December 9, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Friday, February 13, 2009
Comment of the DayI've slagged on the Marlins' stadium across a dozen posts by now, so it's probably time I grant some equal time. Here's a comment on my post about this from Wednesday, from the guy who probably knows more about this deal than the dudes who are going to vote on it later today, Jorge Costales:
I suspect that this will not change minds, but the type of public funds to be used for the stadium are tourist-based taxes and are specifically designated for entertainment related purposes. So the stadium is competing with arts and convention centers, not the type of infrastructure improvements you note or the police services noted in the comments. In fact, today’s Miami Herald editorial endorsed the stadium deal.
Jorge, by the way, maintains an excellent blog on the subject, so if this stuff interests you, by all means check it out.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:45am
Pete Toms said...
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?
Posted 02/13 at 09:34 PM
Jorge Costales said...
First, thanks to Craig Calcaterra for the generous space and comments related to an opposing view. I have exchanged views with Pete Toms on various occasions as well, and respect his point of view. To me these type of exchanges are one of the best parts of the blogging experience. To know that otherwise disinterested and informed people come to different conclusions about an area of mutual interest. It forces one to rethink and hone arguments.
That having been said, let me do my best imitation of Dan Ackroyd’s SNL ‘Jane you ignorant [PC banned]’ tirade for the sake of blog-appeal
Re: ‘Reviving’ the Little Havana neighborhood:
- I agree with Pete that the economic literature indicates that expectations of significant economic improvements to areas surrounding new stadiums simply has not materialized. It is unfortunate, but a counter-intuitive economic fact of life.
Re: New stadium ‘boosting tourism’
Re: What would happen if owners could not get, even partially funded, stadiums built for them?
As a political conservative, this issue pits ideals vs practical realities. I believe conservatism is the politics of reality. If I oppose this stadium on principle, the reality is that I won’t stop public dollars from being spent on non-essential items. It will just ensure that public dollars will spent on items that I do not frequent as much as I would a MLB team. So I support this stadium.
Posted 02/14 at 02:13 PM
Pete Toms said...
@ 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?
Posted 02/14 at 03:14 PM