Below are some sample quotes from various references on the subject of publicly funding sports stadiums, like that being contemplated for the Chargers.
Results Our results indicate:
• The professional sports environment in the 37 metropolitan areas in our sample had no measurable impact on the growth rate of real per capita income in those areas.
• The professional sports environment has a statistically significant impact on the
level of real per capita income in our sample of metropolitan areas, and the overall impact is negative.
• The presence of professional sports teams, on average, reduces the level of real per capita income in metropolitan areas. This result differs from much of the existing literature, which generally has found no impact at all. However, we used a broader and longer panel of data and a richer set of variables reflecting the sports environment than previous studies….
For example, the arrival of a new basketball franchise in a metropolitan area increases real per capita income by about $67. But building a new arena for that basketball team reduces real per capita income by almost $73 in each of the 10 years following the construction of the arena, leading to a net loss of about $6 per person. Similarly, in cities that have baseball franchises, the net effect of an existing baseball team playing in a 37,000-seat baseball-only stadium (the average capacity of the baseball stadiums in our sample) is a $10 reduction of real per capita income….
The impact of an existing baseball franchise playing in a stadium of average size is a reduction in real per capita income of over $850 per year below the average level of income across the cities in our sample, based on the event study estimates. We tend to put more trust in the smaller estimated impact based on the reduced-form econometric models of income determination than in the larger impact implied by the event study regressions because the exclusion of city-specific trends…
CONCLUSIONS
The policy implications of our results are no different from those of the previous studies that found no relationship between the professional sports environment and local economies. Still, they bear repeating. The evidence suggests that attracting a professional sports franchise to a city and building that franchise a new stadium or arena will have no effect on the growth rate of real per capita income and may reduce the level of real per capita income in that city. Yet government decisionmakers and politicians continue to try to attract professional sports franchises to cities, or use public funds to construct elaborate new facilities in order to keep existing franchises from moving. According to public finance theory, the decisionmakers who attempt to attract a new franchise or build a new stadium or arena must value the total consumption benefits, including all nonpecuniary benefits, more than the total costs, including the opportunity costs. The total consumption benefits cannot be directly measured because of the nonpecuniary component of those benefits; in order for these policies to make sense, the total value of the consumption benefits associated with these policies must be larger than was previously imagined. However, regardless of the size of the nonpecuniary benefits, one thing is clear from the evidence on professional sports franchises: owners are reaping substantial benefits in the value of their teams because they are so skilled at the stadium gambit.”
http://bit.ly/1B1iJAz
““With more than four decades of evidence to back them up, economists almost uniformly agree that publicly financed stadiums rarely pay for themselves. …
“Stadiums are sold as enormous draws for events, but the economics are clear that they aren’t helping,” said Andrew Moylan, the director of government affairs at the National Taxpayers Union. “It’s another way to add insult to injury for taxpayers.” “
As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On, New York Times, http://nyti.ms/1Q1VB9R
“Conclusion
In the last 20 years, billions of public and private dollars have been spent building sports stadiums across the United States. Proponents of a new stadium often cite economic development benefits that will be associated with the new stadium. Academic economists have not found statistically significant relationships between various measures of economic growth and stadium construction. The academic studies probably better capture the effects of a stadium because they are not subject to a number of errors that often occur in the economic development assessments done by pro-stadium advocates. However, throwing out the economic development argument does not necessarily lead to rejecting public spending on stadiums. Quality of life arguments may justify public subsidizing a sports facility.”
http://bit.ly/1G6gVrY
Given this obvious negative rationale for not building a stadium using public funds, how in God’s name can the Mayor and city Council justify subjecting the citizens of San Diego to subsidizing the building of a stadium using public funds?The city has many unfunded needs to attend to, plus the budget is scheduled to be a deficit next year, hardly a time to be incurring more debt.
Richard A Fletcher
rfletch2@san.rr.com
11558 Carowind Lane
San Diego, CA 92131-4273
858-693-6099