Reply #42: Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. [View All]

[Spike from MN]

The myth that a professional sports spur the economy has been debunked by numerous studies. I can't find the link I was looking for but here are a few others I came across:

"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. The net economic impact 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."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479

And another:

"According to a report by the Brookings Institute, “No recent facility has earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues...he economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus."

http://www.selvesandothers.org/article7808.html

And one more:

"Time and again this economic development argument has proven to be a swing and a miss. “Careful analysis of past economic experience in cities that built new stadiums and attracted teams does not bear out” economic development claims, write Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys in a briefing paper for the Cato Institute. Its title: “Caught Stealing: Debunking the Economic Case for D.C. Baseball.

...

Of course, what are key are net benefits. “As sport- and stadium-related activities increase,” the authors point out, “other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending.” Fan money spent at ball games would likely have gone to other entertainment if baseball wasn’t available. Thus, net benefits are zero."

http://www.npri.org/issues/issues05/ib_040305.htm


Also, please note that your arguments were the same one used for the Excel Center. Boy, the way they talked that up, it was going to be the answer to all of St. Paul's problems. Revenues would skyrocket, business would be booming, and property taxes would plummet because of all the increased revenue. Uh gee, so why is it that my property taxes keep going up every year? They way they talked up the stadium, I probably shouldn't even have to be paying property taxes by now. Yeah, St. Paul taxpayers really got the shaft on that one.

As for the argument that it's OK to subsidize the Twins because we do that for private enterprises all the time, uh yeah, the $400 million subsidy to Northwest airlines really worked out well for us taxpayers. Yeah, let's make that same mistake again but this time with the Twins.

As for the "quality of life" argument that Sorwen mentioned, fine. If you think it improves your "quality of life," great. Pay for it with a user's tax or just write a check to Pohlad if you are so inclined. But don't ask me to subsidize a billionaire as that does nothing for my "quality of life."


Hey, I have an idea. Why don't St. Paul taxpayers buy me a house? I'll even chip in for part of the expense. There could be a one-time tax of a buck or two on all St. Paulites and that, combined with my contribution, would buy me a new house. Hey, it's only a buck or two and it's only a one-time tax so it's not like it's something they will have to pay year after year. And it's such a small amount that it shouldn't matter, right? And just think of how much the city will benefit. With no mortgage, I'll have more money to spend at the local businesses so the city will benefit from a big increase in revenue. And by supporting local businesses, I'm helping to create jobs. Since virtually ALL of my income is spent in St. Paul, it looks like it's a win-win situation for everyone, right? I think I'll have to write to my reps and ask them to make sure the stadium bill doesn't pass unless it includes my proposed "St. Paul Improved Housing Amendment." After all, it makes at least as much sense as having the taxpayers fund a stadium.