses with the wrong pronoun selection. I wanted to clarify before responding so that my comments would not be misconstrued, something you are clearly not worried about. Or you are just a proofreading refusalist! These labels sure are easy to develop. That said (and staying off topic - and when I get back on topic it will actually still be off the topic of this thread, but I digress), grammar nazism sure is more popular than real nazism. If I had to pick one, it would be the grammar variety.
Now, my first argument (which you clearly shattered by pointing out my National Socialist Grammar leanings) was that the Weavers can be considered charitable for giving away their money, regardless if their business has benefited from government money. I find this position to be at least reasonable.
As for the economics of the Jags, all I'm saying is widen your gaze. The issue of ROI for a government is much more than two lines on a budget. Yes, quality of life is a strong argument, but its not the only one. The city benefits if its people benefit, and there is a great deal of money changing hands outside of Everbank due to this team. You are simply writing that off.
The paper quoted by Dog Walker discusses the economic change in cities that have basketball, football, and baseball teams over a 30 year period. So we are to assume from their research that all the changes in a metro area over 3 decades is due to professional sports teams (many of which have been in place for over 100 years)? So the decline of urban areas in the US over the past 30 years is because they had sports teams? Was there economic growth across the board in every area of the country without sports teams or something? Why did they choose that particular mixture of sports? Did it have anything to do with the fact that hockey is growing while baseball and basketball are declining? Why 30 years? Did every professional sport start 30 years ago? Drawing such strong conclusions with certainty based off loosely correlated data is cause for concern. I'm not disagreeing, but that study seems suspect. You can draw any conclusion you want by changing things such as the sport combination, timeframe, etc. You need to follow all the money and how it relates to a particular franchise to really get this study right.
The other arguments in the literature against stadium-building are that the economics are a zero-sum game. Which is true, but that zero sum is global. When Jax gives a company incentives to move their business downtown, we profit at the expense of the suburbs or another city (but no new money is created - if anything there is less in general as we are allowing the company to keep more). The same is true of money spent by citizens. Having the Jags will simply redirect the money you were going to spend from one business to the Jaguars (or local bar to watch the game or comcast for cable, or publix for chips and dip, etc). Whether this "fixed budget" assumption is true is debatable: maybe you will simply save less money each year because the Jags are in town. Even if it is true, you are still bringing in some out of town money (hotels, airlines, naming rights, people from the burbs - I'm kidding its all called Jacksonville city here). You're still taking that money from somebody else, but somebody outside of Jacksonville so who cares right? I don't know that this is enough to cover the city's cost of maintaining the team, but I'm not going to say outright (as you are) that is does or does not.
Do I think a professional sports team is the best use of money? No, but its hardly just flushing money down the drain to appease the mob.
Quote3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.
Does this mean you are not in support of QOL?
I'm inclined to believe that the intangible, psychological benefits of a pro sports team are greater to a smaller market city, in the sense of boosting its national profile, giving the city a degree of national credibility as a growing community, instilling pride in its residents, perhaps even in encouraging young people dreaming of living in a "big-time" market to stay in town and preventing brain drain. For those reasons, I think the Jaguars are far more important to Jacksonville than, e.g., the Nationals to Washington. I'd say the same of the Thunder for Oklahoma City and (although they are gone and obviously not anywhere near as important to that city's boom as the banks) the Hornets for Charlotte in the late 80s. And I hate to argue from the negative, but I believe that if the Jaguars were to leave (not that I think that's happening), the effect on the city and its national profile would be psychologically cataclysmic. It will create a reputation for Jacksonville as the city that couldn't handle being big-time, and it may well have an indirect, deleterious effect on business or residential location decisions.
Incidentally, while I wholeheartedly agree with all the comments made upthread about how people going to Jaguars games are shuttled in and out without there being any benefit to downtown due to the traffic direction system, I surely do not agree with the implication that JSO's traffic machinations are the Jaguars' decision.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on April 18, 2011, 02:16:23 PM
Quote3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.
Does this mean you are not in support of QOL?
Of course not, just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's money raining into my pocket.
I'm all for the Jags and enjoy having them here.
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 18, 2011, 02:06:37 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
Last I checked, grammar Nazism wasn't any more popular than real Nazism. Do you want a Sieg Heil! or something?
And as to the rest of your post, what would you call building a stadium for a private business with taxpayer funds, maintaining it with taxpayer funds, and then giving the private business the revenue generated by the stadium built by taxpayer funds, then? The business generated by the team is largely self-contained within the stadium built and maintained by taxpayers, where the private business gets to keep the revenue. There have been numerous studies showing that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are generally a net negative for the municipality, your horse was dead before it ever left the starting gate on this one.
Like I said back in my first post, if you want to discuss this, let's at least drop the delusion that it pays for itself and discuss the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment. If that is deemed worth it, then fine, we live in a democracy don't we? But drop this nonsense about it being some boon for the local economy. It's not.
Yes, grammar nazism, you caught me. Or perhaps the entire meaning of your question reverses with the wrong pronoun selection. I wanted to clarify before responding so that my comments would not be misconstrued, something you are clearly not worried about. Or you are just a proofreading refusalist! These labels sure are easy to develop. That said (and staying off topic - and when I get back on topic it will actually still be off the topic of this thread, but I digress), grammar nazism sure is more popular than real nazism. If I had to pick one, it would be the grammar variety.
Now, my first argument (which you clearly shattered by pointing out my National Socialist Grammar leanings) was that the Weavers can be considered charitable for giving away their money, regardless if their business has benefited from government money. I find this position to be at least reasonable.
As for the economics of the Jags, all I'm saying is widen your gaze. The issue of ROI for a government is much more than two lines on a budget. Yes, quality of life is a strong argument, but its not the only one. The city benefits if its people benefit, and there is a great deal of money changing hands outside of Everbank due to this team. You are simply writing that off.
The paper quoted by Dog Walker discusses the economic change in cities that have basketball, football, and baseball teams over a 30 year period. So we are to assume from their research that all the changes in a metro area over 3 decades is due to professional sports teams (many of which have been in place for over 100 years)? So the decline of urban areas in the US over the past 30 years is because they had sports teams? Was there economic growth across the board in every area of the country without sports teams or something? Why did they choose that particular mixture of sports? Did it have anything to do with the fact that hockey is growing while baseball and basketball are declining? Why 30 years? Did every professional sport start 30 years ago? Drawing such strong conclusions with certainty based off loosely correlated data is cause for concern. I'm not disagreeing, but that study seems suspect. You can draw any conclusion you want by changing things such as the sport combination, timeframe, etc. You need to follow all the money and how it relates to a particular franchise to really get this study right.
The other arguments in the literature against stadium-building are that the economics are a zero-sum game. Which is true, but that zero sum is global. When Jax gives a company incentives to move their business downtown, we profit at the expense of the suburbs or another city (but no new money is created - if anything there is less in general as we are allowing the company to keep more). The same is true of money spent by citizens. Having the Jags will simply redirect the money you were going to spend from one business to the Jaguars (or local bar to watch the game or comcast for cable, or publix for chips and dip, etc). Whether this "fixed budget" assumption is true is debatable: maybe you will simply save less money each year because the Jags are in town. Even if it is true, you are still bringing in some out of town money (hotels, airlines, naming rights, people from the burbs - I'm kidding its all called Jacksonville city here). You're still taking that money from somebody else, but somebody outside of Jacksonville so who cares right? I don't know that this is enough to cover the city's cost of maintaining the team, but I'm not going to say outright (as you are) that is does or does not.
Do I think a professional sports team is the best use of money? No, but its hardly just flushing money down the drain to appease the mob.
Yes, as you have pointed out twice now, Mein Fuhrer, my syntax was improper, as anyone with two brain cells who read it would have immediately understood when my meaning was clear and obvious notwithstanding my scrivener's error. Believe it or not, people can normally read through typos. And most of them even do it without taking pleasure in using a grammatical error as a distraction when they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint. Just the same, I'm sure everyone appreciates your extensive efforts in making my post handicap accessible. Sieg Heil!
As to the remainder of your straw-man, I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team, only that those benefits are generally found not to equal the tax dollars invested. This was my point from the beginning, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe it and replace it with the Grammar Chancellory.
(http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/050/128/original/grammar_nazi.jpg?1274187998)
(http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/13/grammar-nazi.jpg)
ROFLMAO at last posting , Chris.. Especially Colonel Klink ;) Priceless, brother ;) LOL
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 03:16:53 PM
Yes, as you have pointed out twice now, Mein Fuhrer, my syntax was improper, as anyone with two brain cells who read it would have immediately understood when my meaning was clear and obvious notwithstanding my scrivener's error. Believe it or not, people can normally read through typos. And most of them even do it without taking pleasure in using a grammatical error as a distraction when they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint. Just the same, I'm sure everyone appreciates your extensive efforts in making my post handicap accessible. Sieg Heil!
As to the remainder of your straw-man, I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team, only that those benefits are generally found not to equal the tax dollars invested. This was my point from the beginning, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe it and replace it with the Grammar Chancellory.
So...my first response was three paragraphs that contained a single clause reference to "hey dude maybe you mistyped this one minor thing. I realize what you're trying to say but it could be misconstrued. Did you know there is an edit button next to your post?" To this you responded with a reference comparing me to perpetrators of genocide. So we started somewhere reasonable.
Then, in my five paragraph response, I used a whole paragraph to poke fun at your comical throwing about of the nazi label. To this one you responded with a post dedicated almost exclusively to hammering away the nazi thing (though you did manage to contradict yourself in the topical argument). Also, you said I was trying to reframe and replace the debate (in a post dedicated entirely to not responding to my arguments, no less!).
So that's 2 "Hail Victory"s, 2 unrelated photos, half a dozen references to Nazis, 1 to the handicapped, some exclamation points, and 0 response to the majority of what I wrote. And you have literally not even hinted at responding about the Weavers. So now I have to write this post that is mostly off topic (which was already off the topic) to point all this out.
These two things:
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 03:16:53 PM
I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment.
are contradictory.
I'm not saying you're wrong that building stadiums is a bad investment, I just don't think you're giving this issue a full and fair accounting. That and you're kinda being a dick about it. That's all.
o my :/
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 18, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 03:16:53 PM
Yes, as you have pointed out twice now, Mein Fuhrer, my syntax was improper, as anyone with two brain cells who read it would have immediately understood when my meaning was clear and obvious notwithstanding my scrivener's error. Believe it or not, people can normally read through typos. And most of them even do it without taking pleasure in using a grammatical error as a distraction when they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint. Just the same, I'm sure everyone appreciates your extensive efforts in making my post handicap accessible. Sieg Heil!
As to the remainder of your straw-man, I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team, only that those benefits are generally found not to equal the tax dollars invested. This was my point from the beginning, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe it and replace it with the Grammar Chancellory.
So...my first response was three paragraphs that contained a single clause reference to "hey dude maybe you mistyped this one minor thing. I realize what you're trying to say but it could be misconstrued. Did you know there is an edit button next to your post?" To this you responded with a reference comparing me to perpetrators of genocide. So we started somewhere reasonable.
Then, in my five paragraph response, I used a whole paragraph to poke fun at your comical throwing about of the nazi label. To this one you responded with a post dedicated almost exclusively to hammering away the nazi thing (though you did manage to contradict yourself in the topical argument). Also, you said I was trying to reframe and replace the debate (in a post dedicated entirely to not responding to my arguments, no less!).
So that's 2 "Hail Victory"s, 2 unrelated photos, half a dozen references to Nazis, 1 to the handicapped, some exclamation points, and 0 response to the majority of what I wrote. And you have literally not even hinted at responding about the Weavers. So now I have to write this post that is mostly off topic (which was already off the topic) to point all this out.
These two things:
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 03:16:53 PM
I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment.
are contradictory.
I'm not saying you're wrong that building stadiums is a bad investment, I just don't think you're giving this issue a full and fair accounting. That and you're kinda being a dick about it. That's all.
1: Grammar Nazis aren't perpetrators of genocide. They're worse.
2: If you want to play PHI-1101, then fine let's break it down with some basic venn diagrams. The class of 'real reasons' does not include all of the classes of 'all reasons' and 'any reasons' for something happening, and therefore the statement is not a contradiction. In fact, my use of the phrase 'real reasons' by its very nature implies my acknowledgement of the existence of alternate reasons, while at the same time expressing that these alternate reasons are not the real reasons we should be considering. So I'm afraid you don't get your gold star for this one.
3: As to your final observation, it would seem the
pot black hole is calling the kettle black.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
The largest bank in the Southeast, and the three largest banks in Florida were headquartered in Jacksonville for the 100 years before we had the Jaguars
Then mega banks like BOA decided to acquire the smaller banks (like Barnett) throughout America, making a near monopoly. That was gonna happen regardless of the Jags being here.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 01:37:45 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 18, 2011, 01:20:59 PM
so is your only financial issue with the Jags the stadium itself?
My only issue is that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are an entertainment and ego or "QOL" thing. The old threadbare justification about how football teams are some magical economic panacea for their respective municipalities is pretty much complete B.S. that has been thoroughly debunked over the past decade by a string of studies on it. So I was just pointing out that, if you want a meaningful discussion, then we need to talk about the real function. Because the economic impact is almost always negative, not positive.
But I have no issue with the Jags. This is a democracy, and if people want a football team then we should have a football team. Like I said, I don't think we should get rid of parks, statues, and fountains either, and those don't generate any return for taxpayers. That's hardly the dispositive consideration. But we should get away from pretending that the reason we do it is because the economic benefits outweigh the costs.
I agree with this. If people want to bitch about tax dollars being spent downtown or on things they disagree with but are okay with the city paying for the stadium, then fine, throw money at it. But quit pretending the Jags bring an economic benefit to the city because they do not. As you said - neither do parks or fountains.
I think the fact that we were awarded the team did more for the city than continuing to have a mediocre team. I couldn't care less if the Jags were never here because I am not a football fan and am consistently inconvenienced by the Jags when they play home games. However, I think losing them would make the city look worse than having a lame team. But if the city had enough else going for it - like Los Angeles for example - having a football team wouldn't be seen as the kind of crowning achievement that some seem to think it is. Yeah, we have an NFL team. And? We also have a half finished highrise condo smack dab in the middle of the skyline, next to the Jail; historic neighborhoods that have been torn down and replaced with vacant lots; no good reason for anybody to visit beyond nice parks and beaches; out of control sprawl; and a small handful of truly walkable areas.
Regarding the original topic of this thread - I absolutely think the Weavers are hedging their bets. I'm sure they have political differences but I'm also sure neither one of them is an idiot. "Hey! Let's each support a candidate!" "Good idea!"
Quote from: Bativac on April 18, 2011, 05:16:02 PM
I couldn't care less if the Jags were never here because I am not a football fan
Whoa! That's a shocker!!! ::)
Quote from: I-10east on April 18, 2011, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
The largest bank in the Southeast, and the three largest banks in Florida were headquartered in Jacksonville for the 100 years before we had the Jaguars
Then mega banks like BOA decided to acquire the smaller banks (like Barnett) throughout America, making a near monopoly. That was gonna happen regardless of the Jags being here.
Why haven't they been replaced by new banks, insurance companies, or new-economy participants like major internet companies? Or even regular small businesses? Within this state, most of that activity landed in Miami and Tampa, and tourism went to Orlando, no? But I thought the NFL team was a magic magnet for economic development? So why did downtown Jacksonville all but die?
Obviously the point I'm making it that an NFL team has nothing to do with these other factors, and the claims about generating all sorts of economic activity didn't pan out. I like the Jags, I know I'm coming off like the "get rid of the team" guy, but I really don't feel that way. Just sick of hearing about how one expensive pie in the sky after another, be it the NFL, a new convention center (after the last 3 failed), this that and the other thing are going to have all of this economic impact that never materializes. That's been my only point all along. Well, other than having to school another poster on how picking at someone's unintended grammatical errors is impolite and can backfire.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 05:26:08 PM
Why haven't they been replaced by new banks, insurance companies, or new-economy participants like major internet companies? Or even regular small businesses? Within this state, most of that activity landed in Miami and Tampa, and tourism went to Orlando, no? But I thought the NFL team was a magic magnet for economic development? So why did downtown Jacksonville all but die?
It's funny that you mentioned Miami, and Tampa, two cities that we (Jax) have more Fortune 500's than BTW; Afterall, those are the bigtime companies. The housing crisis seem to have hit Central, and South Florida more hard than North Florida. Tampa and Miami is not exactly Charlotte, or Atlanta right now (businesswise).
QuoteSo why did downtown Jacksonville all but die?
Chris, downtown is not all about the NFL. Where do most of the players, coaches, and staff live? Suburbs, some don't even live in Duval County. Downtown does not offer enough to keep families living there, nor is the housing inexpensive enough when compared to living at the Beach or Riverside or Queens Harbor.
Jacksonville still has too much cheap land for development. Until the land prices rise to make downtown look affordable, I don't care how many billions are thrown at downtown, neither Brown or Hogan can fix the issues.
Not to steer the thread off course, but did anyone see in the TU the MANSION in Queen's Harbour that sold for $1.5 MM ??.. That house was SWANK Walked through it when the previous owners were moving out and had a Moving sale or whatever.. .. its so ridiculous how many ammenities it had.
Back to the topic . BTW . Hi M-train !
Quote from: I-10east on April 18, 2011, 05:41:22 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 05:26:08 PM
Why haven't they been replaced by new banks, insurance companies, or new-economy participants like major internet companies? Or even regular small businesses? Within this state, most of that activity landed in Miami and Tampa, and tourism went to Orlando, no? But I thought the NFL team was a magic magnet for economic development? So why did downtown Jacksonville all but die?
It's funny that you mentioned Miami, and Tampa, two cities that we (Jax) have more Fortune 500's than BTW; Afterall, those are the bigtime companies. The housing crisis seem to have hit Central, and South Florida more hard than North Florida. Tampa and Miami is not exactly Charlotte, or Atlanta right now (businesswise).
That's terribly incorrect;
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-fortune-500-floridas-largest-companies-in-2010
QuoteFortune 500 companies by Metropolitan Area
5 Miami/South Florida
3 Jacksonville
3 Tampa/St. Petersburg
Jax may well have 4 by the next 500 issue look for LPS to get in.
All for incidentally in the core well WD is close.
Winn-Dixie is already included in the list, that is one of the 3. And Fidelity's component companies aren't large enough independently to make the 1-500, More like 500-700 range. They were already around the 400 range to begin with, as they keep spinning pieces off they will continue to drop probably out the 500 altogether. And if we are going to go by the Fortune 1000 instead of 500, we really don't have a horse in the race vs. Miami or Tampa. Especially Miami, they have a whole boatload that are on the 1000 but not big enough to make the 500. Yet.
Look for LPS to be in buying mode this year. I meant WD is close too the core I know they are one of the 500.
Gotcha, I misundertood on WD. LPS buying huh, interesting. Looking forward to it, more workers the better.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
1: Grammar Nazis aren't perpetrators of genocide. They're worse.
Yea, I get it, none of my arguments count because I made a short clarification of what you wrote before typing my original response. I'm going to assume that a serious argument about the economics of the Jags is not going to happen in this thread where we are apparently only allowed to discuss the "ego and entertainment" of sports.
Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2011, 09:34:40 AM
I think there was only one team in the NFL that was a net profit for the host city, and it was the one that was actually owned by the city itself (?) ...I think....
That would be the Green Bay Packers
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 19, 2011, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
1: Grammar Nazis aren't perpetrators of genocide. They're worse.
Yea, I get it, none of my arguments count because I made a short clarification of what you wrote before typing my original response. I'm going to assume that a serious argument about the economics of the Jags is not going to happen in this thread where we are apparently only allowed to discuss the "ego and entertainment" of sports.
Ah yes, I see we're still going with the...
(http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/editor_upload/540039216professional-victim.gif)
strategy.
And Stephen, thank you for posting these, I mentioned them in my earlier posts and DogWalker posted some similar material. Private sports teams mostly exist due to public financing, and my view of these expenses is as public entertainment, like a fountain or a theatre or public park. In terms of an investment, the return to the taxpayer is generally aleays negative. But within that context, if people think they're worth it, then by all means we should have them. But everyone should all be on the same factual playing field (excuse the pun) with it, there is a lot of misinformation about the costs vs. economic benefit and on who actually supports these private enterprises.
Certainly not to say that I think we should get rid of the Jags. I like them. Like you, I just felt the need to strip misinformation from the discussion about this being any kind of 'investmemt' they're really just an entertainment expense. And on that basis, if the public wants a football team, then by all means they should have one, it's a democracy after all. But, as with anything, we should understand what we're paying for.
Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
from the Brookings Institute
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx
QuoteSports facilities attract neither tourists nor new industry. Probably the most successful export facility is Oriole Park, where about a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area. (Baltimore's baseball exports are enhanced because it is 40 miles from the nation's capital, which has no major league baseball team.) Even so, the net gain to Baltimore's economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenues is only about $3 million a yearâ€"not much of a return on a $200 million investment.
As always, the voice of reason. Thanks for the articles Stephen.
I want to use this Baltimore one as an example of what I am trying to say. Not because its the most beneficial to my argument (which I guess it would be if I were heading that way), just to illustrate what I'm trying to say (with numbers for fun!). This is, I believe, the full chapter of the book referenced in the article: http://www.econ.jhu.edu/People/Hamilton/Camden.pdf
Based off this author's criteria, Baltimore's economy gains $3 million a year in new jobs and new taxes. What it means is tax revenue on new jobs and incremental spending. What they are looking at in the study, which is the problem I have with this argument against the benefits of stadium subsidy, is the real return on investment to the Baltimore treasury. This same article says that, due to construction of the new stadium, the "total incremental out-of-staters' expenditure is thus $41M." Meaning there is $41M spent each year in Baltimore that otherwise would not have been spent in Baltimore because this stadium was constructed (it would have been spent elsewhere, no doubt, but we are looking at whether this is a benefit to Baltimore, not the world). The study doesn't count money going to workers or businesses as a result of the new stadium, so I don't find it to be complete. You aren't going to justify any city activity if you aren't looking at all the effects it has.
I believe I am safe in assuming that Baltimore did not shell out the complete $200 million. So saying that $3M per year is a bad return on a $200M investment is disingenuous at best. Baltimore's share will be much smaller. Also, the $200 million includes nearly half for site acquisition, so there is significant value being held in land equity. The money that is actually spent on stadium construction doesn't just get buried in Inner Harbor. It goes to architects, engineers, construction companies and workers. None of that money comes back to the city treasury, but it does still benefit your city by creating jobs, etc. Then the workers pay taxes on their wages (included in this study) and spend their money at local businesses (not included in the study). The same goes for maintenance cost. Those maintenance costs are not just dollars being burned, they are going somewhere (maintenance workers, maintenance equipment, etc).
Even based off their assumptions that I am not comfortable with, here is the first conclusion of the study: "The new stadium generated sufficient new revenue to more than cover the capital and maintenance cost"
I'm sure the Jags financials are no where near as healthy as the Orioles (this IS a best case), but there can be economic benefit to the city without money landing back in city hall. If you're trying to justify any government activity by a budget line return on investment, you won't. But if you watch all the money, you might see some benefit. Not that I support publicly-financed stadium construction.
At my first planning job (while still in undergrad) I was tasked with doing research on the economic benefits of downtown baseball parks....Philly was looking at several potential locations and I was working for the downtown organization (similar to DVI) at the time.
Camden Yards had just opened in Baltimore and the figures showed that there was a small overall economic gain to the metro area, as compared to the old Memorial Stadium....but the real boon was for the City of Baltimore (and more specifically downtown) because the money got spent there instead of in other parts of the region.
It should also be noted that the economic benefits generated by MLB baseball stadiums are greater than for NFL football stadiums....primarily because NFL games are on Sundays and involve lots of tailgating, while 81 baseball games are spread throughout the week and often involve restaurants/bars before the night games.
There's also research that shows baseball stadiums to be more transit supportive than football stadiums...I believe this is also related to parking and congestion issues for weeknight games, especially in downtowns.
Sample local case...the UF/FSU game a few weeks ago at the Baseball Grounds had the Landing packed before...even more than for some Jags games, even though the baseball game attendance was only 10,000 (as compared to 50,000+ for Jags)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 19, 2011, 10:34:09 AM
And Stephen, thank you for posting these, I mentioned them in my earlier posts and DogWalker posted some similar material. Private sports teams mostly exist due to public financing, and my view of these expenses is as public entertainment, like a fountain or a theatre or public park. In terms of an investment, the return to the taxpayer is generally aleays negative. But within that context, if people think they're worth it, then by all means we should have them. But everyone should all be on the same factual playing field (excuse the pun) with it, there is a lot of misinformation about the costs vs. economic benefit and on who actually supports these private enterprises.
Certainly not to say that I think we should get rid of the Jags. I like them. Like you, I just felt the need to strip misinformation from the discussion about this being any kind of 'investmemt' they're really just an entertainment expense. And on that basis, if the public wants a football team, then by all means they should have one, it's a democracy after all. But, as with anything, we should understand what we're paying for.
Watch out, guys. You appear to be agreeing with the Cato Institute. :D
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf
Short answer to the question is "Yes"!
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on April 18, 2011, 02:44:00 PM
I'm inclined to believe that the intangible, psychological benefits of a pro sports team are greater to a smaller market city, in the sense of boosting its national profile, giving the city a degree of national credibility as a growing community, instilling pride in its residents, perhaps even in encouraging young people dreaming of living in a "big-time" market to stay in town and preventing brain drain. For those reasons, I think the Jaguars are far more important to Jacksonville than, e.g., the Nationals to Washington. I'd say the same of the Thunder for Oklahoma City and (although they are gone and obviously not anywhere near as important to that city's boom as the banks) the Hornets for Charlotte in the late 80s. And I hate to argue from the negative, but I believe that if the Jaguars were to leave (not that I think that's happening), the effect on the city and its national profile would be psychologically cataclysmic. It will create a reputation for Jacksonville as the city that couldn't handle being big-time, and it may well have an indirect, deleterious effect on business or residential location decisions.
Incidentally, while I wholeheartedly agree with all the comments made upthread about how people going to Jaguars games are shuttled in and out without there being any benefit to downtown due to the traffic direction system, I surely do not agree with the implication that JSO's traffic machinations are the Jaguars' decision.
Most important , Wacca. I personally would really hurt!
The Advertising effect is much much much greater for Jacksonville than for the other NFL markets. We already provided a stadium for the area. I will bet even if it is not a net positive (money only) we get much bigger ROI than the Washington and Baltimore case studies.