I have a lot of respect for Jorge’s blog (I only scan read the non baseball content but I think he’s pretty sharp on the political stuff also), his series examining Marlins’ finances was very thorough and informative.

I do question if a new ballpark (evidently now in limbo) will “revive” his neighborhood though.  My reading on this subject over the years indicates that there is little to no economic development that comes from the construction of a new ballpark.  They operate only 80 or so days a year (depends on how many non baseball events are hosted) and fans don’t tend to stick around afterward.  In fact, the new ballparks come with good concessions, restaurants and shopping that work against the surrounding shops.  So, surface parking lots and souvenir shops are of limited value.  There has been a trend of “mixed use” developments surrounding these ballparks, but they haven’t sprung up organically after the opening of the stadium, they are part of the larger development scheme (I’ll save the TIFs discussion)  I also question Jorge’s assertion that the new ballpark will boost tourism, again I don’t think that has been the experience elsewhere.

If there is an argument in favor of publicly funding baseball stadiums it is not the proposed economic benefits or urban renewal.  It is simply having a better ballpark in the community.  If public dollars hadn’t contributed to building hundreds of new ballparks for professional baseball, would they have been built at all?  Or would fewer, less fan friendly ballparks have been built?  Or would the franchise owners have built them anyway?

@ Jorge;  I was in favor of public dollars being spent on our ballpark here (Ottawa).  Not a matter of principle, entirely selfish, I knew I would benefit from it.  (and I have, it’s one of my favorite places here)

“Public Dollars, Private Stadiums” discusses how touting the “economic benefits” of building a new stadium is a tactic that is used less and less frequently by stadium proponents.  Folks have cottoned on.  In its place, more frequently stadium proponents argue the intangible benefits of “community self esteem” associated with having a first rate faciltiy in the community. 

Rightly or wrongly we have reached the tipping point in this debate.  Camden Yards opened in 92 and subsequently govts at all levels, both liberal and conservative, and across the breadth of the US have subsidized billions of dollars of stadium construction for the benefit of private interests (and fans).  The pols don’t want to be associated with this any longer though, the perception of subsidizing millionaire athletes is out of step with their constituents.  As recently as 06 there was little political, popular, blogger or media backlash against the NYC govt selling tax exempt bonds to finance stadium construction.  The recently completed second - and smaller - round of financing turned into a media and political circus….the Citi Field naming rights backlash ( and wait for Yankee Stadium / BofA )....and now Miami politicians concerned about voter reaction to public contributions towards a new Marlins ballpark… 

I’ve never been to Miami and can’t comment on life in Little Havana.  I have read multiple times that Camden Yards has done nothing to improve conditions in Baltimore’s poorest neighborhoods which are nearby (if my Baltimore geography is correct).  Jacobs Field is the most oft cited example of a new stadium spurring urban renewal but many claim that it was a coincidence, that the economy turned around at the same time the stadium opened.

When do Selig and DuPuy send the “relocation” balloon up?