Thursday, October 11, 2007
You Don't Say?
This article from today's Edmonton Journal reinforces much of what has already been said on this site. It's therefore a good read. Joking aside, I'm glad to see Ruttan isn't letting the mayor of the hook about the downtown site and the "feasibility" committee, despite his attempt to wiggle away from it all yesterday. She piles it right back onto his shoulders:
I could (and probably should) go back into the old Journal editorials and find choice quotes from columnists who claimed, without a shred of hard evidence, that new sporting facilities were creating major economic benefits for American cities. But I'll just let it slide for today. I've labelled all the arena posts, so the stories, and the quotes, are there for anyone who wants to go digging.
***Interesting, sort of related side-note: the new New York Yankees stadium, which will open in 2009, will actually have less seating within it than the current Yankees stadium.
***MATT UPDATE: Andrew Coyne's National Post column from Saturday seems on point here:
All of economics is devoted to the proposition that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All of politics is devoted to the opposite conviction. All economics teaches that you can’t get something for nothing. All politics supposes that you can -- or that you can at least persuade other people that you can. Economics is about scarcity, universal and inescapable. Politics is about limitless plenty.
Consider that 98% of all bad policy amounts to nothing more than ignoring opportunity costs: the simple axiom that the cost of something is measured not just by the actual sum of money used to produce it, but what the same funds might have purchased, diverted to another end -- the profits forgone, the jobs not created, because that money was spent in one way and not another.
Labels: New Arena
# posted by andy grabia @ 9:58 am 
Comments:
I don't know. Dan Mason disagrees and he does have a degree in gym.
Dan Mason is my prof in the Business of Hockey class.
He's very well informed, and knows much more about this issue than anyone of us on the Oilogosphere.
He didn't outright say arena's/stadium's make economic sense. Heck, if you read his most recent articles on stadiums across Canada, he's completely against taxpayers funds for it.
I would say that's a technically accurate but completely farcical summary of his views. Massive tax funding for an arena? Dan wouldn't dream of it! Massive tax funding of a "development project" that happens to include an arena? Great idea!
He's very well informed, and knows much more about this issue than anyone of us on the Oilogosphere.
Can you prove that? His CV says he has three degrees in Physical Education. I see no degrees in Law, Political Science, Economics, or Business. That's not entirely relevant, obviously, but are you positive that the collective intelligence of the people who read, write and comment on these sites isn't at least as developed as his? I know many of the people who comment on this site personally, and their knowledge and intelligence intimidates the hell out of me.
In reading the link Cosh provided, I see an inconsistency within the first paragraph:
Point A: “All NHL arenas in Canada built since 1995 have been 100 percent privately funded,”
Point B: Cities are entering into agreements with the team, team owners and developers to build arenas with guarantees for a certain degree of local development around the facility that includes recreational, cultural, commercial, and residential components to generate sufficient tax revenues to offset the public’s investment in the facility.
Well which is it? I thought they were all privately funded?
Putting aside the inconsistency, I don't even believe Point A. What about the hidden costs to building these arenas? Land subsidies, operational subsidies, infrastructure subsidies, forgone property taxes, etc, etc. Is that included in the determination that all those new arenas have been privately built?
That would mean an arena in the middle of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Our own corrupt mayor had his friends build an arena on the outskirts of downtown Victoria (in the heart of Crack Alley) that was so far behind schedule the city had to threaten to keep the performance bond put up by the builder. On the night it "opened" (a Rod Stewart concert) half the seats weren't even in place. Another magnificent example of politicans shovelling contracts to their pals, who are subsequently held hostage by unions, rising material prices, and a complete lack of ethics.
Can you prove that? His CV says he has three degrees in Physical Education. I see no degrees in Law, Political Science, Economics, or Business. That's not entirely relevant, obviously, but are you positive that the collective intelligence of the people who read, write and comment on these sites isn't at least as developed as his? I know many of the people who comment on this site personally, and their knowledge and intelligence intimidates the hell out of me.
___________
As I mentioned, I'm in his class for the Business of Hockey. He comes across as a very intelligent guy.
He's just not a ''gym'' teacher as mc79 put it. This is what he does in his profession - his specialization is sport;management;hockey;agents
.
He's written numerous reports and journals regarding the business aspect of the NHL (Revenue sharing, league product, league as monopoly or cartel, etc). According to this site, he's written 18 journals according to this site:
http://www.getcited.org/mbrx/PT/1/MBR/11055807
Have a look at them.
Now, whether a new arena would economically benefit the city - that's up to debate. He presented his side, and you have your view. I just felt the need of defending him on the "He's just a gym teacher," because he is far more than that.
Although that's not the first time Mc79 has demonstrated that he needs to get off his high horse.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I don't know. Dan Mason disagrees and he does have a degree in gym.
# posted by 
: October 11, 2007 10:46 am
: October 11, 2007 10:46 am 
Dan Mason is my prof in the Business of Hockey class.
He's very well informed, and knows much more about this issue than anyone of us on the Oilogosphere.
He didn't outright say arena's/stadium's make economic sense. Heck, if you read his most recent articles on stadiums across Canada, he's completely against taxpayers funds for it.
I would say that's a technically accurate but completely farcical summary of his views. Massive tax funding for an arena? Dan wouldn't dream of it! Massive tax funding of a "development project" that happens to include an arena? Great idea!
He's very well informed, and knows much more about this issue than anyone of us on the Oilogosphere.
Can you prove that? His CV says he has three degrees in Physical Education. I see no degrees in Law, Political Science, Economics, or Business. That's not entirely relevant, obviously, but are you positive that the collective intelligence of the people who read, write and comment on these sites isn't at least as developed as his? I know many of the people who comment on this site personally, and their knowledge and intelligence intimidates the hell out of me.
In reading the link Cosh provided, I see an inconsistency within the first paragraph:
Point A: “All NHL arenas in Canada built since 1995 have been 100 percent privately funded,”
Point B: Cities are entering into agreements with the team, team owners and developers to build arenas with guarantees for a certain degree of local development around the facility that includes recreational, cultural, commercial, and residential components to generate sufficient tax revenues to offset the public’s investment in the facility.
Well which is it? I thought they were all privately funded?
Putting aside the inconsistency, I don't even believe Point A. What about the hidden costs to building these arenas? Land subsidies, operational subsidies, infrastructure subsidies, forgone property taxes, etc, etc. Is that included in the determination that all those new arenas have been privately built?
That would mean an arena in the middle of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Our own corrupt mayor had his friends build an arena on the outskirts of downtown Victoria (in the heart of Crack Alley) that was so far behind schedule the city had to threaten to keep the performance bond put up by the builder. On the night it "opened" (a Rod Stewart concert) half the seats weren't even in place. Another magnificent example of politicans shovelling contracts to their pals, who are subsequently held hostage by unions, rising material prices, and a complete lack of ethics.
Can you prove that? His CV says he has three degrees in Physical Education. I see no degrees in Law, Political Science, Economics, or Business. That's not entirely relevant, obviously, but are you positive that the collective intelligence of the people who read, write and comment on these sites isn't at least as developed as his? I know many of the people who comment on this site personally, and their knowledge and intelligence intimidates the hell out of me.
___________
As I mentioned, I'm in his class for the Business of Hockey. He comes across as a very intelligent guy.
He's just not a ''gym'' teacher as mc79 put it. This is what he does in his profession - his specialization is sport;management;hockey;agents
.
He's written numerous reports and journals regarding the business aspect of the NHL (Revenue sharing, league product, league as monopoly or cartel, etc). According to this site, he's written 18 journals according to this site:
http://www.getcited.org/mbrx/PT/1/MBR/11055807
Have a look at them.
Now, whether a new arena would economically benefit the city - that's up to debate. He presented his side, and you have your view. I just felt the need of defending him on the "He's just a gym teacher," because he is far more than that.
Although that's not the first time Mc79 has demonstrated that he needs to get off his high horse.
Post a Comment
<< Home
