To whose benefit?

Posted 5/26/15

To the Editor:

House Speaker Mattiello’s stadium consultant, Andrew Zimbalist, in a commentary piece (“Sports Facilities and Economic Development”) wrote: “Independent …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

To whose benefit?

Posted

To the Editor:

House Speaker Mattiello’s stadium consultant, Andrew Zimbalist, in a commentary piece (“Sports Facilities and Economic Development”) wrote: “Independent scholarly studies have found that a city, county or state should not anticipate a positive or fiscal impact from a new stadium or arena…a new sports facility by itself should not be expected to raise employment or per capita income levels in a community.”

www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/GFR_AUG_13_94.pdf 

Andrew Zimbalist and Roger Noll co-authored the book “Sports, Jobs, and Taxes.” They collaborated with others to study sport stadiums and their economic impact. In every case without exception their conclusions were the same: “A new sports facility has an extremely small (even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city or an entire metropolitan area.”

There is widespread unanimity and consistency among sports economists (unpaid) that subsidies cannot be justified on the basis of economic development, income growth or job creation. 

Someone needs to explain to taxpayers what benefits will accrue to them from subsidizing - or even leasing - prime waterfront property for a stadium - in a putative economic development zone - particularly when they already own and subsidize a stadium in Pawtucket.

Mr. Zimbalist recently commented: ‘There’s great potential in this ballpark [plan].’ For whom?

John St. Lawrence

Johnston

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here