More “Facts” and “Figures” on the Soccer Stadium Deal
On page one of the “Fiscal and Economic Impact Major League Soccer Stadium Proposal Report” we read:
The City of San Jose is currently reviewing a request by the Oakland Athletics to develop a Major League Soccer Stadium for the San Jose Earthquakes as part of a new mixed-use development at the Airport West site. It is anticipated that the Stadium will be owned by the City and leased to the Oakland Athletics. While this arrangement will not generate property tax revenue to the City’s General Fund, the lessee will be required to pay possessory interest tax to the City.
QUESTION: Why are the Oakland A’s involved here? Again, why is the city inviting other parties into the deal if they will become the owners of the facility at the end of the process?
Supporters of the Soccer Stadium Project insist that no public funds will be used. But it’s really a question of semantics. City entitlements will generate significant value and worth that will be used as “currency” to generate a huge premium. The fact that “money” will never physically change hands, does not mean that significant values will not be created. If this huge premium will be produced by the city’s actions, shouldn’t the citizens have a say in where they want the generated value to be applied? And, doesn’t the San Jose City Council have an obligation to see that the greatest possible benefit to the public is achieved?
From the Major League Soccer website we read:
Major League Soccer is structured as a single, limited liability company (single-entity). In the single-entity business structure, club operators own a financial stake in the league, not just their individual team.
The MLS site lists a number of owners and owner groups, including the Hunt Family, the Kraft Family, and the Anschutz Entertainment Group. Given that the league is a single-entity business with partners that hold tremendous assets, why doesn’t the league underwrite the building of a new soccer stadium by themselves?
Hey Pete, you remember on the Gong Show when the 20-foot King Kong arm came out and yanked the dude off the stage?
#1: You’re right. An arm grasping at Pete would be more entertaining than Pete grasping at straws.
Mr. Campbell, tell me…how did the Bum Family (Flea Market) use their rezoning profits? Or better yet, tell me how all the other land owners in this city’s history have used their profits from rezoning industrial to residential. You can’t! But as soon as a sports facility becomes involved that doesn’t cost the public a dime, you express all of this civic outrage. Get real Mr. Campbell! Just cease your anti-soccer stadium nonsense and move on to some other topic like potholes.
A’s are involved because Lew Wolff owns both A’s and Earthquakes.
By the way all, go over to Ballpark Digest (http://www.ballparkwatch.com). There’s a good story today about how the Washington Nationals new ballpark is attracting capital to an area that was virtually ignored in DC for decades: new residences, shops, restaurants/cafes. Downtown San Jose/Diridon South anyone? It’s not to late all!
Great start…#1 and #2 ignore the subject and #3 changes the subject! Has anyone read (before today) that the Oakland A’s were a party to this project? I really do wonder what is wrong with getting ALL of the info out before any big decision is made.
Pete Campbell
“Why are the Oakland A’s involved here?”
I honestly struggled reading after that one. You’re single-handedly destroying SJI’s credibility.
Are you kidding? It appears that Mr. Campbell has been living on another planet for the past couple of years. The A’s have been involved in this since the very first word was spoken regarding a new soccer franchise and stadium in San Jose. The very fact that Pete Campbell did not know about this fact would seem to suggest that he really hasn’t enough knowledge of this project to be taken seriously. I think we are witnessing all credibility rapidly circling the drain. How is it possible that anyone who has read even one article in the Murky News does not know of the A’s/Quakes connection (as I shake my head in disbelief)?
Earthshaker #8:
Let’s review: Had a team. Lost the team, because Spartan Stadium doesn’t have seats with cupholders or luxury boxes. Team comes back, but won’t play in San Jose until a new stadium is built for them. City must grant entitlements to Earthquakes’ ownership to make deal work. Earthquakes offer to hand the city keys to the stadium at the end of the process. SJ Blogger asks why the owners of the MLS (with their significant resources) don’t underwrite the project themselves.
I’m a bit surprised that the questions that I have raised in the past two posts on this subject were not met with more substance. I believe that the same calculus that was applied to the Grand Prix decision (ie this will be great for the city…) is being applied here.
The owners are underwriting the project. Total tax money to be spent on this project: 0 dollars and 0 cents. Additionally, those owners are purchasing the FMC land from the city, relieving it of $7 million annual debt service costs, and giving a valuable asset to the city at no charge. And even though the city will own the stadium, it will not have to pay for its operation nor its upkeep.
Your posts are not met with substance because they contain no substance. Your surprise at the Oakland A’s connection shows your profound ignorance of whats going on. It is a mystery why the proprietors of this website provide a byline to someone so uninformed.
Mr Walther #9:
Please just answer one question for me..Who owns the Earthquakes, Mr. Wolff or the Oakland A’s? In the Mercury News’ recent article that announced that a deal was in place for Mr. Wolff and others to purchase the property on Coleman, there was no mention of the Oakland A’s. The city’s initial report says that the stadium will be leased to the Oakland A’s…(why isn’t it going to be leased to the San Jose Earthquakes?).
I wonder if any of the money that is generated through this deal will go towards building the ballpark in Fremont? (I don’t have the answer).
Pete campbell
The Earthquakes are owned by an ownership group led by Lewis Wolff and John Fisher. This same group owns the A’s, but they are separate organizations. The original contacts to the city regarding the soccer stadium came “from the A’s” because at the time the soccer franchise had not been granted by MLS, so the Earthquakes organization did not really exist, but it does now. There is no connection between the soccer stadium and the Fremont baseball stadium.
Maybe there should be a definition of “substance”. Clearly, no one, Lew Wolff, MLS, the San Jose Earthquakes, the city, or anyone else, is going to build any structure without there being a substantial chance of gain (monetary or otherwise). We also know that the city of San Jose cannot do it (for many reasons, including the need for a vote if the city spends it’s money directly for the facility). The city has effectively tied it’s own hands in this, for better or worse.
Spartan Stadium is a dump….one of the worst college football stadiums in existence. Yes, it provides a close view of the play, but that is the ONLY positive aspect of the facility. I mention this because of past suggestions that it is an adequate professional facility. It is not. Anyone who says that is wrong in their assessment of the facility.
Lew Wolff (who also owns the Oakland A’s…..apparently to the surprise of Pete Campbell) is a hotel owner and land developer. One of the top high end hotel owners in the country. However, his day job is developer….a developer with a long list of credentials in San Jose.
San Jose purchased a chunk of blighted land near the San Jose Airport, formerly a FMC factory. The city has paid about $7 million per year, for about a decade, to service the debt on the property. The city has apparently envisioned a hotel, plus other commercial development on the old FMC property. Over the course of a decade, I would ask how many developers have stepped forward to develop the type of facility wanted by the city? As far as I know, the answer is zero (I will happily stand corrected if another serious offer has been made over the course of a decade).
I don’t think there is any question that the city has given the store away to land developers during the past four or five decades. I doubt that many would argue that particular point. The city changed it’s rules. However, it must be acknowledged that the city did not prohibit the practice entirely. The rules still allow the rezoning if there is “extraordinary” benefit to the city. Perhaps we need to define “extraordinary” at the same time that we define “substance”.
I am not sure of exactly what it takes to please people like Mr. Campbell. My guess is that it is not possible to put forward any possible stadium proposal that would satisfy people like him. The city is going to sell the property in question at fair market value. Lew Wolff is guaranteeing that he will cover all costs of construction of the stadium, including overruns. He is willing to sign a long term tenant lease for the stadium. He is going to build the hotel and commercial structures envisioned by the city. In return, he asks for rezoning of 78 acres. The trade seems more than fair. If there is a competing proposal, let’s see it. If it doesn’t happen, I would ask Mr. Campbell how many $million should the city continue to spend on the airport west property before they just give it to someone?
Let’s hear some alternatives for the land.
As I understand it, the Oakland A’s partnership owns the San Jose Earthquakes. You would have to ask a lawyer about how such partnerships work. Included in that partnership is John Fisher who is a principal owner of The Gap stores, so I suppose one could ask if this money might help that business as well. I believe the news reports have identified the funding sources for the Fremont A’s stadium. That project was underway for some time prior to their interest in the Quakes.
Pete, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you demonstrate that you don’t know anything about the subject?
Please, if your only interest is in throwing mud on a sports stadium proposal, just come out and say it, don’t pretend that you are trying to “analyze” things. This topic is absurd and should be closed.
Mr. Campbell,
I don’t think the ownership of the team matters, if the Earthquakes were owned by Lew Wolfe, the Oakland A’s, eBay, the city of San Jose, or Mrs. Campbell you’d still oppose it. I think the stadium is a great deal for San Jose and not such a good deal for the Earthquakes.
Lloyd Danon
PS: pull your head out of the sand
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/11.08.06/alleys-0645.html
3. New residences, shops and cafes are going to open on Coleman? Where are they going to go? The site is sandwiched in between the airport and the railroad tracks. On the Santa Clara side of the tracks, most of the land is taken up by the university. The closest street to cross the tracks is Lafayette, so it seems to me that the most likely place to expect all of this expansion, if it does occur, would be the strip of El Camino west of Lafayette. It’s an area that could use some help, but the tax benefits would go to Santa Clara, not San Jose.
I happened to go by the Arena just before the Sharks game and I noticed many of the fans were bringing in their personal beverage selections, or consuming them in advance. So if the “mixed use development” included a liquor store, there could be fortunes made.
And if those drunken fans would go home on the train it would be an advantage too. Perhaps Caltrain could arrange special trains with bar cars.
The location does have some advantage with respect to rail traffic, as it’s where the East Bay line (where ACE and Amtrak run) joins with the Caltrain track to SF.
There’s a problem with increasing capacity on the East Bay line, though, because it’s single track through the wildlife refuge and it’s highly unlikely it could be expanded.
Allen Ginsberg wrote a poem about the old FMC site, “In back of the real”. I bet few English lit people get that he was making a pun on El Camino Real:
In back of the real / railroad yard in San Jose / I wandered desolate / in front of a tank factory / and sat on a bench / near the switchman’s shack.
A flower lay on the hay on / the asphalt highway / -the dread hay flower / I thought- It had a / brittle black stem and / corolla of yellowish dirty / spikes like Jesus’ inchlong / crown, and a soiled / dry center cotton tuft / like a used shaving brush / that’s been lying under the garage for a year.
Yellow, yellow flower, and / flower of industry, / tough spiky ugly flower, / flower nonetheless, / with the form of the great yellow / Rose in your brain! / This is the flower of the World.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the City is to take ownership of the facility, doesn’t this require a vote in a general election?
#13 Pete asks: “I wonder if any of the money that is generated through this deal will go towards building the ballpark in Fremont? (I don’t have the answer).”
Hey Pete, while you’re at it why not ask “I wonder if any of the money is being diverted to Al Qadea? (I don’t have the answer to that either but groundless and irresponsible speculation sure is a lot of fun.)”
RIPer, you are wrong. San Jose law triggers a public vote only if tax money is used to fund a sports venue. Total tax money funding this project: 0 dollars and 0 cents.
Again, Pete, you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding. It was not the absence of cup holders or luxury boxes at Spartan. It was the fact that the Quakes paid a steep rent on the place, and received little in parking and concessions. They could not be profitable there. They could have averaged 5,000 more fans and still would have lost money.
Just like the Sharks need to have operational control at HP Pavillion, the soccer team will need operational control over their stadium. However, the difference with the soccer stadium will be that any maintainance and improvements costs would be born by the Quakes, and not the city.
Building a soccer stadium is a bad idea…People enjoy PLAYING soccer but most are bored when watching it…
#18 RIPavillion writes, “Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the City is to take ownership of the facility, doesn’t this require a vote in a general election?”
I believe you are wrong. The think the law says that any sports arena that seats over 5,000 that city money is used to help build requires a vote.
It doesn’t say, “the city will hold an election and ask the voters whether or not the city should accept a free stadium that won’t cost them a penny to build, operate, or maintain”.
#18- RIPavilion: I don’t believe the ultimate ownership is an issue regarding a vote, one way or another. The issue is that San Jose arguably already has the most restrictive stadium finance laws in existence, requiring a vote if more than $5,000.00 of city money is used to construct a stadium. The city has also restricted the rezoning of industrial land, requiring “extraordinary” benefits in order have industrial land rezoned.
It seems to me (and this is purely opinion) that Wolff read the rules and put together a proposal that fits into the narrow window that is left open. I believe there exists a certain number of people who view the remaining window of opportunity as too large.
#13 writes:
“the original contacts to the city regarding the soccer stadium came “from the A’s” because at the time the soccer franchise had not been granted by MLS, so the organization did not really exist.”
From City Council Agenda, March 11,08…(4.4) we read, “On June 12, 2007 the San Jose City Council entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Fisher, Wolff, Storm & Hunter Partners. The (MOU) was established to explore the development of Airport West (the Former FMC site), including the construction of a soccer stadium, and the possible conversion of the Istar property…” (p.6)
Further, my reference (“It is anticipated that the stadium will be owned by the City and leased to the Oakland Athletics.”) comes from a report dated Feb 14,2008, that was accepted by the council at the March 11,08 council meeting. Indeed, the franchise had already been re-established many months before!
Pete Campbell
In early 2006, Lew Wolff and the A’s partnership acquired an option to restart the franchise(I think I have the correct date)by 2010, provided a suitable stadium could be built. This is being stated like it is some sort of covered up information. That information was printed in the SJMN, San Jose Metro, The Chronicle, any number of local media outlets, and it was announced by Major League Soccer (as well as posted on their website). Not to split hairs (although some mighty thin ones are seemingly being split by Mr. Campbell), but an option is not a purchase. The partnership had the exclusive authority to start a team by 2010, provided the conditions for a stadium were met.
MLS allowed the team to start again based on the fact that Wolff and partners put together a proposal that met the letter of the law in San Jose and AFTER the preliminary council and staff recommendations. If there have been any “backroom” deals, I invite someone to provide the evidence (as has already by requested by this article’s author….let’s see something of substance, not conjecture).
At this point in time, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Earthquakes will remain in San Jose. That will happen only when an actual stadium deal is finalized. This is not yet a done deal.
I agree with #1 and #2. We get it, Pete, you don’t want the soccer stadium. We also get it- you don’t understand that the A’s and Earthquakes have ownership in common. I think that you are quite possibly the only person in San Jose who was unaware of that connection.
A soccer stadium would be an asset to this city. this is a fantastic deal for San Jose and would help to more folks, fans, and visitors to San Jose.
I am scratching my head wondering why in the world you’ve been given a column on this blog. I agree also with #3, I’d rather read a cataloged list of every pot holes that needs to be filled on your drive to and from work, the elks lodge, and to your chiropractors then see you try to manufacture another “indignant citizen” argument against this stadium.
Pete, have you been living in a cave somewhere the last 2 1/2 years? The A’s interest in, and then eventual ownership of the team been common knowledge to anybody that has bothered to pick up the newspaper and read one of the many articles written about the return of the Earthquakes since Dec. 2005.
Or, have you bothered to peruse any of the city council agendas and the subsequent reports, memorandums, etc., etc., that have been published in that time?
And you seem to think this wealth that would be created by the rezoning should be up for grabs to be used as the city desires. Think about that Pete. What would be the incentive for a developer to turn over to the city all the profits they would make from such entitlements? Have you ever heard of a developer, or anybody, doing that? This process has to have a benefit for both parties.
#25 Pete: Have you tried contacting any of the city staff who prepared the report to ask them your questions about the A’s involvement?
That would be the logical, if not ethical, first step before writing a blog questioning the propriety of the stadium proposal.
But then again, bloggers are not journalists. Or are they?
To continue the education of Mr. Campbell…
Fisher, Wolff, Storm & Hunter Partners is a legal entity established by those guys for the purpose of developing the former FMC site. Storm and Hunter are other developers who will partner in buying and developing that blighted property.
Are you alarmed by the fact that it’s not “the Earthquakes” who are building and operating hotels, retail, and so forth on the rest of Airport West? That’s not the business they’re in.
P.S. Why do I think angle number 14 Pete conjures up next will be no more substantive, informed, and convincing than the first 13 he’s tried?
#29 RIPavillion. More like “invent a hot-button issue”. Pete could start the “I Don’t Know What the Hell I am Talking About Grasping at Straws Coalition”.
Pete – seems to me that rather than arguing the issue in this forum, if you want to stop the stadium, find a hot-button issue, put it on a petition, and force the issue to a ballot in a general election (where the issue is sure to be defeated).
Time out! Now I know why sports events get so heated and people get hurt! Lighten up on the personal attacks guys and stay focused on the topic. Everyone has their own good points on this issue. I’m trying to educate myself on something I know nothing about, but you’re making it pretty difficult with all the personal bashing. If this issue comes to Council, or to a City wide vote I’d like to be well informed, and I’m sure others reading this would too. So bench the anger and get in the game as a team. Tell me the facts!
If you want to stop this stadium then propose that it be called the “Saigon Sports Stadium”. Now you will get individuals from around the state, and country, protesting it. Some will go on a hunger strike to prevent it.
Hey, People! I get it that many of you (most of the people who posted on this blog) disagree with Mr. Campbell – I myself sit on the fence about this. I can see both sides. But that does not mean you have to attack Pete Campbell for his opinion. You can disagree, you can debate his points vs. your own, but you do not have to engage in personal attacks.
By the way – a question. Has the City done an economic report that tells how much revenue, to the City, surrounding businesses, and the community this stadium will generate? Someone commented on the new National’s Ballpark in DC. Well, this is Soccer not Baseball, and unfortunately, soccer does not have the fanbase that baseball has. At least not yet. So those are my questions.
We aren’t attacking him for his opinion, we are attacking him for his ignorance. His sudden shock upon discovering the connection between the Earthquakes and the A’s demonstrates that he has no idea what is going on with this issue.
As for your question, yes, there was an economic impact report that the City Council accepted a little while ago. I believe that Pete is quoting from it in the beginning of his post.
#34 – Go quakes –
Why attack him? I understand pointing out the obvious, but maybe he is speaking from a strickly business point of view – all parties, especially in government (sunshine and all) need to be at the table. Yes, Wolff owns both the Quakes and the A’s, and it doesn’t suprise me that the A’s are involved – probably to finance the deal or something – but have they been mentioned before now?
Thank you for the answer regarding the City’s economic study. I understand, if my memory is correct, that Mr. Wolff is footing the cost for construction of the stadium. Are we saying that the City contribues absolutely nothing to this? Just the required construction and building permits? I just want to make sure all the information is on the table up front.
The city’s involvement involves rezoning a parcel of land in the Edenvale area from industrial to residential. This would increase the value of the land an estimated $80 million. Wolff would then sell that land to a housing developer to realize that money and use the entirety of his profits to build the stadium. To make up for the loss of potential industrial capacity (there has never actually been industry there; it is an abandoned orchard) nearby industrial zones would be allowed to increase their industrial density.
The city will have ownership of the stadium, but Wolff’s ownership group will be responsible for all costs, including any construction overruns, ongoing maintenance, and operations, for the length of the lease, which I think is 55 years. Even if MLS folds, which it won’t, Wolff & Co. will be on the hook for these ongoing costs.
The land purchase at the Airport West site, and the other development outside the stadium, is completely private by Wolff and his partners. This will create the hotel and retail development that the city envisioned when it purchased the property, and it relieves the city of the $7 million annual debt payments it has been making since that purchase.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls:
Lew Wolff is an entity…Lew Wolff and his Partners are an entity…the Oakland Athletics are an entity…and the San Jose Earthquakes are an entity. Again, the Mercury News article (two weeks ago) made no mention of the Oakland Athletics.
With regard to the questions concerning a vote of the people…as I understand it, this issue will not go to a vote because the city ordinance requiring voter approval for stadiums speaks to the use of public “money.” In this scenario, “value” in the form of entitlements will be changing hands, not “money.” (perhaps in a perfect world, the spirit of the ordinance would be honored, and the people would get to vote).
Finally, when you take a shot at someone’s position, but don’t have the nerve to leave your name, it’s not really a shot, is it?
Pete Campbell
#37- Pete, “Finally, when you take a shot at someone’s position, but don’t have the nerve to leave your name, it’s not really a shot, is it?”
I believe that is called a “Sucker Punch!”
This was the city staff report from October that overviews the whole deal.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/CED/102207/CED102207_h.pdf
And here is the CED report from April 28th the deal mostly with Airport West.
Why is it fair to attack Pete? Because he’s blogging with a political agenda and he’s pretty dense and not very good at it.
All the information is there on city websites. You think if given this forum he’d at least try to be better informed.
More Voodoo economic benefits like Grand Prix
Soccer fans need to subtract millions lost from stadium benefits for
– iStar lost jobs and millions sales taxes when iStar’s planned 1/2 million feet retail stores planned to serve new homes in surrounding retail short area are converted to homes
– millions in new city service costs for new homes which increases San Jose’s budget deficit
– and not count non stadium land development since they would of been built anyway at FMC
If all Council and staff promised benefits from insider deals were real we would have millions in surpluses not deficits
Voodoo, fortunately the City Council was presented with an independent economic analysis that took into consideration all of those factors. It’s the one Pete’s been quoting and can be found here:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/CED/022508/CEDC022508_4datt1.pdf
That report, which was unanimously approved by the City Council in February, showed that Wolff’s proposal yields a net benefit to the city’s revenues of more than $4 million per year—even accounting for everything you mentioned. (It’s Scenario C in the report, and you’ll find the numbers on page 5.) So you’re really building a straw man. “Soccer fans” are already not counting the three items you identified, and still this project brings millions of dollars annually to the city.
#39
Thank you. I am glad that someone else understands what is actually occurring when supporters of something start talking about the economic benefit of that something. It does not matter what the project is, stadium, Grand Prix, San Jose International, Reid-Hillview, etc., the same voodoo economics is always used to justify it.
What is voodoo economics? It is the use of indirect and induced revenue to justify a project, versus the direct revenue. When voodoo economics is invoked, the overwhelmingly majority of the time, the direct revenue portion, which is measurable and verifiable, is very small, but the induced and indirect revenue, which is not measurable, is very large.
The reason why induced and indirect revenue figures are voodoo is that they are just a guess, and an estimate. Of course, in real life there is some induced and indirect revenue. However, and this is the point lost on supporters of any project, anything will have induced and indirect revenue.
So, for decision making purposes, induced and indirect revenue must be ignored, and the decision based on the direct revenue. This is because direct revenue is measurable and verifiable, versus the voodoo figures, which are simply the result of somebody’s overactive, optimistic imagination.
Do not let any politician get away with touting the “economic benefits” of anything if they are just using induced and indirect revenue projections. Make sure that the direct revenue portion is stated, and let everyone know that the politician using the induced and indirect figures is either incompetent, or, more likely, corrupt.
#39 One has to ask “when” the iStar property would have been developed, if ever. Quite likely that the land would sit vacant for an extended period of time. Is the land zoned for retail or industrial? I am still a little fuzzy on that issue. Wolff is including a provision to shift the potential jobs (the real issue) to a nearby parcel of land.
If the time is an issue at iStar, it is worse at airport west. The city has already dumped over $70 Million into the old FMC site (as debt service) over the past decade, with no offers from anyone to develop what is legally a blighted piece of land. The fact that it contained toxic waste has not helped. Wolff is offering fair market value to purchase it and the overall development includes much more than the stadium (the stadium will occupy only a small portion of the property). It is not clear that the FMC site “would be developed anyway”….no such evidence exists.
#39 – I would not disagree with you regarding the vague nature of the “voodoo” economics mentioned. That being said, it is more than clear that “events” which bring people into a city to spend money should have a positive impact on the local economy. If the impact is negative, it is not the responsibility of the event itself or of the venue where the event happens. It is a failure people to manage it. Any of the events mentioned brought extra revenue to the city. The fact that these events were inadequately managed is no reason to quit having them. Conveniently left out is the arena, a facility that most closely resembles the stadium. Of course, it must be mentioned that the arena is managed by the private sector and they don’t seem to have the same kind of problems that are seen when the city gets directly involved. I believe there was a substantial amount of “voodoo” economics used to support the arena construction…..and if anything, the financial impact on the city was understated.
None of the opponents seem willing to even approach the subject of the value of the airport west property, the money currently spent by the city to service the debt on that property or the direct city revenue that will be produced there. Those numbers are very real and are very much a part of this discussion. If this deal were to not happen, the city would continue to spend $7 Million per year for debt service, would likely continue to be unable to sell the property at fair market value (Wolff is offering $132 Million) and would continue to not have the airport west property returning hotel tax money (real money, not “voodoo”), not to mention other direct city revenues from the additional commercial development on the property. All of this is in addition to any money directly from the stadium (Wolff is offering to enter into a long term lease agreement for the stadium and cover the operating costs of the facility).
Does this offset, then produce positive revenue in comparison to the iStar rezoning? That is the question, and it is the ONLY question. It’s highly doubtful the detractors can produce real numbers (without using their own version of “voodoo”) to refute this.
Economic benefit analysis is not what local governments do well. They’re good at holding public input meetings, hiring police and firemen, opening community centers, and so on. But they’re really bad at creating accurate forecasts.
Part of the reason is that no one loses their job or gets demoted for a bad forecast. But people can lose their jobs for failing to support a popular project.
So local government forecasts (even “independent” ones) are good at supporting popular projects, and bad at being accurate.
Greg, the fiscal and economic impact analysis done by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. was studied and dissected by the City Council. In the end, it was approved unanimously. There seem to be no real objections to the methodology or assumptions.
I’ll grant you that no economic projection is ever exactly right. They’re best guesses based on analysis. But can we say whether this one’s too high or too low?
Those of you who believe no public money will be spent on this will probably be interested in a proposal from a Nigerian friend of mine.
Those of you who think just because an economic benefits report was approved by the Council probably forget this is the same Council that has approved other pie-in-the-sky economic benefits reports. The Grand Prix is just one fiasco and there are others. These folks are not exactly economics experts. Do you really feel comfortable having Campos, Pyle, Constant, etc. making these decisions??
Report after report from the Economic Development Department tout the millions and millions of dollars everything they touch will bring to the city—yet we still can’t fund basic city services. And now a soccer stadium is going to come to our rescue.
Oh, BTW, my Nigerian friend is promising an even better return than the soccer stadium—and no public funds are required.
This subject is buried so deep that it is doubtful anyone is paying attention any longer, but I will post something.
I need to remind people that, as of yet, no one has bothered to construct any realistic set of numbers to support the argument that the city is going to be on the hook for putting public money into this entire proposal. The iStar property is connected at the hip to the airport west property in this. I am happy to see anyone’s legitimate study that shows the economic impact of the ENTIRE proposal. If you are going to include only the cost of services at the Edenvale property and not include even the most conservative numbers for revenue (both the income and the reduction of expenses) at airport west, don’t waste your time….that is not a valid view of the proposal. Let’s see something more than “they can’t do it right”.