Quote:
But be smart for a second. Almost every NFL city throws in public money for a stadium. Not charity. The return is real. Tourism, hotels, restaurants, jobs, game days, property tax on a huge development. The math works.
Sorry, but this statement is just wrong in MOST cases. It may be true in this instance, but it isn't almost anywhere else. The fact is that the actual money that comes into the city through tax and other revenues is far less than it would be if the same area was developed for commercial and/or industrial purposes. In some cases, residential would suffice. FAR more jobs; FAR more commerce; and FAR better overall return on investment. There are only so many people that go to work each day at Cowboys Stadium and fewer at the AgBarn in the offseason. 250+ workdays for retail, commercial, and industrial spaces in that area would employ thousands -- and a large percentage at much higher wages.
It isn't just employment. As we're seeing in Dallas, city owned and financed sports arenas can end up being bad news 10, 15, 20 years later as teams decide they want something newer. Then, what do you do with it? Irving had to pay to tear down Texas Stadium, Atlanta the Georgia Dome and other cities are stuck with a paid-for facility that just sits there: St. Louis with the TWA whatever its called this week. Even if events happen, the facility never would have been built SOLELY for these events. Whenever you're accounting for an asset, if that asset has disposition costs, you have to include that in any rate of return calculation.
On a year-to-year level, it rarely makes sense for cities to invest and on a multi-year/life of the facility level it NEVER makes sense. Ironically, economists don't agree on much of anything but they do seem to agree that public financed sports arenas are all bad ideas.
With all that said, Chicago, while not necessarily an exception here, already had the Bears and a plan on the table to keep them.
