Reply #105: No, that's NOT the argument the Twins are using. [View All]

[Spike from MN]

The (non-existent) economic benefit of a new stadium is the primary reason offered by the Twins and pro-stadium people in general (with a few exceptions, of course). Where did I get that from? Well, right here on this thread for one. Here ya go Sid:

From post number 27 in the current thread:

Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 09:31 AM by Sorwen

I think the proposal needs to be debated on its own merits. If you don’t think it’s worth it to pay 3 cents on every $20 purchase to fund a new stadium, if you just don’t want to pay any more taxes, if you don’t buy the quality of life argument, and if you don’t believe the stadium would result in enough increased economic activity and tax revenue to justify the sales tax, that’s fine. I don’t agree with you, but I respect your opinion.

You backpedaled a bit in post 68 but still claimed that there would be an economic benefit:

And let me just add that I don't think the economic benefits SaveElmer is arguing really matters that much. You might be right that the increased economic activity and tax revenue resulting from the stadium might not pay for the cost, but 1) it at least reduces the real cost of the stadium, and 2) it doesn't really matter (as long as the costs aren't too ridiculously high, which I don't think they are). The point is to provide a ballpark where people can go and have a good time.

And of course, you still tout some economic benefits in the post to which I am replying even though numerous studies have shown that the net economic benefits of a new stadium are zero at best. Others here had similar arguments to begin with but I believe many have come to realize that studies don't bear them out. So why do so many have misconceptions about the economic benefits of a new stadium? Where did they get those ideas from? The Twins of course. That's the main argument they have been pushing even though they know full well that there is no factual basis for the claim.

Economic arguments are often used to justify public spending to build new baseball stadiums. Sports team owners sometimes claim that they are losing money and that a new stadium needs to be built in order to save the economic viability of a team in its current market. Proponents of new stadiums often argue that new stadiums are good public investments because they enhance the economic activity in the region. The arguments for a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins involved such claims, while the grassroots opposition to public funding of the stadium often concentrated on refuting such claims. Accordingly, this chapter investigates these economic arguments first by exploring the history of the Twins economic rationale for a new stadium; second, by scrutinizing the report of the international accounting and financial advising firm Arthur Andersen LLP that was used by the Twins as a basis for these claims; and finally, by examining the persuasiveness of these economic claims with Minnesota legislators.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

But that was taken from a study back in 1996-1998 for a different proposal. Maybe the Twins have completely changed their argument. Let's take a look at the Hennepin County resolution and see what that says:

The following Resolution was offered by Commissioner Opat, seconded by Commissioner Stenglein:

WHEREAS, keeping the Minnesota Twins in Hennepin County contributes to the County’s position as the economic and cultural center of the Upper Midwest, a status that benefits the entire state; and

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Twins contribute significantly to the local and state economy; and ...

http://www.hennepin.us/vgn/portal/internet/hcdetailmaster/0,2300,1273_1716_129342744,00.html

Whoa! Where do you suppose they got that information from? Could it be that the Twins organization is misleading taxpayers on purpose in order to get the stadium bill pushed through? No, they wouldn't do something like that, would they?

If cities subsidize commercial sports in the quest for an improved image or to enhance the quality of life for its citizens, then taxpayers should be allowed to decide the stadium subsidy issue on these bases. Using economics as a justification for the subsidy is a political expedient, perhaps necessity, but it is inconsistent with the statistical evidence (1996, p. 37).

And from further down on that same page:

Accordingly, we first conclude that it would benefit the Twins and the public dialogue on the stadium issue to concentrate less on the dubious economic impacts of a new stadium and concentrate more on such questions as how the Twins owner, Carl Pohlad, will utilize new revenue, and how much the citizens of Minnesota truly value having a hometown professional baseball team.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

Hmmm...looks like they have a track record of pushing the bogus economic benefits of a new stadium. How disappointing.

And if you think Pohlad will invest his gains in player salaries, you may want to read this:

Of course there are many "ifs" in this chain of events. Pohlad has made it clear from the start that he does not like losing money on the Twins. His offer to let the team go public was predicated upon him recouping the $80+ million he says he has already lost on the team. Also, the Twins' track record of salary expenditures since 1991 so far has not proven the team is willing to spend what it needs in order to field a winning team. The report contends that "The Twins would have to generate at least an additional $30 million in annual revenues in order to spend the industry average on payroll and eliminate current operating losses" (p. 6). What happens if $30 million in additional revenues are not generated by a new stadium? What would be the priority--short-term profit (minimizing losses) or trying to produce longterm profit by fielding a competitive team? Pohlad is described in a lengthy article in the Star Tribune as a sometimes notorious businessman who is not terribly interested in deepening his investment in the Twins. In the past "he has been accused in public and private ventures of selling out the interests of others for his own gain" (Star Tribune 4/20/97). If the account is even partially correct, it is certainly possible that the increased revenues from a new stadium would be used to restore past losses the Pohlad family fortune and that the team would continue to be one of the lowest paid teams in baseball. In other words, there are no guarantees that increased profitability of the team would translate into the investment needed for improved success on the field.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

And even if he DID invest the money in the team, it's not the role of the taxpayer to shell out money so that the Twins can get/keep better players. That's up to the owners and fans. And yes, I realize that you want to be able to watch baseball outdoors. I have absolutely no problem with that as long as no public money is used to finance the stadium. They even had investors that were willing to look into financing the stadium but apparently the Twins weren't interested:

According to Senator John Marty, investors are interested here but private financing has not been seriously considered by the Twins: "One Minneapolis businessman who is trying to put together a private financing package here says he has been repeatedly rebuffed" by the Twins (Star Tribune 2/9/97).
http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

The stadium can and should be built using private funds and/or user fees. However, they want to do it, I don't care. Just leave the public money out of it. So tell me, just how much are the "intangible benefits" worth to you? What would you be willing to pay each year for a new stadium?