David Rubin critical of stadium building as a form economic development | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

David Rubin critical of stadium building as a form economic development

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
cuseinchina said:
So I thoroughly support your right to think the stadium is a waste of money and even your belief that its better yo let the state money get allocated outside of Stracuse rather than get stuck investing in a stadium. All of that is valid opinion. I just wish you wouldn't then degrade the quality of your argument by calling people Mao and labeling private public partnerships as communist. Private capital is necessarily more efficient than public, and its inclusion in large projects is anything but leftist. What ppp/bot really does is to shift the costs of projects closer to the beneficiaries on the form of usage fees to provide the necessary roi to the private capital. It is also derisks projects from a taxpayer perspective because it replaces public debt with private equity capital.
You talk a lot but eventually get to the point that it takes from taxpayers and gives to rich developers because the ROI isn't there. In other words, it's a bad investment. You keep saying that public private reduces taxpayer risk because you assume that it has to be done. You ignore the alternative of not building a new stadium at all
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
CousCuse said:
It figures that a sophic apologists would know Mao chapter and verse.
I'm the apologist?

It's true that people who are against Chinese style investment do know more about Mao than people like you. Please keep making the Chinese argument everywhere you can, please
 

Killdozer

Starter
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
1,535
Like
3,007
This whole conversation sounds like Obamacare. Take from the middle class and give to the poor and have the rich business owners (ie: Insurance Companies) benefit.
 

CousCuse

Comin in Hot
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
10,871
Like
8,162
I'm the apologist?

It's true that people who are against Chinese style investment do know more about Mao than people like you. Please keep making the Chinese argument everywhere you can, please
Don't think your sophic skills can deflect from your real position. Your a political ally of the politician who is in an ego contest with a bigger politician(s). You can't be ignorant enough not to know that everything in this country; The canal system, the highway system , the internet , the sewer and water lines the electrical grid are all products of public private investment.
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
You talk a lot but eventually get to the point that it takes from taxpayers and gives to rich developers because the ROI isn't there. In other words, it's a bad investment. You keep saying that public private reduces taxpayer risk because you assume that it has to be done. You ignore the alternative of not building a new stadium at all
Private capital is not altruistic...if the return wasn't there the capital wouldn't be either.

Why would a conservative be against replacing taxpayer debt with private equity capital - makes no sense. Also conservatives love the idea of replacing income tax with a consumption based tax. This is in that vane since users of the asset provide the return to the private investors. You should think this through a little more thoroughly because its poking holes in your economic belief system.
 

xc84

Living Legend
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
19,392
Like
29,009
At the moment, the dome and the mall are the two things that make Syracuse a destination for travel. A new stadium is not a bad investment. Of course, don't look at things in isolation which is what everyone wants to do. A stadium adds to the quality of life in the area. It may not make a profit just as a transit system, airport, running trail usually will not. That does not make them bad investments. Those things help bring in other things.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
Private capital is not altruistic...if the return wasn't there the capital wouldn't be either.

Why would a conservative be against replacing taxpayer debt with private equity capital - makes no sense. Also conservatives love the idea of replacing income tax with a consumption based tax. This is in that vane since users of the asset provide the return to the private investors. You should think this through a little more thoroughly because its poking holes in your economic belief system.

We don't have to add taxpayer debt if we don't build a new freaking stadium. How many times do I need to say it? It's right there in the post you responded to.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
Don't think your sophic skills can deflect from your real position. Your a political ally of the politician who is in an ego contest with a bigger politician(s). You can't be ignorant enough not to know that everything in this country; The canal system, the highway system , the internet , the sewer and water lines the electrical grid are all products of public private investment.
Now that we all agree that it's a bad investment, you now need to show that a new stadium is a public good with positive externalities worth more than 400 million

Whoever owns the hotel and convention center can capture a very large portion of the tourism dollars, proponents of involuntary public financing usually fail to consider this

And even if you can prove that the Syracuse area would have benefits greater than the cost (you can't), it does not follow that anyone outside of Syracuse should have to pay a dime for it.

If it was a good investment, a private developer would be willing to make the whole investment.

If there was some benefit to Syracuse or Onondaga County that is not reflected in markets, Syracuse or Onondaga Cty would bear the cost.

What is the benefit to the rest of NY State or other states in the country? Why should they be forced to pay for any of this?
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
We don't have to add taxpayer debt if we don't build a new freaking stadium. How many times do I need to say it? It's right there in the post you responded to.

you do because of the scale of the investment relative to the uncertain economic backdrop of a city in flux. They have been able to attract some investment with tax breaks. but a $500M stadium will require some public participation and some promised minimum return threshold. Combining public and private financing de-risks the project from the taxpayer perspective and allows projects to go ahead that otherwise could not get done with either source of capital alone. There are very few stadiums being built without some public support, Syracuse sure isn't going to get anyone to do it when their are better markets with more attractive demographics. It doesn't mean its a bad investment, it just means you aren't going to get private investors to do the whole thing.

Again, my primary beef with your statements is not your objection to the stadium - it's that you somehow think public private partnership investing is Maoist or somehow worse for taxpayers and that couldn't be further from the truth. The fact that they happen in china (along with Singapore, Germany, US, UK etc) is a testament to their move towards a freer more market oriented economy - the number of large US based insurance companies and pension funds directly investing in infrastructure projects in Asia is quite high and the scale is astonishing.
 
Last edited:

OttoMets

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
20,259
Like
37,701
you do because of the scale of the investment relative to the uncertain economic backdrop of a city in flux. They have been able to attract some investment with tax breaks. but a $500M stadium will require some public participation and some promised minimum return threshold. Combining public and private financing de-risks the project from the taxpayer perspective and allows projects to go ahead that otherwise could not get done with either source of capital alone. There are very few stadiums being built without some public support, Syracuse sure isn't going to get anyone to do it when their are better markets with more attractive demographics. It doesn't mean its a bad investment, it just means you aren't going to get private investors to do the whole thing.

I agree with a lot of what you say about PPP and it's clear that you're well-informed about this.

What I don't agree with, though, is the idea that sports venues drive economic development in urban areas.

First, Baltimore:

Camden Yards is an aesthetic gem. Did it make the Inner Harbor into the tourist draw and sales tax piggy-bank that it is today? I don't think that's established; a lot of the Harbor development was underway before the ballpark construction began.

We've got two big stadia, surrounded by surface parking and cut off from the street grid, creating a development dead zone. They're segregated from Pigtown and -- especially -- Federal Hill, arguably holding back expansion and further revitalization of those neighborhoods.

A great majority of fans drive in from the county and elsewhere, spending little in the neighborhood (maybe the recent expansion of MARC service on weekends will improve this a little; I know I stopped making the trip from D.C. when they cut that service in 2007 or 2008).

To the extent that stadium-goers do patronize neighborhood bars and restaurants before and after games, it really is a zero-sum game. Retail and services in the neighborhoods around Memorial Stadium have withered in the past 25 years; the money's moved down to Camden Yards.

Next, as far as Syracuse is concerned, we've got a stadium.

What's a 44,000-seat stadium in Midtown going to do for the city that a 50,000-seat stadium on the Hill doesn't already do?

Will bars and restaurants (of which there are already a handful - Phoebe's, Dolce Vita, etc.) spring up in the Regent District? Will they coexist with Marshall/Crouse establishments, or will they just poach some of their revenue?

What's going to happen with development around Kennedy Square? Will Syracuse be innovative in moving people to and from the site? The great majority of the people on this board who advocate for a new stadium cite ease of access (and easy, inexpensive, non-structured parking) as a top priority. How does that coexist with current plans for Kennedy Square development? How could that not create a large dead zone at the periphery of the stadium district? Baltimore can't solve that problem - vacant lots and empty warehouses exist for blocks to the south and west of the Ravens' stadium. I don't think we want our large public works projects (and that's a loose use of "public works") to create such problems.

Finally, while land is not in short supply in Syracuse and Central New York, it's still a finite resource. Is this stadium proposal the best use for this close-in, valuable series of parcels? Would it prove better for the city and community than the current plan (which proposes retail, market-rate housing, and much-needed office and academic space for SUNY Upstate)? And what of neighborhood improvements? The city and university have long hoped to take advantage of gentrification in Hawley-Green (and, eventually, Prospect Hill) and knit the neighborhood with the Hill. It's difficult to see a stadium and associated parking facilities doing that. (It sure didn't help Federal Hill.)

If Baltimore is the template, we've got some serious questions about what we're aiming for and how we're going to go about it.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
you do because of the scale of the investment relative to the uncertain economic backdrop of a city in flux. They have been able to attract some investment with tax breaks. but a $500M stadium will require some public participation and some promised minimum return threshold. Combining public and private financing de-risks the project from the taxpayer perspective and allows projects to go ahead that otherwise could not get done with either source of capital alone. There are very few stadiums being built without some public support, Syracuse sure isn't going to get anyone to do it when their are better markets with more attractive demographics. It doesn't mean its a bad investment, it just means you aren't going to get private investors to do the whole thing.

Again, my primary beef with your statements is not your objection to the stadium - it's that you somehow think public private partnership investing is Maoist or somehow worse for taxpayers and that couldn't be further from the truth. The fact that they happen in china (along with Singapore, Germany, US, UK etc) is a testament to their move towards a freer more market oriented economy - the number of large US based insurance companies and pension funds directly investing in infrastructure projects in Asia is quite high and the scale is astonishing.
You continue to just take it as a given that a new stadium needs to get built and you assume it needs to cost 500 million. So much question begging wrapped up in pointless nonsense. We need to take money from people because "of the scale of the investment relative to the uncertain economic backdrop of a city in flux." This is utterly meaningless drivel.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
I agree with a lot of what you say about PPP and it's clear that you're well-informed about this.

What I don't agree with, though, is the idea that sports venues drive economic development in urban areas.

First, Baltimore:

Camden Yards is an aesthetic gem. Did it make the Inner Harbor into the tourist draw and sales tax piggy-bank that it is today? I don't think that's established; a lot of the Harbor development was underway before the ballpark construction began.

We've got two big stadia, surrounded by surface parking and cut off from the street grid, creating a development dead zone. They're segregated from Pigtown and -- especially -- Federal Hill, arguably holding back expansion and further revitalization of those neighborhoods.

A great majority of fans drive in from the county and elsewhere, spending little in the neighborhood (maybe the recent expansion of MARC service on weekends will improve this a little; I know I stopped making the trip from D.C. when they cut that service in 2007 or 2008).

To the extent that stadium-goers do patronize neighborhood bars and restaurants before and after games, it really is a zero-sum game. Retail and services in the neighborhoods around Memorial Stadium have withered in the past 25 years; the money's moved down to Camden Yards.

Next, as far as Syracuse is concerned, we've got a stadium.

What's a 44,000-seat stadium in Midtown going to do for the city that a 50,000-seat stadium on the Hill doesn't already do?

Will bars and restaurants (of which there are already a handful - Phoebe's, Dolce Vita, etc.) spring up in the Regent District? Will they coexist with Marshall/Crouse establishments, or will they just poach some of their revenue?

What's going to happen with development around Kennedy Square? Will Syracuse be innovative in moving people to and from the site? The great majority of the people on this board who advocate for a new stadium cite ease of access (and easy, inexpensive, non-structured parking) as a top priority. How does that coexist with current plans for Kennedy Square development? How could that not create a large dead zone at the periphery of the stadium district? Baltimore can't solve that problem - vacant lots and empty warehouses exist for blocks to the south and west of the Ravens' stadium. I don't think we want our large public works projects (and that's a loose use of "public works") to create such problems.

Finally, while land is not in short supply in Syracuse and Central New York, it's still a finite resource. Is this stadium proposal the best use for this close-in, valuable series of parcels? Would it prove better for the city and community than the current plan (which proposes retail, market-rate housing, and much-needed office and academic space for SUNY Upstate)? And what of neighborhood improvements? The city and university have long hoped to take advantage of gentrification in Hawley-Green (and, eventually, Prospect Hill) and knit the neighborhood with the Hill. It's difficult to see a stadium and associated parking facilities doing that. (It sure didn't help Federal Hill.)

If Baltimore is the template, we've got some serious questions about what we're aiming for and how we're going to go about it.
You don't understand. It's relative to flux and uncertain and uh de-risks.
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
You don't understand. It's relative to flux and uncertain and uh de-risks.

Again I am not debating your opinion that stadiums should not be in any way publicly financed even though it is overwhelmingly clear that to get one built in Syracuse it would need some public investment just like nearly every other similar facility getting built in this country. My disagreement with you is your calling people Maoist and saying that public private partnerships are Chinese style communist investments. that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work.

Then you make fun of words that I use because you don't want to address the ways in which your opposition to ppp financing in general (again taking your objection to the stadium out of the equation) don't really jive with your very clear fiscal and political leanings.

you make fun of the terms flux and uncertainty and derisking.

Syracuse is a market in flux, there are some green shoots with private investors developing parts of downtown, and on the other hand you have declining per capita disposable income, industry leaving, and problems with crime. Given that backdrop, you are not going to get a purely privately financed large scale investment with a stadium. The money is too big and the time horizon too long given the level of uncertainty in the market. Make fun of that all you want but it's no less true.

de-risking - from a taxpayer perspective you take risk out of a project when you involve private capital and not just public. You are replacing public debt with private equity and sharing the risk - so as a taxpayer you should prefer this type of investment particularly if you believe that private market participants are better than governments at judging risk.

not that complex buddy.
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
I agree with a lot of what you say about PPP and it's clear that you're well-informed about this.

What I don't agree with, though, is the idea that sports venues drive economic development in urban areas.

First, Baltimore:

Camden Yards is an aesthetic gem. Did it make the Inner Harbor into the tourist draw and sales tax piggy-bank that it is today? I don't think that's established; a lot of the Harbor development was underway before the ballpark construction began.

We've got two big stadia, surrounded by surface parking and cut off from the street grid, creating a development dead zone. They're segregated from Pigtown and -- especially -- Federal Hill, arguably holding back expansion and further revitalization of those neighborhoods.

A great majority of fans drive in from the county and elsewhere, spending little in the neighborhood (maybe the recent expansion of MARC service on weekends will improve this a little; I know I stopped making the trip from D.C. when they cut that service in 2007 or 2008).

To the extent that stadium-goers do patronize neighborhood bars and restaurants before and after games, it really is a zero-sum game. Retail and services in the neighborhoods around Memorial Stadium have withered in the past 25 years; the money's moved down to Camden Yards.

Next, as far as Syracuse is concerned, we've got a stadium.

What's a 44,000-seat stadium in Midtown going to do for the city that a 50,000-seat stadium on the Hill doesn't already do?

Will bars and restaurants (of which there are already a handful - Phoebe's, Dolce Vita, etc.) spring up in the Regent District? Will they coexist with Marshall/Crouse establishments, or will they just poach some of their revenue?

What's going to happen with development around Kennedy Square? Will Syracuse be innovative in moving people to and from the site? The great majority of the people on this board who advocate for a new stadium cite ease of access (and easy, inexpensive, non-structured parking) as a top priority. How does that coexist with current plans for Kennedy Square development? How could that not create a large dead zone at the periphery of the stadium district? Baltimore can't solve that problem - vacant lots and empty warehouses exist for blocks to the south and west of the Ravens' stadium. I don't think we want our large public works projects (and that's a loose use of "public works") to create such problems.

Finally, while land is not in short supply in Syracuse and Central New York, it's still a finite resource. Is this stadium proposal the best use for this close-in, valuable series of parcels? Would it prove better for the city and community than the current plan (which proposes retail, market-rate housing, and much-needed office and academic space for SUNY Upstate)? And what of neighborhood improvements? The city and university have long hoped to take advantage of gentrification in Hawley-Green (and, eventually, Prospect Hill) and knit the neighborhood with the Hill. It's difficult to see a stadium and associated parking facilities doing that. (It sure didn't help Federal Hill.)

If Baltimore is the template, we've got some serious questions about what we're aiming for and how we're going to go about it.

It may well be that a stadium in Syracuse is a bad investment of the state taxpayer money and the private equity contribution as well. I don't have the detailed numbers to make that judgment. But I think that the tact that Rubin and Millhouse both take is to just write off with a broad stroke stadium investment as a bad use of funding because there are some obvious examples of failure and because in the case of Rubin he'd rather see the money go to cultural institutions and with Millhouse he'd rather see the money go back into his tax refund check (good luck with that). The research I have read shows stadiums that have successfully driven associated economic development have been those that have been located downtown in areas where other investment is already ongoing, and where other similar entertainment options are limited. Syracuse passes that general test. Beyond that I have no idea whether its a good use of funds. Presumably the private money going in thinks the stadium will work. As for the state money, it will just go someplace else it won't go back into anyone's bank account. I don't think stadiums are the best use of taxpayer money in terms of long term development goals -but sometimes you take what you can get. It would be nice to know the math before rejecting it out of hand. That was the crux of my argument. But then Millhouse decided ppp/bot investment was communist and that requires a response because it's just idiotic.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
Again I am not debating your opinion that stadiums should not be in any way publicly financed even though it is overwhelmingly clear that to get one built in Syracuse it would need some public investment just like nearly every other similar facility getting built in this country. My disagreement with you is your calling people Maoist and saying that public private partnerships are Chinese style communist investments. that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work.

Then you make fun of words that I use because you don't want to address the ways in which your opposition to ppp financing in general (again taking your objection to the stadium out of the equation) don't really jive with your very clear fiscal and political leanings.

you make fun of the terms flux and uncertainty and derisking.

Syracuse is a market in flux, there are some green shoots with private investors developing parts of downtown, and on the other hand you have declining per capita disposable income, industry leaving, and problems with crime. Given that backdrop, you are not going to get a purely privately financed large scale investment with a stadium. The money is too big and the time horizon too long given the level of uncertainty in the market. Make fun of that all you want but it's no less true.

de-risking - from a taxpayer perspective you take risk out of a project when you involve private capital and not just public. You are replacing public debt with private equity and sharing the risk - so as a taxpayer you should prefer this type of investment particularly if you believe that private market participants are better than governments at judging risk.

not that complex buddy.
you keep on assuming that the choices are a 500 million dollar project that is 80% govt financed or a 500 million dollar project that is 100% government financed.

You continue to ignore the other choices. not taking on the project in the first place or spending less than 500 million dollars if you do take on the project.

you are being very dumb to continue to ignore this.

and once again we agree that we won't get a purely private financed investment of this size. you wrap it up in your typical BS to obscure the simple fact that it's a bad investment.

but you want your fancy stadium because you are the special interest. so everyone else should have to pay for it because of flux green shoots backdrops. OK.

You said that this costs too much, the payoff takes too long and there's lots of uncertainty about the value of this investment.

I agree. That's why we shouldn't do it! But despite all those factors that we agree on, you think that people should be forced to pay for it a very expensive project with uncertain payoffs many years from now because ... why?
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
It may well be that a stadium in Syracuse is a bad investment of the state taxpayer money and the private equity contribution as well. I don't have the detailed numbers to make that judgment. But I think that the tact that Rubin and Millhouse both take is to just write off with a broad stroke stadium investment as a bad use of funding because there are some obvious examples of failure and because in the case of Rubin he'd rather see the money go to cultural institutions and with Millhouse he'd rather see the money go back into his tax refund check (good luck with that). The research I have read shows stadiums that have successfully driven associated economic development have been those that have been located downtown in areas where other investment is already ongoing, and where other similar entertainment options are limited. Syracuse passes that general test. Beyond that I have no idea whether its a good use of funds. Presumably the private money going in thinks the stadium will work. As for the state money, it will just go someplace else it won't go back into anyone's bank account. I don't think stadiums are the best use of taxpayer money in terms of long term development goals -but sometimes you take what you can get. It would be nice to know the math before rejecting it out of hand. That was the crux of my argument. But then Millhouse decided ppp/bot investment was communist and that requires a response because it's just idiotic.
let's see that research.
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
you keep on assuming that the choices are a 500 million dollar project that is 80% govt financed or a 500 million dollar project that is 100% government financed.

You continue to ignore the other choices. not taking on the project in the first place or spending less than 500 million dollars if you do take on the project.

you are being very dumb to continue to ignore this.

and once again we agree that we won't get a purely private financed investment of this size. you wrap it up in your typical BS to obscure the simple fact that it's a bad investment.

but you want your fancy stadium because you are the special interest. so everyone else should have to pay for it because of flux green shoots backdrops. OK.

You said that this costs too much, the payoff takes too long and there's lots of uncertainty about the value of this investment.

I agree. That's why we shouldn't do it! But despite all those factors that we agree on, you think that people should be forced to pay for it a very expensive project with uncertain payoffs many years from now because ... why?

it's like you don't actually read what is being written. I never said the investment in the stadium is a good idea or should be done. I said rejecting it out of hand is short-sighted, which both you and Rubin seem to be doing, when there is evidence it could be economically additive and the money from the state is there for the taking never to be returned to your pocket again. You then went on indicating your belief that ppp investment is maoist and Chinese style. I am saying that regardless of whether ppp is used for a stadium or a toll road or a water facility etc, your take on it is totally wrong and from a taxpayer risk perspective you should prefer it to fully government funded projects. that is all I am saying. got it? or no
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
You don't understand. It's relative to flux and uncertain and uh de-risks.
here is one piece that is largely negative but highlights that the specifics of the project in question matter. The research shows that many stadiums fail to be economically additive but their are common characteristics of those that succeed. the individual characteristics matter when making investment decisions. It would be nice to get a feel for the assumptions going into the private support of the proposed stadium so people can have an informed take on whether or not it is in fact worth pursuing.

http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_cente...oehlerstadiumpubfunding-11-02-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2
 

OttoMets

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
20,259
Like
37,701
It may well be that a stadium in Syracuse is a bad investment of the state taxpayer money and the private equity contribution as well. I don't have the detailed numbers to make that judgment. But I think that the tact that Rubin and Millhouse both take is to just write off with a broad stroke stadium investment as a bad use of funding because there are some obvious examples of failure and because in the case of Rubin he'd rather see the money go to cultural institutions and with Millhouse he'd rather see the money go back into his tax refund check (good luck with that). The research I have read shows stadiums that have successfully driven associated economic development have been those that have been located downtown in areas where other investment is already ongoing, and where other similar entertainment options are limited. Syracuse passes that general test. Beyond that I have no idea whether its a good use of funds. Presumably the private money going in thinks the stadium will work. As for the state money, it will just go someplace else it won't go back into anyone's bank account. I don't think stadiums are the best use of taxpayer money in terms of long term development goals -but sometimes you take what you can get. It would be nice to know the math before rejecting it out of hand. That was the crux of my argument. But then Millhouse decided ppp/bot investment was communist and that requires a response because it's just idiotic.

It would help everyone to learn more specifics of the proposal at issue. I think that's rather dismissive of Rubin's take, though - I found it more nuanced and persuasive than you did. He cites alternatives in the form of contrasting Syracuse's state handout with those in two other Upstate cities.

This is speculative, but in a region that's auto-centric and has been, by and large, making the wrong planning decisions for a half-century, I believe that any stadium design would cut corners and have a chilling effect on adjacent development. Again, we'd need to learn specifics.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
here is one piece that is largely negative but highlights that the specifics of the project in question matter. The research shows that many stadiums fail to be economically additive but their are common characteristics of those that succeed. the individual characteristics matter when making investment decisions. It would be nice to get a feel for the assumptions going into the private support of the proposed stadium so people can have an informed take on whether or not it is in fact worth pursuing.

http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_cente...oehlerstadiumpubfunding-11-02-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2

that study isn't very good. you can't simply measure development around the stadium and assume that it didn't crowd out development elsewhere in the same city.

"Within in a year of Coors Field’s opening in 1995, housing units in LoDo doubled and there was also a significant growth in area restaurants and retail stores, which many say Coors Field had a large part in. " Oh, well, "many say"

"Both developers behind such projects and San Francisco city officials directly cite AT&T Park as a very important reason development occurred in the Mission Bay neighborhood. (Swift 2007; Gordon 2004) " again, no discussion of counter factual. (what and where would they build if the money hadn't been spent on the stadium)

If this is the research you actually read (vs just quickly googling, which i suspect is what happened), you need to read some better sources.

You say that I dismiss the project out of hand but that's not true. In other threads, plenty of us discussed the cash flow assumptions that would justify that kind of cost

It's hard to even justify the 100 million private investment without additional guarantees.

500 million, forget it. At a 10% discount rate (appropriate given flux derisk green shoot uncertainty, right?) over 30 years (conservative given that knuckleheads will want to build something else sooner than that) you're going to need 53 million a year of net benefits to break even.
 
Last edited:

OttoMets

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
20,259
Like
37,701
that study isn't very good. you can't simply measure development around the stadium and assume that it didn't crowd out development elsewhere in the same city.

"Within in a year of Coors Field’s opening in 1995, housing units in LoDo doubled and there was also a significant growth in area restaurants and retail stores, which many say Coors Field had a large part in. " Oh, well, "many say"

"Both developers behind such projects and San Francisco city officials directly cite AT&T Park as a very important reason development occurred in the Mission Bay neighborhood. (Swift 2007; Gordon 2004) " again, no discussion of counter factual.

If this is the research you actually read (vs just quickly googling, which i suspect is what happened), you need to read some better sources.

You say that I dismiss the project out of hand but that's not true. In other threads, plenty of us discussed the cash flow assumptions that would justify that kind of cost

It's hard to even justify the 100 million private investment without additional guarantees.

500 million, forget it. At a 10% discount rate (appropriate given flux derisk green shoot uncertainty, right?) over 30 years (conservative given that knuckleheads will want to build something else sooner than that) you're going to need 53 million a year of net benefits to break even.

That's a glaring blind spot in the paper, which I'm otherwise enjoying right now.

LoDo blew up from the late '90s through the present-day? Kind of like dozens of downtown-adjacent abandoned railroad neighborhoods around the country -- even though most of those neighborhoods didn't see any stadium construction.
 

cuseinchina

Starter
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
1,615
Like
1,141
that study isn't very good. you can't simply measure development around the stadium and assume that it didn't crowd out development elsewhere in the same city.

"Within in a year of Coors Field’s opening in 1995, housing units in LoDo doubled and there was also a significant growth in area restaurants and retail stores, which many say Coors Field had a large part in. " Oh, well, "many say"

"Both developers behind such projects and San Francisco city officials directly cite AT&T Park as a very important reason development occurred in the Mission Bay neighborhood. (Swift 2007; Gordon 2004) " again, no discussion of counter factual. (what and where would they build if the money hadn't been spent on the stadium)

If this is the research you actually read (vs just quickly googling, which i suspect is what happened), you need to read some better sources.

You say that I dismiss the project out of hand but that's not true. In other threads, plenty of us discussed the cash flow assumptions that would justify that kind of cost

It's hard to even justify the 100 million private investment without additional guarantees.

500 million, forget it. At a 10% discount rate (appropriate given flux derisk green shoot uncertainty, right?) over 30 years (conservative given that knuckleheads will want to build something else sooner than that) you're going to need 53 million a year of net benefits to break even.

It may be that a stadium is not economical in Syracuse, I don't know for sure. Again we would have to see the assumptions to know for sure. 10% discount rate is high given the public component (you are making something that is presumably a public good to be enjoyed by citizens) - typically the public component of a PPP project is discounted at the risk free rate and the 10 year is currently yielding 2.7%. Some government mandate a higher discount rate generally in the 5% range. the private component will be valued differently and will generally be based on concession rights with some minimum guarantee.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
27,525
Like
31,215
It may be that a stadium is not economical in Syracuse, I don't know for sure. Again we would have to see the assumptions to know for sure. 10% discount rate is high given the public component (you are making something that is presumably a public good to be enjoyed by citizens) - typically the public component of a PPP project is discounted at the risk free rate and the 10 year is currently yielding 2.7%. Some government mandate a higher discount rate generally in the 5% range. the private component will be valued differently and will generally be based on concession rights with some minimum guarantee.
making people pay for it that don't want to pay for it doesn't change the underlying risk of the project

but even if i used the risk free rate (to be clear, this is stupid because this project isn't risk free), you still need to come up with 24 million a year of net benefits
 

supp

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,245
Like
17,039
It may be that a stadium is not economical in Syracuse, I don't know for sure. Again we would have to see the assumptions to know for sure. 10% discount rate is high given the public component (you are making something that is presumably a public good to be enjoyed by citizens) - typically the public component of a PPP project is discounted at the risk free rate and the 10 year is currently yielding 2.7%. Some government mandate a higher discount rate generally in the 5% range. the private component will be valued differently and will generally be based on concession rights with some minimum guarantee.

At this point, I'd just like to hear one of the posters who ragged on Miner mercilessly for weeks admit that maybe she was right in demanding more info on the project before plowing ahead. If visionary means delusional, then give me stubborn, shortsighted b#tches (not my words but others posting on here) every day.
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
266
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
2
Views
777
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
483
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
5
Views
459
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
4
Views
415

Forum statistics

Threads
161,655
Messages
4,411,058
Members
5,670
Latest member
cusenj

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
478
Total visitors
606




Top Bottom