New 49ers park would bring in $250M per year

[fabie]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/04/05/niners.stadium.ap/index.html

Potential boon for the community

Study: New 49ers park would bring in $250M per year

Posted: Thursday April 5, 2007 9:23PM; Updated: Thursday April 5, 2007 9:23PM

SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) -- A new stadium for the 49ers football team would create more than 2,200 jobs and generate $249 million each year in new economic activity in Santa Clara County, according to an economic impact study commissioned by the team.

The 49ers called the numbers a "conservative" view of the boost that a 68,000-seat stadium would give to the city of Santa Clara, about 45 miles south of San Francisco, and the surrounding areas.

The report released Wednesday was prepared by the consulting firm Conventions, Sports & Leisure International in Wayzata, Minn. It comes as the 49ers are expected to ask the Santa Clara city council this month to invest about $180 million in public money to help pay for the new facility.
But some economists cautioned the city against expecting a windfall from a new stadium, saying that sports stadium supporters often overestimate the benefits of such an endeavor while underestimating the costs. They also said the report was lacking in key details including local costs such as road wear and car accidents, and information on how many of the jobs would be full- or part-time.



------------end of excerpt-----------------

[Giedi]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/04/05/niners.stadium.ap/index.html

Potential boon for the community

Study: New 49ers park would bring in $250M per year

Posted: Thursday April 5, 2007 9:23PM; Updated: Thursday April 5, 2007 9:23PM

SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) -- A new stadium for the 49ers football team would create more than 2,200 jobs and generate $249 million each year in new economic activity in Santa Clara County, according to an economic impact study commissioned by the team.

The 49ers called the numbers a "conservative" view of the boost that a 68,000-seat stadium would give to the city of Santa Clara, about 45 miles south of San Francisco, and the surrounding areas.

The report released Wednesday was prepared by the consulting firm Conventions, Sports & Leisure International in Wayzata, Minn. It comes as the 49ers are expected to ask the Santa Clara city council this month to invest about $180 million in public money to help pay for the new facility.
But some economists cautioned the city against expecting a windfall from a new stadium, saying that sports stadium supporters often overestimate the benefits of such an endeavor while underestimating the costs. They also said the report was lacking in key details including local costs such as road wear and car accidents, and information on how many of the jobs would be full- or part-time.



------------end of excerpt-----------------

There would be definitely a benefit to the community in either place. Santa Clara or San Francisco. I think though the citizens will get more bang for their buck in investing at the San Francisco site.

I'm not going to rehash old arguments but I think the fact that San Francisco owns the land rights to a portion of the area where the Santa Clara site sits is a huge leverage point. That and that Nancy Pelosi is the 2nd most powerful woman in the world (speaker of the house) who can tell the military what to do with their toxic dumps. I have hopes the stadium will be located in San Francisco.

Having said that - ultimately I just want a new stadium. Candlestink Point is just getting too old.

Giedi

[ArmofJustice]

Just a note on this type of study.

For every study saying the city earns money there is another proving it doesn't. This topic has actually been debated for a long time in the economic field and there just isn't any hard evidence one way or another. However, it is easy to get a study to say what you want for this type of scenario.

The one type of study I have seen that tends to be more accurate is "quality of living". Pretty much every study done like that indicates that people would actually pay slightly higher taxes for a team that they believe increases their quality of life. Even if people don't go to the games, there is a pride associated with having a winning team in your area.

[Nilsen31]

how about it brings me 250 mil?

[TheWiz]

There would be definitely a benefit to the community in either place. Santa Clara or San Francisco. I think though the citizens will get more bang for their buck in investing at the San Francisco site.

I'm not going to rehash old arguments but I think the fact that San Francisco owns the land rights to a portion of the area where the Santa Clara site sits is a huge leverage point. That and that Nancy Pelosi is the 2nd most powerful woman in the world (speaker of the house) who can tell the military what to do with their toxic dumps. I have hopes the stadium will be located in San Francisco.

Having said that - ultimately I just want a new stadium. Candlestink Point is just getting too old.

Giedi

I will respectfully disagree Geidi. First of all, citizens will get less bang for their buck in San Francisco. Even if we build on huinter's point in the idyllic and highly improbable current city proposal, it won't be an economic boon to the city. We won't provide much more of an income increase as opposed to our current site. Not to mention we'd largely be replacing currently run-down and substandards housing with modern housing and a minimum of new businesses. We wouldn't turn open land into productive land, we'd only move our production location, help rebuild bad housing, and create a minor boost to that specific zone's image and economy.

In Santa Clara we will be bringing new stadium revenue, a venue for many more events, developing new land for housing as opposed to rebuilding old housing, and our economic impact would be huge. No one would be overly excited about a new stadium inside of San Francisco. A new stadium in Santa Clara is enough to draw huge local support while the big city seem to yawn over our impact. San Francisco tends to loose close to 200M in impact if we move, that is what has the embattled mayor sweating late at nights, not our potential positive impact.

Just a note on this type of study.

For every study saying the city earns money there is another proving it doesn't. This topic has actually been debated for a long time in the economic field and there just isn't any hard evidence one way or another. However, it is easy to get a study to say what you want for this type of scenario.

The one type of study I have seen that tends to be more accurate is "quality of living". Pretty much every study done like that indicates that people would actually pay slightly higher taxes for a team that they believe increases their quality of life. Even if people don't go to the games, there is a pride associated with having a winning team in your area.

I'm aware of the studies you refer to but you need to take them into consideration. Does a stadium improve quality of life? Why NOT? It brings millions in revenue each sports season into the local economy. That is money that becomes taxes that becomes school and social program spending. Not to mention it also houses alternative sporting events, concerts, and exhibitions. These create more revenue. Then you also need to consider that a stadium provides an average citizen with that wide variety of entertainment! Sure an adventure park is nice and a convention center but how about large open air concerts, football, and soccer games! It also helps gives your teenager a part time job at the stadium or working at a local business that needs more work to handle the stadium's tourism influx each week. Is it a quality of life boost? If you consider more money and jobs for businesses, more cash for the municipality to spend, and more name recognition for the city, then YES!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to address some of the counterpoints that articles on the topic have proposed...

#1) Economic Drift

This is the concept that you aren't really earning more money for the local economy but just stealing it from current sources. Firstly, over 90% of season ticket holders and regular holders are not from Santa Clara. So they will come into a region, attend games, go to local retailers and restaurants, and leave. Since they wouldn't be in Santa Clara spending cash regularly, a simple argument exists that without the stadium such people would regularly not enter the Santa Clara region. Overall the claim that the team is not proecting new money but rather 'shifted' money is weak. At most about 15% of the income will dissolcve with economic drift from regular local spenders.

#2) Over Estimation

The idea that the team over-indulged its prospect is ludicrous. First of all, the report is directly conservative. It projects 8 games per year and only half a dozen big alternative events. Not to mention a possibly 9th or 10th postseason game, many more events, and a Superbowl berth. A Superbowl alone will draw a packed stadium, packed hotels, a week or packed restaurants and in general, a few tens of millions of business revenue itself. The commisioner himself likes the site so much it's nearly a lock for at least 2
Superbowls in the '12-'27 stretch. Also, there was a serious underestimation of alternative events. The stadium itself could easily be a big attraction for summer music festivals and local trade shows. So to think we stacked the report with overly zealous prognostications is a complete falsehood. If anything the team gave a serious and unbloated direct impact while also downplaying very lucrative outside sources.

#3) Fringe Economic Impact

So let's get down and dirty. Last time I checked, building a structure would be the responsibility of the builders and not the stadium. If a local housing development came in over budget it means the developer earned less, not the city. Unless of course the city of Santa Clara insures all builders that it will cover over-budget costs. If we build a stadium which includes a financial package saying how much the city gives us at what times and in what form. If we go overbudget that's the proble of the owner and his responsibility. To think we'd pin the costs on the city is a joke.

Secondly, if any costs are predictable they are road costs.When a final architecturial plan is drawn up and approved, utility needs will be formalized. So at that point the city will know what roads to tear up to build the needed resource lines and how long it will take. These changes will be done before anything else, you can't pour a foundation without the underground lines in place. If anything is likely it's for material and structure costs to go overbudget, not infrastructure costs. If infrastructure costs come in too steep the city can blame the ineptitude of the workers and civil engineers, not the team.

#4) Employment Impact

If you want to throw stones, this is the weakest object to throw at. So thwe team failed to delineate between part time and full time jobs. Only a economic ***** would fail to make the distinction. Not to mention the economic impact difference. The team will not be paying large wages to employees, part-time or not. Even if we employed them all full-time, the local economic impact is minimal. A full time field groomer, burger-flipper, or seat washer is not going to be a big impact economically, the city would arguing over a few tens of thousand of dollars.

The divider is much wider than part or full time. It comes down to individual impact. It will emply young adults and teens. Part time or full it still spills more cash into the hands of teens and young adults. More than anyone they're more expected to inject the money back into the local economy.

#5) Social Impact

What cannot be quantified is the actual social impact on the city. That is not measured in dollars and cents. Team members visiting local schools. Players dropping by a local business after practice. How about players devoting more of their own personal charities' money towards local youths? Not to mention the team donating money into local causes.

I reead one quote from a mother asking why they don't just funnel the electrical utility cash into education. Well, last time I checked, an extra 13M per year in tax money can be put towards education costs. Based upon previously published results, the city can even offer a 5M credit to residents to repay the potential $5/month electrical bill increase, costing citizens nothing, and still have 8M to spend on education, traffic school, and improving the electrical grid.

I found the car accident impact claim the funniest. If you really think that your local drivers are so stupid that they will cause accidents that drain cash from the local economy, it shouldn't take a stadium to make you acknowledge it! If the local drivers are that inept then you'd better spend cash in drivers ed courses, road signs, and more police patrols for traffic regulation. To actually claim "We will lose a significant amount of local economy cash because people will smash into each other and spend money on cars and not small ticket retail items because of 2 road detours" is equivalent to saying "We're just complete idiots. No doubt about it." It would take an increase of hundreds of car crashes to actually cause a measurable, negative local economy impact. Not to mention that the road impact will be minimal. If people can't read a sign and turn accordingly while obeying basic traffic laws then Santa Clara really does need a LOT more in education spending.

[ninerswin]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/04/05/niners.stadium.ap/index.html

Potential boon for the community

Study: New 49ers park would bring in $250M per year

Posted: Thursday April 5, 2007 9:23PM; Updated: Thursday April 5, 2007 9:23PM

SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) -- A new stadium for the 49ers football team would create more than 2,200 jobs and generate $249 million each year in new economic activity in Santa Clara County, according to an economic impact study commissioned by the team.

The 49ers called the numbers a "conservative" view of the boost that a 68,000-seat stadium would give to the city of Santa Clara, about 45 miles south of San Francisco, and the surrounding areas.


------------end of excerpt-----------------
I'd be thrilled to have a brand new stadium so close to where I live and work. The last time I tried to go to a game at Candlestick, it took me several hours of fighting traffic just to get to the parking lot. In Santa Clara, it would probably take me 15 minutes. I'd be able to go to a lot more games. Maybe even take my baby daughter to some games so she can grow up a niner fan. I think having 100,000 fans converge on Santa Clara every week would do wonders for the local economy. I am south of the stadium, so fortunately the additional traffic wouldn't affect me at all even during the Monday night games.