Oakland may, or may not pull this one off, but if the taxpayers get involved I think that Oakland is in trouble. This article is good as it lists all the site locations under consideration - TBGR

Economists look at the 'value' of building ballparks

It sounds so simple and ideal: build a stadium downtown, people will come, surrounding businesses will benefit and the economy will flourish. That and this report from the East Bay Business Times' Jim Cole
As David Fike, vice president of academic affairs and an economics professor at Oakland's Holy Names College, said in a report to the Oakland City Council: Combined with an economic revitalization plan, "a new ballpark in Oakland has the potential to bring significant economic benefit to the city."

Or as a speaker at a City Council meeting put it: "This is the way we create jobs in Oakland."

As momentum builds around getting the Oakland Athletics a new diamond, the belief that such a project will spur economic development comes up over and over and fuels the notion that taxpayers should contribute a news ballpark.

Well, leave it to the Federal Reserve to rain on Oakland's parade.

To the question of does it make economic sense for taxpayers to finance sports facilities, Adam Zaretsky, an economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, said: "The short answer to this question is `No.' When studying this issue, almost all economists and development specialists (at least those who work independently and not for a chamber of commerce or similar organization) conclude that the rate of return a city or metropolitan area receives for its investment is generally below that of alternative projects."

If the East Bay wants to hold onto the A's, the city and county's Joint Powers Authority must first sign a new Coliseum lease with the team, which would allow the team to stay put while a new ballpark is studied and built over the next five years or so.

There are four potential locations for a new baseball stadium: Fremont; next to the Coliseum; a rundown area between San Pablo and Telegraph avenues and 20th Street in Oakland; and at the Port of Oakland's Howard Terminal next to Jack London Square. The city's consultant, HOK Sport, a Kansas City-based stadium architect that has designed the likes of Pacific Bell Park, Camden Yards in Baltimore and Coors Field in Denver, recommended the locations.

The A's do not want to discuss new stadium location or financing until the club signs a lease for the Coliseum, where the team currently plays rent-free. The county has proposed a five-year lease at $450,000 per year plus 50 cents for every fan over 2 million that goes to a game in a season.

The A's attracted more than 2 million fans last year for the first time since 1993. Historically, the team has had one of the lowest attendance record of any Major League team. That and this report from the East Bay Business Times' Jim Cole

Oakland has fallen below the average attendance for all big-league teams in 18 of the past 25 seasons.

While the numbers look bad, longtime A's fan Lil Bartholo points out there is a complicated story behind them. Attendance has ebbed and flowed with ownership changes and team performance, she said.

"We actually outdrew the Yankees in the '80s" after Walter Haas bought the team, she said.

The A's also routinely drew more fans on average than the San Francisco Giants prior to the opening of Pacific Bell Park, she said.

Attendance sagged when subsequent owners let go of top players and didn't cater to season ticket holders, said Bartholo. The coalition supports the construction of a new stadium for the A's as a way to keep the team in Oakland.

New stadiums do have a history of bolstering attendance, something the A's could use.

New stadiums, however, do not have a history of bolstering economies, according to Vanderbilt University economics professor John Siegfried.

"It doesn't make sense based on economic theory," Siegfried said. "In general, the money spent on sporting events is money the local people would spend on other local things. There will be more activity in that area (where a new stadium sits), but it just drains activity from other areas."

The money spent on downtown ball games will be dollars that might otherwise have been spent on movies, restaurants, books and other entertainment, Siegfried and other economists point out.

"All independent academic studies have found that there is no statistically significant positive effect from having a new team or stadium on an area's economy," said economist Andrew Zimbalist, economics professor at Smith College.

In fact, 65 percent of team revenue goes to baseball players under their union contract, and because few players live in the town where they play ball, the fans' money is not recirculated in town, Siegfried said. On the other hand, money spent at a restaurant goes to workers who do live in the community and will spend their wages locally, he said.

Economists' views on the matter are hard to swallow, especially for hot dog-loving fans, politicians and team owners.

"I think you can crunch numbers a lot of different ways, and that's definitely not our take on the situation," said A's spokesman Jim Young. That and this report from the East Bay Business Times' Jim Cole

Downtown ballparks, Young and others argue, have revitalized neighborhoods across the country.

"If you look at a stadium as something other than just a sports facility, it's a win-win situation for both parties. It would be an investment in the city of Oakland," Young said.

Camden Yards, hailed by many as an example of what urban diamonds can do to spur economic revival, actually contributed to a decline in jobs and wages in Baltimore by creating low-paying jobs and drawing private spending away from other activities, according to a study by two University of Maryland economists.

Still, the desire to keep a team or lure a team is a strong one for any city. Between 1987 and 1999, 55 sports complexes were built at a cost of $8.7 billion. Taxpayers covered 57 percent of those costs, in some cases paying the entire cost of a new stadium.

Young said the A's owners are prepared to contribute "a significant" amount to build a new ballpark and expect charter seat licenses and corporate naming rights to cover a chunk of the bill, and they want the public to invest in the project as well.

Oakland City Councilman Ignacio de la Fuente says he wants to keep the A's in town, but not at all costs. "I don't want to lose them, but there's only so much love I'm willing to give," he said, arguing that he expects the A's owners to pay a reasonable rent at the Coliseum and do the heavy lifting if a new ballpark is to be built.

De la Fuente says an uptown park combined with residential and commercial development would be a benefit to downtown Oakland.

Although most experts agree new sports complexes don't make sense from an economic standpoint, critics, including Kansas City Fed economist Jordan Rappaport, say intangible benefits, such as the improved quality of life a sports team provides, lend support to using some public money on projects.

Even Neil deMause, co-author of the book "Field of Schemes," says it's not unreasonable for communities to contribute a small amount, based on the benefit they perceive from a stadium. Pacific Bell Park, where the public covered just 5 percent of the cost through a special tax district, "is perfectly equitable," he said. "Pac Bell is sort of the test case. But not a lot of communities have the corporate fan base to sell that many (charter seat licenses)."

Major League Baseball has discouraged clubs from trying to copy the Giants with a privately financed ballpark.

"That would not be an option for us," A's spokesman Young said. That and this report from the East Bay Business Times' Jim Cole

A man has to have goals- for a day, for a lifetime- that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."
- Ted Williams

Yes less than alternative projects such as say luring a major business to town but thats easier said than done, sometimes its more realistic to just keep the ones you have such as a MLB team and not lose them.

quote:

---

"It doesn't make sense based on economic theory," Siegfried said. "In general, the money spent on sporting events is money the local people would spend on other local things. There will be more activity in that area (where a new stadium sits), but it just drains activity from other areas."
The money spent on downtown ball games will be dollars that might otherwise have been spent on movies, restaurants, books and other entertainment, Siegfried and other economists point out.

---

I can't stand this argument. It may hold true for the local populace, but a MLB team draws from an entire region. The A's draw from all over Northern and Central CA, and Western NV. These people bring their money to Oakland because of the A's. No one in Sacramento is going to go to Oakland to see a movie or buy a book.

I think the angle they are going for here is that the dollars get shifted around the state or region. So regardless the money goes from one place to another.

But using myself as an example I find this ridiculous. I don't go to the flicks that often, and never set my entertainment dollars as "I use it here, or I use it there." If a team came into my city it would be monies spent that would not otherwise get spent. Period.

I'm sure I'm not alone on this. There are folks that put the money in savings and spend it on only certain things, or items. I don't spend my "entertainment" money just for the sake of spending it.

A man has to have goals- for a day, for a lifetime- that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."
- Ted Williams

You are exactly right Maury, money I would spend on MLB season tickets I would otherwise save, it is not getting shifted from restaurants, movies, opera etc. Even using the Beavers as an example I almost never came downtown, now because of baseball I do and I often go into stores or restaurants downtown that I would not otherwise spend money at since I would not be in the area if not for baseball. These often cited arguments against the economics of sports are so flawed, they leave out pertinent facts.