Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward Thanks for that. Hopefully you're not quite as useless in real life.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward well, I can understand this reaction since academic evidence shows that sports stadiums do not provide economic value to a city. If "value" is something else, that's harder to quantify. As one article, which included a review of previous studies, concluded in the "Journal of Sports Economics" recently: "It is common for a city to use expensive incentives such as a state-of-the-art stadium or tax exemptions to induce a major professional sports team to relocate to or remain in its area... Municipalities compete fiercely for professional sports franchises, offering concessions and incentives in the hundreds of millions of dollars ... This competition continues despite strong economic evidence that a professional sport team does not have a positive impact on the local economy." ("An event study of the economic impact of professional sport", Lertwachara + Cochran, Journal of Sports Economics, Vol 8, No 3, June 2007)
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward I really hope KC doesn't let this temporary move turn in to their own little Southlake debackle like Dallas had. From what I understand, Dallas still hasn't recovered fully from that year.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward I think the mindset of the fans is completely different. First and most important - leaving Arrowhead was not a choice, similar to Soldier Field/Naperville. Wizards fans are tired of the orange sea of Arrowhead. This is also not a high school, but a new professional stadium with grass, and the requisite amenities that people expect today. The surrounding businesses also already make this a popular destination. We go into this situation knowing it is temporary, and we have set upcoming deadlines to know if we'll be in a new stadium soon.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward I wasn't there for the Sucklake year either, but knowing what I do about that stadium and that area, KC's plan couldn't possibly be as bad. At least baseball stadiums only have two painted lines and no permanently painted endzones.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward It's been a long haul, but Kansas City looks to be very close. Good luck.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward Let's not get into petty disputes here, this is the TIF thread!
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward It's the most understandable of the three, but the reason I still labeled it a knee-jerk reaction is that people respond this way regardless of the details of the project, when the economic analyses quoted depend on a certain set of assumptions about the proposals--ones that, it turns out, seldom apply to MLS stadia. One is that the venue hosts few events other than the home team (and the home team can't bring in economic activity), another is that the public is funding the bulk of the project, another is a usually hidden assumption concerning the opportunity cost (that there's some other shining use for the land the stadium would wish to occupy). The last, and my favorite, of these I call the 10,000 foot fallacy. Economists ask whether a proposal creates economic activity, presumably in the Universe, or at best in the Metro area. But that's an improper unit of analysis, because it isn't 'the Universe' or 'the Metro Area' that's deciding, it's whatever governmental unit the funding is being requested of. And they do this not on the basis of creating overall economic activity, but creating profit in the form of new taxes, just like a firm trying to create new sales. The studies usually tell cities that they should not subsidize stadiums because they 'create no economic activity, just shift it around'--but this is like telling AT&T not to invest in it's mobile network because that would not 'create new mobile customers, just shift it between companies.' You can imagine AT&T's response to that would be something like. . ."Uh, that's the whole point, Chief!"
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward when do tickets for the "Bay City Rollers" go on sale? "S A.... T U R.... D A Y.... Night" Sarcasm
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward Stan, thanks for your post. I'd wanted to respond myself but didn't have the time. It just seems to me that nearly everything I've ever read about the economic benefit of new stadia suffered from the same assumptions that all but guarantee the conclusions. It's too bad people are sometimes afraid of drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence. (Interestingly, business people rely almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence in formulating business plans, but that's for some other post.) In my area - suburban Maryland - I've seen the affect on downtown Baltimore of the construction of Camden Yards, how the Chinatown section of DC was revitalized by the construction of MCI, and the ongoing, and frankly amazing changes going on in Southeast DC around the nearly-completed Nationals ballpark. I also saw how building Capital Centre and FedEx Field in the suburbs of DC on the Capital Beltway had virtually no affect on that region of Prince Georges county. I can see how one might find that the latter examples average out the former, but I think one would have to have some kind of hidden agenda to do that in the face of such compelling examples. Just my 2 cents. T
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward Interesting, do you think that this was down to the effect of having "foot traffic" as opposed to car traffic? Foot traffic gets people into more shops/bars/cafe's etc? I don't know the area.... a bit worried here because i'm just thinking that KC is a massive car town. It's one of the biggest (4th I think) geographically spread out wise and public transport infrastructure is not very widely used or available.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward That part is true. Wanna know how to spot a non-credible economist? When you ask an economist a question, and he doesn't start the answer with "that depends. . ." you know you don't have a good one.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours {Mod Note: This thread updated with posts concerning new KC Star Article: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/wizards/story/391605.html -- Funkhouser opposes Super TIF for Bannister Mall redevelopment} Another public vote for KC coming? That doesnt sound good.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours The city council finance committe is still making tweaks to the project before it goes before the mayor for vote. Also, the city council could overturn the mayors veto with 8 of 12 votes. Right now I think we would have enough to overturn it, IF the council members really want to go against the new mayor...
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours It works like a normal legislature/executive, yes? The Council votes, and then the Mayor has to decide on a veto? I was wondering because the size of the Council majority might affect the Mayor's vote. (Mayor might not want to risk the loss of political capital that comes with a veto override, for instance, or just might not want to be seen standing in the way of a large majority).
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours move KC to St. Louis. It's just not going to happen in KC. They had a great team, still couldn't draw. Now they're playing a freaking baseball stadium with no end in sight. Give them a year, if they can't get a stadium deal done, move 'em to St. Louis. Not only does it give St. Louis a team, it allows MLS to expand into cities like Montreal or a second NYC team.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours It's an owner's right to keep trying in a market until they're convinced it can't work. And KC's ownership structe (multi-headed and all local) makes it unlikely that they'll give up easily. If the current feasibility study is anything to go by, it will only take attendance of 13,000 a game in an SSS to hit the profit point, and that's not at all unrealistic if they can get a deal done. And nearly every stadium proposal involving any public funding at all (even the occasional one that doesn't, a la Vancouver) is going to have some struggles. If we gave up at the first sign of difficulty, we'd almost never get them done.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours i think you mean to say that columbus would have folded or moved (yes, not public funding, but still)
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours KC sure is having a hard time getting a deal done. I thought for sure that the mayor would be behind a project like this. (taking an old mall and bringing in new development) Sounds like he has another plan for the money somewhere down the road
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Could be. Whatever the reason, it looks like he decided to oppose the project late enough in the process as to be a challenge for proponents to react.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours I'am confused. Is govt. putting up any money. doesn't TIF mean that taxes generated by the project are credited towards the original investment. And don't cities offer these to any developers willing to invest in area the city has targeted, due to lack of tax base, due to being run down in the first place. This can turn out to be almost as bad as the Whitecap situation in Vancouver.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Actually this project was leaping over hurdles with little obstruction until the mayor slammed on the brakes yesterday. The confusing part is that the city's TIF commission unanimously approved this project's financing last month, but now the mayor disapproves of the super-TIF portion. This mayor even reorganized the TIF requirements so that they are more stringent, and the project still was passed by the commission. Everybody who has been following this locally knows this area is extremely blighted....it's currently an abandoned shopping mall that is generating absolutely no money at all and there are no other options currently on the table for this area. If it goes to a city council vote and the mayor vetos it, the council can still override the veto. Currently, the council is all for it, so the next few weeks will be interesting.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours The Kansas City area has been showing, through both its attendance and its politics, that it really is not a good market for our league. It is a shame, but even KC fans must realize by this point that there are more deserving markets out there. St. Louis or Philadelphia would each produce both a stadium and good crowds, and KC is clearly able to produce neither. Time for them to pack their bags.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Thank you frenchy, I'll make sure to tell OnGoal that all there hard work is for nothing, since the team will never be a success. If only our stadium progress could be hassle free like Columbus, Chicago, and Salt Lake, and the relative ease of which DC and Houston are getting their stadiums built.