Rays parking downtown

Also over the weekend, the Times' performed its own analysis of one aspect of the Rays' plan for parking at a downtown stadium. See the results in a special interactive report here.

Comments

[Observer]

I thought it was an interesting article, but I wonder how come the Times didn't dispatch reporters to answer more practical questions, like how many spots within a ten minute walk of the stadium were available during each of those games.

[Observer]

We parked within 2 blocks of Al Lang on Saturday evening and worked our way back towards the Trop. We were laughing at how no local news outlet has come out to see the ridiculous amount of parking spaces which sit empty for what would be about half the home games, without adding ANY new parking.

[Demetrios]

This article had potential to be very informative but it fell short. I didn't understand what the point was with regards to the "restroom quest". Are you a seven year old or incontinent? The point that should have been stressed is that it took 12 minutes to get back to your car and yes, it is hot. As far as safety issues, it's no different than any other city and there will be plenty of other fans walking back to their cars with you.

Like Observer stated, what about the number of empty spaces available? Even Joe Henderson made that observation in his article last week.

[Will Ferrell]

How about a parking garage shaped like a Cowbell? Come on, I know you're feeling me on this one.

[Thomas]

My car has a fever - and the only prescription is...

[Will Ferrell]

...MORE COWBELL!!!

I knew you were feeling me on that one. Thanks for not leaving me hanging...

[since1962]

Observer

Those on street spots are REMOVED (Rays $55 million parking heist) under the stadium plan as have many others due to construction which will increase under rosy projections.
Thousands of additional downtown residents/guests/workers vieing for parking because of codes allowing condo,hotel construction WITHOUT proper parking will soon become a reality without the stadium.

[Rick K]

Since 1962, are you smoking crack?

How are the spots on 2nd Street, 3rd Street, 4th Street, etc removed by the Rays plan.

Now you are just lying.

[Jimbo]

Rick, he meant they weren't counted in their assessment of the number of spots. However, I tend to agree that it's pretty lonely on a Friday night int he parking garages. Even BayWalk's garage has at least one or two levels open. The parking is proving to become even a less issue, created by Mayor Baker to appease POWW. I'm not knocking him, cause I can't stand their whining, either, but I think it's a little overkill.

[Don in St. Pete]

The City specifically mentioned that the on street parking will be metered short term parking for people visiting downtown restaurants, etc....and that an option to put in enough cash to get you through the game will not be made available. You'll be getting a hefty parking ticket if you park in those spots.

[Rick K]

Don, now you are over-reaching. What you are describing is but one possible outcome. The final parking plan has not been finalized yet.

The poster's point was that there is not likely to be a parking shortage for weekend games, period. It's hard to dispute that.

Even the City's own numbers tend to agree.

And if parking agreements are executed with the Hilton and the Hospital, we'll have even fewer problems.

At best, it's too early to tell. At worst, these hysterical concerns over lack of parking are yet one of many attempts to distort and distract.

[since1962 re R]

I realise that baseball parking is YOUR ONLY concern but approvals are being sought or in hand and buildings are nearing completion which will consume available parking downtown.

Jannus Landing,Baywalk and Ceviche, alone FILL available parking on weekend nights NOW before completion of ongoing construction.AGAIN I LIVE DOWNTOWN.

[Rick K]

Since1961?

Is it your position that because You live downtown, you are the only person qualified to describe the parking situation there?

Is it your position that your status as a downtown resident makes you more qualified than professonal firms who perform comprehensive traffic and parking studies?

Is that what you are telling us?

Because it is hard to tell.

OR, are you telling us that it is possible that the Parking experts know what they are doing, and the competent professionals who work for the City will come to a final solution that makes the most sense?

Because that is what I am saying.

Doesn't matter where I live, either, for that claim to be a reasonable one.

[Thomas]

Rick,

We need your apology/correction/retraction over on the "Rays misstep" thread.

Come on now - be a man for once.

[John]

Rick, we know you live in Seminole, we know about the Match.com page and the Myspace page, we know you're not even from here, you're from Ohio. And we also know this deal is dead.

As in, you're beating a dead horse.

But it is comical to watch.

[Paul]

Rick K. is from Ohio??? Does he live in St Pete? If not... ohh boy, do I have some blogging to do.

Yo Rickmeister, you live in St Pete or not? Help us clear up your endless annoyance once and for all.

[Paul]

Seminole?? Rick Dude, quit your endless babbling... you are a jack azzz Rick!!

You can't even vote on this. How pathetic. You do not count. Zero. Blog all day long, it is pointless. My vote will be 'no' and yours will be.... uhhh, nothing. You are beyond comprehension. Take your paired redevelopment opinions and stick them where the sun don't shine.

Take your non voting self back over to your wonderful city. I won't tell you how to do things in Seminole and you keep your self out of my City.

Talk about being owned. You are a puppy in a lions den.

Rick K. can't vote on this, so he's on the sidelines of meaningless opinion.

[since1962 re R]

RICK
Mr Kubicki and cronies should be brushing up their resumes.
Thats what the VOTERS will be saying once the full impact of this "grand" design unfolds.
Test: who knows who Mr K is?

[Thomas]

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe Mr. K is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

[John]

Rick K for mayor!!

BAAHAHAHAAAHHHAAAHAHAHA!!!

[Baba Booey]

movethedome.com

[1962]

Call Julie Weston/Joe Kubicki and ask for details of ON STREET parking along 1st ST. It has been REMOVED SURROUNDING THE STADIUM AT LEAST .That 55 million has to be generated SOMEWHERE and will not be generated from ON STREET PARKING! Another Purty graphic available.

[Rick K is not a God]

These IDIOTS who make incorrect statements about me are doing nothing beyond making themselves look like idiots. Seriously. Some of you have built me into some mythical being.

I offer the following personal background information not to advance the debate (sadly), but instead to demonstrate that those who are obsessed with posting about "Rick K" instead of discussing these paired redevelopment proposals are mere idiots who have gone past the point of reasonable behavior.

While I have many connections to the Seminole community, I have never been a registered voter in Seminole. I moved to Florida 14 years ago from Ohio, having also lived in Arkansas, Indiana, Colorado, New Jersey, Virginia, England, Kuwait, Massachusetts, California, Tennessee, South Carolina and a couple of other places.

In High School I was an over achiever. I was Editor of our award winning school paper, captain of the Soccer Team, and a four sport letterman. I was vice president of the Honor Society and president of the Student Body. I had full scholarship offers for both athletics and academics to a dozen very selective schools. Big Deal!

I have served in the US Air Force, the US Army, and National Guard. I have studied at seven colleges, and taught at three. I have been married and single. I have dated women of different ethnic backgrounds and even lived with a visually impaired gal for a time.

For large portions of my adult life, I have worked with economic forecasting and measurement of the economic impact of past events.

I have, for many years, held a valid voter registration card entitling me to vote in St. Pete city-wide elections. I vote in nearly every election, usually early.

Although I did NOT live in St. Pete during the time that the merits of constructing the Dome were being debated locally, I have devoted a great deal of time to studying that decision. Because I was working in a municipal redevelopment organization and studying urban economics at university, I sought out unique real time examples of public investment projects which combined my various interests. In St Pete, Florida, I found a large scale eminent domain undertaking comingled with urban renewal plans and the (not terribly common) case of a community making huge infrastructure investments in the HOPES of landing a pro sports franchise. I became a passionate devotee to learning all that I could about the project. Before the internet, I corresponded with people in Florida who were working for and against the project. I traveled to St. Pete to walk the land, talk to neighbors, and review the documents. I read the property appraisals, studied the civil engineering plans, pored through reports on environmental remediation, resident relocation patterns, and all manner of issues considered by the City, County, State and Feds.

I talked with literally dozens of local Chamber officials, government employees, and people who were involved in trying to lure pro sports teams to St. Pete. In short, the Trop was the first public infrastructure investment of its scale that I studied in great depth.

Great depth.

For this reason, the subject has LONG held a special place in my heart and in my "inner student."

During those trips to the Bay area, way back in the 1980's, I fell in love with Pinellas County. It became my long term goal to permanately relocate here. A dream I realized shortly after the birth of my second child, in 1994, when I loaded up the truck and moved to the Sunshine state. Back when new residents had to pay that exorbiant "impact" fee for bringing an automobile into the state.

In my 14 plus years in Florida, I have lived in Oldsmar, Homosassa, Palm Harbor, Clearwater, Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole, New Tampa, Brandon, Bradenton, and St. Pete.

I've also read nearly 70 studies which attempt to gauge the economic impact of NFL Super Bowls, or critique other peoples' studies.

But, really, honestly, so WHAT?

NONE of the above, of course, makes ANYTHING that I have said in these posts more or less likely to be true, valid, or helpful.

My personal demographics simply have no bearing on whether or not the 2007 Super Bowl in Miami generated nearly $300 Million in direct economic impact to the Miami area. The fact that I have volunteered at Seminole Little League does not have any bearing on whether or not the lease enjoyed by the Buccaneers and the Lightning are far more favorable to the team than is the Rays' current (and proposed) lease for St. Pete Stadiums. The fact that I regularly volunteer at a Homeless shelter in Clearwater has no impact upon the truth of any facts I have mentioned, which are either true or false on their own, without anything having to do with me influencing their truth.

So for all you FOOLS who would rather spend your time speculating about me, I say save yourself the wasted effort.

It does not matter.

If you want to know about me, ask, and I will tell you.

Storagegump@Yahoo.com

But what you REALLY ought to be doing is focusing on your own arguments about these important issues. Test your theories to see if others who don't know you find your logic compelling. Look for facts and informed professional opinions that CHALLENGE your view. Examine them for validity. Test them.

Then, post whatever you want.

Just know, at the end of all this, the only thing that will matter is that everyone will vote (if it comes to that), using WHATEVER criteria they choose.

Who you imagine "Rick K" is or was is simply not relevant to anyone.

[1962re R]

Settle down Rick and I do mean SETTLE DOWN.

YOUR narrowly defined,rushed agenda is not necessarily shared by all.

BEEN RIGHT HERE IN PINELLAS/FLORIDA YET TRAVELLED EXTENSIVLY SINCE 1962 AND HAVE VOTED IN EVERY ELECTION SINCE REGISTERING.

Don't worry about GOD, some bloggers atheists!

[John]

I've lived in St. Pete since day ONE, Rick K....born at Mound Park (you probably have no idea what that is, since you're not FROM HERE).

We don't take kindly to Midwesterners (or anyone else, for that matter) moving down here because they "fell in love with it" and then try and force their beliefs to radically CHANGE OUR CITY on EVERYONE ELSE. If you no longer care for this area, then by all means, move back to Ohio.

There's a sea of red signs out there Rick K, and it's not even been approved for a referendum yet. You can study all you wish, but you'll never understand because you abandoned your home town. I have not.

Let us vote if the Rays can get their sh#t together before Aug, they've WASTED 7 months already, you're in for a REAL learning experience about the people who live here, come November.

Oh and one more thing. YOU AND ONLY YOU brought this tidal wave of attacks on YOURSELF, by the way you've conducted yourself on this blog. You deserve what you get. Try not calling everone a silly idiot for not agreeing with you for a change.

[Rick K is settled, thank you]

1962, you commit many sins in mislabeling what you misguess is my "agenda."

There is NOTHING narrow about my agenda. My aim is to see these proposals built because I believe they are best for downtown, the city, the county, the entire region, the State of Florida, the United States, and future generations of children.

A realistic analysis will lead most people to conclude that it is YOUR agenda that is narrow.

Not mine.

NO matter how much you try to say red is blue, it isn't.

There is also nothing at RUSHED about these proposals. Nothing. That is a political ruse which politicians like and which you apparently confuse with the truth.

As for there being divergent opinions, I am well aware of that.

You aren't paying attention, obviously, because the ANTI's keep telling us over and over and over that EVERYONE agrees with them, except for a handful of paid shills who work for the Rays.

[Thanks for the idiot reply, John]

John, your latest remarks exceed your previous demonstration of your idiocy.

You assume much, almost all of it incorrect.

And your attitude is ignorant in the extreme. You actually think that you have MORE rights to determine the future of this city than anyone who was not born here.

John, that is not only stupid, it's insane.

John, the Red signs are currently on residential properties which house about 3 to 5 % of the voters. Take comfort in that, if you want.

Convince yourself that the "rightful" heirs of St. Pete will prevail.

Do whatever you want, Dude.

In the meantime, I will do what I want. Part of which is to battle you devoted ANTI's in your efforts to hijack this important public debate by talking about everything but the relevant facts.

Y'all keep trying.

I'll be right here.

[John]

LOL Rick you call me an idiot, because that's all you got. Pathetic.

We all will continue to call you out every time your hands hit the keyboard.

You're not even good at disguising yourself as someone else to prop-up and cheerlead your misguided, ridiculously ignorant and fanatical arguments.

Perhaps you should find something to spend hours a day on that you actually ARE good at? Just a thought.

But in the end, the "ANTI's" will win, I just wish I could see the expression on your sad face when that day comes in the next 45 days. Priceless!

[Ray F]

Sorry John,

The state of Florida would probably disagree with your disenfranchising of transplants to our state.

I'm sure they encourage people to move to our state (and city) because they fell in love with it.

What's wrong with radical change anyway.

I'm sure ferry boat companies weren't too keen on that pesky radical skyway bridge.

Walt Disney wasn't from here but thanks to him Orlando isn't one of the top distinations in the world.

Instead of driving 42 miles around the bay, Tony Jannus flew some junk across the water.

Pesky Radicals and there new-fangled ideas.

I keep it light-hearted John, so go easy on me brother. Maybe you shouldn't take some of the things Rick says so personal and you both try and stick to the proposals presented.

[1962re R]

"GOD"
"SINS"
I smell the false idolatry of baseball in your reply R.

Forget MY ""sinfull" questioning.

MEA CULPA
MEA CULPA
MEA MAXIMA CULPA!

Are all public servants and taxpayers who question also "sinners"?

I PLAYED pee wee ball at the site of the current MC DONALDS IN SEMINOLE MANY YEARS AGO AND FEEL VERY SORRY FOR THOSE UNFORTUNATE CHILDREN FULL OF QUESTIONS COACHED(?) BY YOU !!!

[Ray F]

*** is ***

[Rick K]

Who said I coach?

My advice to applies both to your quest to know more about me, and to your quest to improve your own life.

Stop assuming that which you do not know.

Relax.

Focus on the important, at the expense of the insignificant.

You might just find that there are plenty of good, reasonable arguments in favor of these paired redevelopment proposals.

[Rick K to John]

I don't call you an idiot, John, because that is all I have. I called you an idiot because you were posting idiocy.

Some people believe it is more effective to not label idiotic or insane arguments as such. Personally, I have found that lying only prolongs or worsens the damage.

It's entirely possible for a smart person to say something idiotic. And this may possibly describe your posts here. Most of us see a never ending series of stupid posts. Whether you are assuming to know where I was born, pretending I post under other names, or otherwise asserting false claims that you cannot possibly prove.

You come across not just as an idiot. But a smug idiot. One who is convinced that whatever he assumes or imagines is the same as what is real and verifiable.

It doesn't need to be this way John.

You can stop.

You can, in the future, only post that which you know. You can post opinions, without trying to pretend that they are the same as facts. You can focus on the issues related to these paired redevelopment proposals, instead of trying to analyze personal information about me which has no bearing on anything said here.

John, if this was a court of law, I would probably be classified as an expert witness on some of these topics. You probably would not.

But, John, these blog forums are NOT a court of law. And my opinions here are no more important than yours. So you will benefit from abandoning your obssession with me.

Nearly every assumption you have made about me has been wrong. And 100% of them have been irrelevant.

Time to get a grip.

[John]

Ray F,

Ever consider how much is too much? We live in the most densly populated county in the state.

How many more transplants can we handle, Ray?

You want all the beaches to look like Sand Key to house them all, following their God, Rick K here?

You want south St Pete gentrified and turned into a sub-city of endless townhouses?

You want to develop Ft. Desoto for high-density housing, to appease the masses of people who will "fall in love" in the future?

How about some responsible, SUSTAINABLE growth for a change?

How about protecting our natural resources & waterfront parkland for people that already live here?

How about restoring our beaches to a tourist mecca it once was, INSTEAD of a condo canyon?

How about letting downtown St. Pete evolve naturally, at a reasonable pace, instead of dumping 1700 apartments, 600 hotel rooms, several hundred condos, several thousand new office workers onto 85 acres in just 10-15 years with no infrustructure to hanle that kind of rapid growth.

I take pride in the way this city has grown, and I take offense to anyone moving here and yelling from a loudspeaker that it's not good enough for them, they need MORE MORE MORE.

[Ray F]

John,

I think you may be missing the bus. It took St Pete over a hundred years to get to 250,000 people.

I think this city is progressing nicely.

You can get anywhere you want in St Pete in 20 minutes or less because of our superior street grid. You can live your whole life without going much further than 20 blocks from home.

I think the idea you claim that this development would be unnatural is out of whack. This isn't urban sprawl. We aren't going outside of the city limits. We aren't building on a wildlife sanctuary. We're reconfiguring our city to be more cost effective while moving from an 86 acre lot to a 15 acre lot and replacing the 86 acres with the amenities that residents would have driven outside of St Pete city limits to spend their money on.

I don't know about you, but I would rather people spend money at a Gucci store in St Pete than see them go across the bay.

Also,
Realize this development project will complete phase 1 in 2013. How slow is too fast???

5 years is a long time. We need that growth to continue our renaissance otherwise we will stagnate.

[Rick K says]

While Pinellas is indeed the most densely populated County in the state (the most people per square mile), I am pretty sure the City of St. Pete is the least densely populated City of it's size in the USA. I think you have to exclude the combined County/City governments, but you'll find that St. Pete is really not densely populated at all.

In this case, casual observation supports that. Less than 2% of the population lives in structures taller than four stories. St. Pete is a city with few high rise residences, loads and loads of single family homes, and loads and loads and loads of open space.

I am sure someone could look this up.

[John]

Well then Ray, I expect you'll be the 1st in line to buy a Gucci bag and a $300,000 condo on a brownfield industrial site, surrounded on 2 sides by interstates.

I personally, would rather have the Trop used to market conventions/trade shows and put a hotel on the site so we can compete with Tampa and Orlando.

The waterfront is off limits. I can repeat it here a million times but you'll have to let my fellow voters prove that fact to you in November.

[Mal]

Rick K
Still haven't figured out what Mound Park is today have you!

[Mal]

Aaron S
Speaking of newbies how long have you lived in St Pete?

[Ray F]

so John,

Are you saying that people from St Pete don't drive to Tampa's International Plaza to shop at Gucci, Nordstrom, Coach, etc.

Or eat at The Cheesecake Factory, Capital Grille, etc???

Because when I've gone there with my wife, the place is packed.

Now all those people may be spending monopoly money, but I'd put the good money on the fact that they are spending legal U.S. Tender.

...and if my broke-a!! is spending money there (and I'm from St Pete) then I'm sure a lot of people are going there from St Pete.

Maybe I should just put my cash on an inflatable raft and float it over the bay. Just the same.

[lb]

"You can post opinions, without trying to pretend that they are the same as facts"--(Rick K's reply to John)
Well, Rick K, this would be laughable if it weren't so sad. In weeks of following these blogs, where I repeatedly see those who sign their full names quote fact after fact and insert links to support them(Jon McPhee, Chris Jenkins, Gary Grooms--see, on both sides of the fence) I rarely see a fact from you--just your oft stated opinions, which you do not seem willing to own as an opinions(although you do seem to think pretty highly of yourself)but continue to aver as facts. When you do cite anything, you tell us we can go look it up ourselves. I am not impressed, but I realize you don't care about that. Just had to add my 2 cents worth. Now I feel better.

[Rick K says]

Well lb, too bad you don't see the fact laden posts.

And in case you missed the discussion above, who I am is entirely irrelevant.

Facts are true or not regardless of who I am.

You seem to be suffering, LB, from a common affliction. My opinions are almost always clearly identified as opinions. When I present conclusions by other people, I nearly always identify those people. What often confuses people like you who think that I don't post FACTS is a misunderstanding, I think, about what is and isn't a fact.

Someone reports the following, "there is near unanimity amongst economists that public investment in sports stadiums yields net negative economic costs to the regions where the stadiums are located."

In the first place, that isn't a fact. It is an opinion. It COULD be a fact, were it backed up by reasonable surveys of large enough economists, but it isn't.

What it is, lb, is an opinion. And it is an opinion oft linked to by the ANTI side in these discussions. Some have the decency to credit the source of this information, others do not.

In neither case, is it a fact.

I have oft replied to postings of the above claim with something like this,

"that is not factually correct. You cannot point to a single study that proves that point. All you can do is point to studies that repeat the point, without ever having proven it."

My reply is not an opinion, really. If what I am saying is true, than my assertion is a fact.

Some twisted souls who want so badly to believe the fantasy about urban economists not finding positive economic benefits from stadium investments claim, in very contorted logic, that since I cannot produce a study which disproves their (stolen) assertion, then their assertion must be fact.

A fact is not a fact simply because there is no proof to the contrary. But a factual claim without any substantive factual support has little or no value at all.

Here are a couple of facts lb.

These guys studied the specific impact of the 2007 Super Bowl in Miami. Their report represents a sound approach to calculating the impact of the Super Bowl. While the author's quest does not end with precise numbers, it does represent a contrary view to the ridiculous assertion that Super Bowls produce negligible or negative economic impact.

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/23/22/2007_SBXLI_Economic_Impact_Investigation_Executive_Summary.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

[Observer]

Thanks, Rick.

I love the ongoing myth that you never post facts. Everytime you do, they run away.

[Don Mott]

I would be curious to know who paid for this "in depth study". They are an independent for profit corporation with 4 paid employees according to their website. Wonder where and how they gathered all of that information. I digress, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Rick I believe you have still not shown us a legitimate "peer reviewed" study from any economists showing that MLB is profitable for the city it resides in. I have shown you, as requested "peer reviewed" studies that contradict your assertions. Yet you continue to call them opinions unsupported by fact. Would you like to see them again to refresh your memory?

[Observer to Rick K]

Rick K, Don is lying. He has not met your test. Don has not shown you, as you asked him to, "a peer reviewed study by a credible economics journal which proves the oft-repeated claim that there is near unanimity amongst economists that public investment in professional sports facilities nearly always produce net negative economic benefits to the area."

[Observer about the Phoneix Study]

Who paid for the study is a strawman argument. What is most relevant is whether or not you can undermine the factual presentation in the study from Phoeniz, or Miami, or Atlanta, or New Orleans, or Jacksonville or Detroit.

Notice, everyone, Don's knee-jerk response is NOT to read and carefully consider the study. Instead, because he knows the study reaches conclusions he does not like, his IMMEDIATE response is to immediately begin trying to distract.

It's a classic ad hominem attack.

[Don Mott]

Here we go with the multiple personalities again. Good job Rick. http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/sports030612g.htm http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_103.pdf How's that for you Sybil? Go take your meds. If you don't stop talking to yourself you're going to nuts.

[Thomas]

Actually the company was hired to produce the report. Independant research by qualified professors concludes the same thing:

The South Florida Super Bowl XLI Host Committee said the event “is expected to generate over $350 million in total economic impact for the region.” Meanwhile, the NFL says various studies and commissioned by local host committees and performed by local universities or research firms have found the Super Bowl’s economic impact is “usually in the $250-350 million range.”

The actual number?

“On the high side, there’s a $30 million impact. On the low side, it’s closer to zero,” said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Northampton, Mass., and author of “The Bottom Line: Observations and Arguments on the Sports Business

The exaggeration, Zimbalist said, is created by flawed reasoning in the studies — mainly the revenue estimates assume no tourists would be flocking to these warm-weather host cities if not for the Super Bowl. After Miami hosted the game in 1999, a study by the national firm PFK Consulting found the city’s hotel occupancy rate that January was only 3.25 percent higher than the combined January average of 1998 and 2000 when the Super Bowl was played elsewhere.

The "ridiculous assertion" is that a Super Bowl generates a net gain for the economy in the hundreds of millions.

That's the lie.

[Thomas]

This one is a fun read:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0512impact0512.html

Glendale did not recoup what it spent to host Super Bowl XLII, according to a new study that showed out-of-towners here for the game added an estimated $1.2 million to the city's tax coffers.

The city laid out $3.4 million preparing for and hosting the Feb. 3 game

[Don Mott]

Rick I asked 2 simple, basic questions and you attack me. I made no accusations but you certainly did. That makes you a liar. Besides I don't have multiple personalities. Once again you show your true colors..

[Observer]

Thomas observation at 5:53 quotes the oft-quoted Zimbalist, who has not looked at the numbers.

Thomas ignores the ACTUAL analysis of the Miami Super Bowl.

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/23/22/2007_SBXLI_Economic_Impact_Investigation_Executive_Summary.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

And THOMAS will not reply to that report. The link is to an Executive Summary which details the methodology used to calculate the impact from the Super Bowl. It explains how the researchers derived their numbers. The body of the report rips Zimbalist's absurd proposition to shreds. It includes detailed surveys of Super Bowl travelers, specifically asking them if they would have come to Miami without the Super Bowl. It differentiates between spending by Super Bowl tourists and other tourists. In short, it does an extremely thourugh job.

Thomas also wants to fool people into thinking that competent financial professionals who have no stake in the outcome of Super Bowls all mirror Zimbalist's opinion. But the list of those who agree that Super Bowls produce net positive impact in the $300 million range include the following:

Price Waterhouse Coopers
State of Louisiana
Tulane University
Florida State University
Arizona State University
UCLA
Ernst & Young
Deloitte Touche
Florida Supreme Court
21 US District Courts
3 US Courts of Appeals

[Don Mott]

Sybil AKA Rick, care to back those assertions up? You always throw out a lot of names and numbers with no substantiation. And what about my links to "peer reviewed" articles? You always seem to ignore them. That makes me sad.

[Observer about Don Mott's Links]

Don's first link is instructive.

He links to a page at a website by a psuedo agency whose webmaster, Gary Imhoff, is most famous for a book he wrote in 1985 called "The Immigration Time Bomb: The Fragmenting of America"

The specific page Don Mott linked to is an alleged copy of public testimony given by "professor" Brad Humphries At the Public Roundtable on The Ballpark Revenue Amendment Act of 2003, B15-270
District of Columbia Committee in Finance and Revenue, on 12 June 2003.

What DON does NOT tell you is that Brad Humphries has worked at three different universities since he made that testimony.

Another thing Don does not tell you is that the Committed to which Brad Humphries was testifying heard testimony from other expert witnesses, and they determined that the OTHER witnesses were more credible than Brad.

Putting all that aside, however, if you READ what Don linked to, you see the same ole' same ole.

Humphries assures the committe early on that "The research I will discuss has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals; other economists who are experts in the field have examined this research in detail and found it to be objective, competently performed, and correct. "

Then Humphries goes on to site none of that research.

None.

Typical.

And Don Mott holds this up as proof that the testimony of the Brad Humphries of the world are offering irrefutable evidence. All they are offering is a recitation of the same unproven claims.

[Don Mott]

Ha Ha Ricky! You offer nothing but your words and they are becoming less reputable by the hour since you have nothing to back them up. Have a good day, go take your meds and get a good nights sleep. Trust me you'll feel better in the morning.

[Observer about Don Mott's Links #2]

Don Mott.

You are not linking to proof. You are linking to nonsense that is designed to fool people who can't read.

This is how these studies work, see if anyone can spot the flaw.

Proponents of a stadium say that a pro sports team will have positive economic benefits to a region. Stadium opponents, without any actual evidence, and against basic economic principles, say that claim is untrue.

Economists and other financial professionals are hired by Stadium advocates or local governments to weigh in. Invaribly, the professional conclusions of studies by competent forecasters support the projection that pro sports teams and publicly financed sports facilities will produce enormous economic benefits. Stadium opponents, without any actual evidence or reasonable economic theories to back them up, attack the studies because they were paid for by people who want the Stadium. In cases when the government has not yet come out in favor of a stadium and uses the study to help them decide, the anti stadium forces dismiss the study findings also.

Far more frequently than you would imagine, when citizens vote to publicly fund sports facilities, opponents sue. Trials take place. Trial courts hear testimoney from competing "experts." Invaribly, the courts find the experts who predict economic benefits from Stadium investments to be more credible than those who predict the opposite.

Stadium or sports facility is built. Sports contests are held. Money is spent.

Then comes one of the two or three dozen ANTI STADIUM zealots, like Zimbalist or Humphries. These guys perform econometric studies and try to extrapolate the findings to make the conclusion that the presence of stadiums has actually hurt the local economy.

They do not prove their claims.

They merely state them.

They say something like this.

"Overall employment and earnings from employment in the Greater Detroit Area decreased in the 15 years after the Stadium was built, therefore, the stadium hurt the economy."

That is the argument a seventh grader makes.

It is an argument which 95% of economists dismiss. Even economists who are inclined against public subsidy of sports facilities dismiss this approach to "proving" the impact of sports stadiums.

Sometimes, like in the case of Tampa Bay, the "researchers" merely assume away any positive benefits from stadiums. That analysis goes like this, "Tampa Bay region has seen three new Sports facilities in the past decade, and the years since have seen inordinate growth in employment and earnings, but NONE of that can be attributed to the stadium."

Not kidding, ladies and gentlemen. Read the studies Don Mott and company link to. You will see for yourself.

The

[Those arent peer reviewed]

The second link from Don Mott is to a paper? What peer reviewed journal was it in?

[Thomas]

The SMRI report is not from an independant source.

They use faulty methodology to arrive at their numbers.

The same way the NFL does. It's all right there in A.Z.'s quote.

Myth Debunked. The Super Bowl does NOT generate hundreds of millions of dollars in net economic gains.

You lose - sorry.

[Thomas]

Observer, it's amazing how similar your writing style and vocabulary is to this guy Rick K.

[No Thomas, you lose]

Thomas, you have no idea how to add.

You take a report about tax collections in Glendale in the days around the Super Bowl and point to that as conclusive proof that the Super Bowl does not have positiive economic impact.

What you don't do, but which the study authors do, is measure all economic impact in the Region, for an appropriate time frame. You previously tried this lame attempt at deception when replying to Rick K.

The study linked to from Arizona was performed by professors at Arizona State University and it adequately measured all impact from the Super Bowl.

The study linked to from Miami was peformed by a team of more than 25 research specialits, who collecitvely spent hundreds of hours gathering and analyzing data for all of Miami's three counties, singling out tourists in town NOT for the Super Bowl, and comparing Super Bowl spenders with non Super Bowl spenders and also with Miami-area visitors in other periods.

Your misguided and impotent attempt to swat away genuine economic research with ridiculous claims does not work Thomas.

[Thomas]

Philip Porter, an Economist at USF, studys the financial impacts of Super Bowls and other big sports events:

"One must wonder where the impact number came from. The Task Force didn’t commission a study and none of the members are economists.

History didn’t reveal it to them because I’ve studied Super Bowl impacts and there is nothing in the record of economic activity that suggests this. I’d bet the mortgage that the Task Force members couldn’t tell us what those numbers mean or how they were estimated.

It’s a good bet because $250 million is so far beyond possibility and the truth is so easily observed that if the Task Force had any clue, they would never make such a claim.

The facts are the National Football League gave the Task Force that figure. It represents a gross exaggeration, and the Task Force should know better than to trust the NFL’s objectivity.

The NFL uses these figures to justify government subsidies to teams including paying $400 million for Raymond James Stadium.

It’s important that we all understand what economic impact means.

Economic impact is merely sales impact. That’s important when economic impact is used to justify government expenditures. The $400 million that taxpayers will pay for RJS and the several million dollars we pay to support the Super Bowl are tax dollars, and every dollar of sales impact generates only about a nickel of tax receipts for local governments.

We need $8 billion of sales impact to pay for RJS and $100 million to pay the cost of hosting the Super Bowl.

The Task Force should do its own work and question whether $250 million worth of sales is reasonable.

Consider that Hillsborough County now sells about $1 billion worth of goods and services in a typical January, roughly $65 million every two days. For us to absorb even 25 percent of the NFL’s claim in two days, we would have to sell twice as much of everything — not just twice as many hotel rooms and restaurant meals, but twice as many cars, boats, refrigerators, television sets, clothing items, stereos, furniture, lawn mowers and weed whackers. Every line in every store would have to be twice as long as usual on Super Bowl weekend.

Consider that Tampa Bay area hotels typically are 80-percent full in late January and that 85 percent is considered fully occupied — so there is not much available space.

With double occupancy, we would have to build 100 large hotels to handle the additional people. Consider that roughly 40,000 people pass through Tampa Bay area airports each day. We’d have to more than double the number of flights at every airport to handle the new influx. It takes nearly 700 jet flights to ferry 100,000 people. If you could somehow manage to land and service an additional plane every six minutes, it would take more than three days to deliver them using the Task Force’s economic impact number as a base.

Tampa already hosted two Super Bowls and Hillsborough County collects data on sales. The Task Force should make its own comparisons.

In January 1991 when Tampa hosted the Super Bowl, Hillsborough County recorded sales of $720 million. It had sales of $727 million the previous January (1990) and $742 million the next January.

In January 1984, when Tampa hosted the Super Bowl, Hillsborough County recorded sales of $472 million. The average for the preceding and following Januarys was $482 million.

And this economic impact evidence is consistent with every Super Bowl.

In Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Minn., and Detroit, and in every Super Bowl in California, sales do not respond to the presence of a Super Bowl.

The NFL’s estimates are wrong and they know it."

[Thomas, I know]

Thomas, you are not the first or last person to make that observation. If you were paying closer attention you would know why that is true. And why it doesn't matter.

[Thomas]

Dude, I dont care why you and Rick are so similar. It's just kind of funny.

[Quote porter]

Quoting Porter on this is like quoting Pete Rose on his gambling, before he admitted he was gambling. Charlie Hustle wrote a book back in the 1980's denying he gambled. He later wrote a different book admitting he was lying.

What is funniest about Porter's numbers is that he intentionally uses the wrong numbers. Why would he only focus on Hillsborugh Sales Taxes in Jaunary, if not to come to a misleading conclusion or incomplete analysis?

How do you answer that. Isn't it obvious, Thomas, that Porter intentionally chooses to examine incomplete data sets in order to underskew his computation?

[Don Mott]

RRRRick show us the numbers. Your words are no longer credible since you've begun assuming different personalities. Although I must admit they were not very credible before that either. Show me something disputing my two links other than your supposedly professional WORD. Good night Sybil.

[Dons Nemesis]

Don, You've already said here in blog world that you haven't left your Largo home for Downtown St. Pete in Years.

Why are you posting in the parking thread you obviously aren't looking for a space here. Hey, I hear theres a special at the golden corral up there tomorrow, I hope you brought your appetite.

[Don Mott]

I guess you haven't heard of that new thing called free speech? BTW I prefer Codys. Would you like me to get you a link to the U.S. Constitution?

[Don Mott]

Tricky Ricky, Until you show some proof to back your words and predictions your words mean squat. I notice that even your legionnaire of followers have disappeared. Wonder why? Get over it. Take a pill Sybil and get some rest.

[Demetrios]

Thomas

I don't know if you'll see this but your 6/17, 5:33 post quotes our buddy Anrew Zimbalist. Now is he credible or not. Apparently you think he is for SB impact but when I cite an article, written in the Times, about this proposal, you put the blinders on and state the obvious negative arguements without commenting on Zimbalst's remarks. Then you throw his name out for this SB arguement. Is he credible or not? Just a Reminder of what his statement was;

This is capitalism and any project carries risks.

However, smaller markets usually pick up a higher share of financing costs and the average public financing share for sports facilities is around 67 percent.

The public share in the Rays' proposal appears to be under 40 percent. Further, while again there are uncertainties, the release of some 85 acres for alternative development suggests a much more positive economic impact outlook than the conventional stadium project.

The point about the 85 acres is that without this proposal, the land is tied up for a long time. By the team reducing its footprint, they enable the city to generate revenue not currently generated.

I think this is a creative and balanced proposal (with some questions still to be answered, to be sure) from the Rays that stands a far better chance for actually having a pro-development impact than the vast majority of stadium proposals of the past.

Must be temporary insanity.

[Thomas]

Demetrios,

I dont think that I've been inconsistent regarding Zimbalst's opinions.

The issue that I had was this:
"The public share in the Rays' proposal appears to be under 40 percent."

The public share is 66% in construction of the stadium.

I think it's a creative proposal, but it certainly is not balanced.

[since1962]

rays PARKING downtown

rays PARKING downtown

rays PARKING downtown

thats the SUBJECT of THIS thread

[Don Mott]

Demetrios, You need to do your home work. The city can develop the land around the Trop even while the Rays are there. And there are are many more economists besides Zimbalist who state that major league sports have no economic benefit to the community. If you would like I can provide links. In fact here's one. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Selling+the+game:+estimating+the+economic+impact+of+professional...-a0174639675

[Colorado Snowbird]

I can't be sure, but it looks like people are now posting pretending to be Thomas and Don Mott. Why all the masquerading?