Baseball and tourism, the studies begin

Now that the Tampa Bay Rays have suspended efforts to build a new waterfront ballpark in St. Petersburg, the team's stadium quest suggests a ship in search of a port.

With no new home identified, and indications that the process will take some time, stakeholders are turning to close study of how baseball and a new ball park could affect tourism in Pinellas County. It's arguably work that should have been done long ago.

At a meeting today of Pinellas County's Tourism Development Council, Rays vice president Michael Kalt said the team had hired a Tallahassee consultant to perform an economic impact study. And the TDC's research consultant, Walter Klages, is also at work on a study.

It's expected that both will be completed by Sept. 10, the next time the council meets.

Use of the county's tourism bed tax could play a crucial role in financing a new ball park, which explains the interest of the TDC.

In recent weeks, Klages has interviewed fans at Rays home games with the Marlins, Cubs, Astros, Red Sox and Royals. The goal is to figure out where folks are coming from and whether they are staying in local hotels.

Klages did similar work back in 1995, when St. Petersburg was in the hunt for a professional team. That work found that baseball would draw nearly 90,000 new visitors a year, producing an initial economic impact of nearly $43-million.

Klages told the TDC that his projections then were borne out, but said his new study will likely show an even greater impact.

The TDC steered clear of any overall policy discussion of using the bed tax to support a new stadium, and the highlight was perhaps a question posed to the room by St. Petersburg council member Leslie Curran.

"If we do make the playoffs and the World Series," she asked, "would Bud Selig have trouble going to Tropicana Field then?"

-- Will Van Sant, Times Staff Writer

Comments

[Boomer]

Build a new stadium... and have visitors pay for it? LOVE THE IDEA!

[Raysdays!]

EVAN LONGORIA FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

[Alex]

The $43 million figure is highly suspect. That means each of the 90,000 visitors that come in for the Rays must spend $477 each. That seems very high.

I hope these studies are done in good faith and accurately. Tropicana Field will need replacing eventually, since it is 20 years old. But we have plenty of time to make educated, informed decisions. We also will have a couple of elections in between, so this issue can shape the city.

[Jacobi]

I've read POWW claims that most studies say Teams like the Rays do not contribute positively. As an economist for nearly five decades, I have found just the opposite. Every study that attempts to measure the specific economic impact of a sports team or sports facility results in conclusions that their is a positive, measurable economic impact. Backing up something that I have seen others post here, all the studies that have sought to measure the economic impact, regardless of who performed the study or who paid for them, have found a positive economic impact. Conversely, nearly all the studies that have sought to prove that there is no economic impact have presented conclusions that their is no positive economic impact, often with little or no support from data or known economic theories. This article by Van Sant seems to lay waste to the POWW's false claim that the Rays do not have a positive economic impact. We now know that at least two studies have been performed to measure the ecnomic impact of the Rays, and both studies have determined that there is substantial positive impact. Soon, we will have two more studies, which will both conclude that the Rays positively impact the local economy.

[Jay]

Jacobi,

How does one get a job as an "economist"? I've been considering giving up my position as "philosopher" and branching out into something different. Do you have any recommendations on where I should start my job search?

But seriously, this is a study that is paid for by the team, so what level of impartiality are they expecting to find? Better yet, what are the chances that the study comes back showing that there is a negligible impact from the team's presence? If this is going to be the foundation of how we conduct community business, I suspect that the next logical step is to form a coalition of convicted child molesters and ask for their thoughts on daycare and elementary school locations.

[mrclean]

Why don't they compare sales tax collection on game day vs non game day.

[Jacobi]

There is more to it than that. You who focus on who pays for the study are missing the boat. Chambers and Development agencies often pay for the studies to figure out what the impact is. They would be very interested if there was a negative impact. They have a business need to know how much to invest in these things. They do not want overly rosy projections that are not backed by data and hard science.

MrClean is not far off the mark. Comparing sales tax collections is difficult and not the most helpful indicator. But your idea is right. Isolate variables most likely to be impacted by people attending Rays games, and measure that impact. Adjust for externalities. Add vodka. Produce economic impact study.

[Mike]

Paradise has a price. Keep the bed tax permanent and use it to pay for community amenities such as MLB. For those who cry, "corporate welfare", I say, "eff it ... GO RAYS!"

[Jacobi]

Jay,

In my case, 9 arduous years at university, followed by a job working for the Aussie equivalent of the US Army Corps of Engineers, in which my first assignment involved computing the likely economic impact from recreational opportunities created by damming rivers to create resevoirs. Mix in stints on five continents working for multinational corporations, the United Nations, and more government branches than I can count snookered, and you'll have yourself a nifty career in the dismal science. Locally, you might try Florida Power or Teco, since both rely upon economic growth to grow their businesses.

[Jay]

Damn you Jacobi for dismantling my sarcasm with facts and grace! Ok, so you've got legitimate credentials, but I still have to ask about the level of impartiality that the study will have.

[since1962]

Subsidies RELATIVE to ALL economic/political factors will be the reality

Rays "studies" will not resubvert the subsidy feeding frenzy nor quiet the voter outrage the Rays unleashed.
Ask Jabil and the cowering St Pete City Council.

[tim hawkins]

So now the Rays' henchman Michael Kalt is saying that a new baseball stadium will miraculously reverse 100 years of tourism history and draw northern visitors to the heat and humidity of a Florida summer - just to see a game. Two months ago he was an urban planning expert, now he knows tourism. Kalt and his boss Stuart Sternberg seem to know everything but how to open up THEIR OWN checkbooks to pay for a stadium.

[Skip]

Alex: $477 per person is not that high and maybe actually be on the low side. I travel for business 150 days per year, and without counting my mileage, or taking a client out, I can easily spend $200/day on hotel and food alone (and that is staying at a hotel like a Hampton Inn, and eating in places that are like Beef O'Brady's and Denny's).

If someone comes in for a series, figure $600 even before they spend one single dollar on tickets or in the ballpark, or one single dollar spent in a local store.

[since1962]

What an individual fan spends is nearly irrelevant.

The main funding source requested is bed tax revenue.
Prioritizing those funds based on OURS not Rays reality is paramount.
The same reason we must fight oil drilling. Both narrow political solutions which pose significant risk in this economy.

[Mike]

I think that suggesting that the extension of a tax which already exists and goes to support the Rays is not a "significant risk to the economy". If one wants to debate the merits of putting those funds elsewhere, then so be it. But the Chicken Little mentality of since1962 is disingenuous, at best.

[Mike]

Sorry, that came out wrong. Let me try again ...

I think that suggesting that the extension of a tax which already exists and goes to support the Rays is a "significant risk to the economy" is wrong. If one wants to debate the merits of putting those funds elsewhere, then so be it. But the Chicken Little mentality of since1962 is disingenuous, at best.

[Don Mott]

Jacobi, AKA RRRick, please tell us are you about 70 or 80 yrs old? Five decades as an economist, nine yrs in universities and almost two decades to get to college? Sybil strikes again.

[John]

LOL Don Mott

Hey, I've been a Rays fan for 30 years, so what's the big deal?

[Sara]

Jacobi,

Please link to some of the peer reviewed research you have authored.

[Aaron]

I dont know what everyone is crying about. The stadium will be built, and it will be built downtown. I think the next time around the Rays and The City of St. Pete will be wise enough not to even run it by the senile, fickle citizens of this Great City. Cant wait to see oour Skyline on ESPN. Maybe then the world will be able to tell St. Pete from Tampa

[Paul]

I think Leslie Curan's statement is right on target. Thank you for cutting through the garbage and telling it like it is.

Ricktum, your blogging obsession has morphed into idiocy. What kind of lunatic talks to themselves on a blog? See that you're still making it up on the fly... how pathetic. Guess your best friend is your computer.

[mrclean]

Lyash should use Rick K for the committee. That would give him at least seven members. Rick can have a place setting at the conference table for each of his Sybil personalities with name plate. He can move from seat to seat asking and then answering his own question. Of coarse, he can never be wrong as long as he is willing to correct his own errant thoughts.

I would like to nominate Rick K,Jacobi and all his other personalities to the 'Rays Task Force.'

[since1962re Mike]

2:45 Mike

EXTENSION of bed tax is being requested.

Other sports entities have questioned this extension.

Federal beach renourishment funding "IN THIS ECONOMY" is NOT sufficently secure and committing bed tax revenue for third tier attractions is not prudent.

[Dr_Dug]

Jacobi..your an assclown. Every study is tainted and the Rays will be no different. One fact I noticed was that they asked where people come from...? Tourist don't visit St.Pete for a chance at baseball. If they have time to waste on thier vacation, they might come to a game.
The question of the day is "why did the Rays just hire a consultant to perform an economic impact study" when that should have been thier first step.
Baseball DID NOT bulid this town...tourism did. So why,in our current economy, would we pass the buck to the hotel tax? When it gets to expensive to vacation here...I doubt they'll come just to see baseball!
Anyone who is convinced that baseball will bring in more money and visitors is simply crazy. It'll make the owners more money and make the team worth more....but how does that help the city?
Maybe if the Rays want that much money....in exchange...they can give partial ownership to the people of St. Pete. After all, aren't the people paying more for the team than the owners..? You bet....and without much say in the matter!!

[John]

I agree, $477 per person may even be low.

Hotel plus food could easily top $300 per person. Add in tickets for a 3 games series and you already have near $477 before even extra curricular entertainment.

[John]

I would rather see the bed tax used for MLB baseball than for more beach sand or beach advertisement

[Dr_Dug]

90,000 new visitors a year my assass. What's next...a stupid idea of building a ballpark on the waterfront? Our city representatives, (thier not leaders because we voted for them to REPRESENT us, not lead us)are a complete collection of assclowns. They admit they vote for things they know nothing about(Jabil), and now they want to look at another study? Don't our represenitives understand our history? Rick Bakers family(remember your history) were nothing but crooks... so how did we get stuck with his loser assclown self?
FIRE CITY COUNCIL!!

[John]

The post above is from a different "John"...

Let's see, shall we?

$200.00/night for a hotel room divided by a family of 4 = $50.00/per person, per day

Add $50.00 per person/per day for food.

Add $100.00/day for drinks/snacks, divide that by the family of 4 = $25.00/each per day.

Add $50.00/per person for a Rays game

Add $60.00/day for a rental car/gas divided by 4 people = $15.00 each per day.

That's only $190.00/day per person...and the food/hotel costs are generous.

Where are they gonna spend the other $287.00 EACH per..DAY??

[since1962rejohn]

John bed tax is for beach
REnourishment and maintenance

What you would rather have is irrelevant.

What does the economy DEMAND?

What do the tourist WHO PAY THE TAX DEMAND?

[John]

I see Rick K is now using my name in his Sybil act...

The posts @ 4:13 and 4:14 are from Rick, not me ;)

I guess when you've lost, you've got nothing else to lose, right Rick?

[John]

1962...I've been against using the bed tax for the Rays since day one, you know that!!

[Dr_Dug]

John...your numbers are WAY off, including the price you give as examples.
Are you saying that people are coming here just to see the games and you can't figure out where thier going to spend the xtra $286.00?
Your an assclown. They come for the beaches,Walt Disney,Busch Gardens....
They don't come for baseball..period!
The Model being used to compute these numbers is ridiculous!!

[since1962rejohn]

sorry JOHN is rather generic
I don't presume a small group always

[John]

The figure quoted above of $477.00/day for EACH visitor is indeed one of the most ridiculous figures I've seen since Rick K's projections of his "Paired redevelopment proposals".

That's $1908.00 PER DAY for a family of 4...so that same family coming here for a week would spend...wait for it..$13,356 to visit our free beaches.

LMFAO!!!!

[Dr_Dug]

I agree.. the number are way off...
Where do these numbers come from...drunk fans at the game or the surprise inside of a Cracker Jack Box?

[Don Mott]

As has been pointed out the question was where are you from, not why are you here. I seriously doubt many people spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to go to a baseball game that is insignificant. Especially against a team that until now has had a losing record. Numbers can be made to look like the pollsters want them to. Tourists have been drawn to Pinellas County for decades for one reason only, Gulf beaches not baseball.

[Dave in St Pete]

"Klages did similar work back in 1995, when St. Petersburg was in the hunt for a professional team. That work found that baseball would draw nearly 90,000 new visitors a year, producing an initial economic impact of nearly $43-million.

Klages told the TDC that his projections then were borne out, but said his new study will likely show an even greater impact."

The TDC needs to use a different person to do this study. Klages has a vested interest in have this study prove his last study correct. Has anyone in the city/county government ever heard the word "independent"?

[Dr_Dug]

If they want to increase the fan base of the Rays and want the City to profit from it..they should name the Rays "St.Pete Devil Rays". Looking at them on T.V. or live, all I hear are the words "Tampa Bay".
Tampa Bay doesn't pay for this team.....St.Pete does.......so how about a little respect from the Rays! They want us to pay while disrespecting the location and origin of thier home city? Maybe the Rays should ask Tampa Bay if they want to pay for a new ballpark!!

[Don Mott]

Good point Dave

[since1962]

High end resorts along with other beach hoteliers are now reduced to excess airline baggage charge rebates and other promotions unheard of until the recent "downturn"

More Rays fantasy financial projections will not overide this reality.

We must maintain our PRIMARY economy.Other competing WORTHWHILE economic drivers exist FOR A LARGER MORE DIVERSE TOURIST BASE.

While I have not attended in years, I know that the DALI is the BEST ATTENDED MUSEUM IN FLORIDA and will open a signature space next to Mahaffy which will invigorate downtown additionally WITHOUT DISPROPORTIONATE disruption or expense.

[Dr_Dug]

Our City council is full of crooks. Why would they want an independent study? Our City Council has already proved that they think independently....without consult from the people and voters. Thier not our leaders,they don't represent the people,...they are worthless assclowns that continue to dis-respect the people! Whats next...the truth behind Jabil!!
Look into the family of Rick Baker,(his father)and you'll be shocked! The family has stuck it to the people before.....including our assclown mayor!!

[Don Mott]

Another way to look at it. I could stand in front of the Hurricane for a year and ask every customer where they are from. From that survey I could conclude that the Hurricane draws thousands of people to St. Pete Beach. That shiatz is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be published or reported. And if the city or county paid for it someone should be looking for a job.

[Dr_Dug]

Don..your correct. I went to the beach last week and noticed the pay-toll was backed up. That pay-toll attracts thousands of visitors evey year....LOL

[Dave in St Pete]

LOL Don! You're right.

Heck, I bet the Hurricane would actually fare better than the Rays in a study like that.

We need an independent study from a reputable firm. Not the same guy that did the last "study" and is already predicting the results of the next one! (and low and behold they uphold the results from his last study! Isn't that surprising! /s)

[since1962]

Blogging here is good but emailing in numbers great enough to overide the fantasy studies... civics 101

BOCC chair Rober Stewart

rstewart@co.pinellas.fl.us

Tell him you dont appreciate paying for a reboot of previous study by same firm.

[Don Mott]

You are right on 62 and I have already done that. I hope others do so as well. Their survey was bogus and as Dave pointed out the next one will probably be bogus to cover up the last one.

[Thomas]

The Trop and the Rays already exist. There are already "baseball tourists" that come to St. Pete to see the Red Sox, Yankees, and this year the Cubs.

In order for a new stadium to generate a more positive economic impact it would have to attract more people than the Trop does now.

The problem is that building a new stadium is not going to increase attenance. It's been proven. Statistics from every new park built since 1998 confirms - without a doubt - that new stadiums by themselves do not create higher attendance beyond the first year.

No one in Baltimore is suddenly going to plan a St. Pete vacation to see the Orioles vs Rays just because there is a new stadium.

[Dave in St Pete]

Just sent mine. Thanks for the address 1962.

[since1962]

You're welcome Dave.
I'm not a POWW'r but ALL pertinent address are available on their website
One convenient location
Click- Spread the word icon

[Bobby Fenton]

I guess there are a few forward thinking, open-minded citizens of Planet St. Pete after all. Guys like Aaron and Mike who can actually see the forest.

Dr. Dug, you are Village Idiot Imperial. I don't even know what to say to a lunatic malcontent like you. Don Mott and the rest aren't far behind. What a sad joke of a representation you guys are for St. Pete. This is where St. Pete's reputation comes from, and it's a shame for the good folks that are scattered around over there.

I can't even believe we have to have a discussion about whether or not the city is better off with a major league baseball team or not. I mean seriously, I can't even believe anyone has to be convinced of that, petty arguing about various studies or not. Unreal.

[Jon McPhee]

Bobby:

God help us if the reputation of St. Pete derives from the river of shite that flows thrrrrough the middle of this bog.. er, blog.

Wonder what the litle stream that the developers' pretty pictures show flowing through the Idylls of EcoVerde would actually look like, after the careless New People who would move in there are done with their Evian bottles and Starbucks cups and the runoff of doggie doody and fertilizer from all that pretty grass has worked on the waterway a bit.

Oh, I guess the $6.75-an-hour ex-Disneyworld cleanup crew will police it all up while their betters sleep.

[since1962re bobby]

One dimensional thought process from another "VICTIM OF GROUPTHINK"

Bobby the debate is not: Rays YES/NO

Prioritizing diminishing funding sources in a PRIMARILY TOURIST ECONOMY
&
Location

These are the two main issues easily explained.

May I borrow 100 million?
Don't care if your work vehicle needs gas and maintenance. To he!! with your carpoolers

Easier?

Next week Politics and the multiple communities collecting bed tax.

[Don Mott]

"I can't even believe we have to have a discussion about whether or not the city is better off with a major league baseball team or not. I mean seriously, I can't even believe anyone has to be convinced of that, petty arguing about various studies or not". Well Bobby things are different on this side of the bay. Get over it. If we wanted to be like Tampa it would have happened long ago. We kinda care where our tax money goes and we want a bit of proof that it will produce benefits to the taxpayer. If that makes us idiots I'm afraid of what that makes you folks from Tampa.

[Dr_Dug]

Bobby Fenton...your an AssClown. Since you don't count...nobody is listening. Because you don't belong here, we don't care if you leave. And because your a closed-minded,uneducated bigot that resembles an AssClown....don't let the door hit you in the assclown!!
Thank goodness all you wanna-be stadium idiots aren't talking about the new stadium....YOU LOST THAT FIGHT!! Now go give your paychecks to the Rays.....

[Dr_Dug]

They ought to raise the bed tax on city council....since thier in bed together anyways.....

[Don Mott]

BTW Bobby, How are all those flooded streets doing since your tax dollars have been going to the Bucs, Yankees and Lightning?

[Don Mott]

Mrclean @ 3:25 was pretty good! Forgot to mention it earlier but that was hilarious!

[Thomas]

"I can't even believe we have to have a discussion about whether or not the city is better off with a major league baseball team or not."

Dude, where did you come up with that?

The Rays are already here. The conversation is about if public money should be used to fund a new stadium for the team.

This particular topic is "is public spending on a stadium valid because it would produce a net economic gain?"

And the answer is "No. It won't."

A new stadium is not going to provide a lasting economic impact that is greater than what the Trop produces currently.

The team is going to be here either way.

[mrclean]

Bobby Fenton - You must understand, the (Devil)Rays were invisible for the last nine years by virtue of their MLB standings.

All products must be sold. The selling job the R-owners need to do is to create an interest in baseball. Then they need to sell the Pinellas residents on being Rays fans.

For them to just drop in St Pete from outer space and demand a new waterfront stadium is a bit much. After that debacle they still have their lackeys working for them. They should have given stadium deal a rest for a year and concentrate on building an interest in baseball and Rays fans.

If the '09 election is about the stadium, the R-owners may never see a new stadium for ten years. The way the economy is going it may be twenty years.

These blow-hard politicians and corp exec. types are no match for CONA and now POWW.

Bobby don't blame the residents.

[since1962]

grassroots not easily eradicated.

Thanks Rays

[Bobby Fenton]

Hey listen, I completely understand that the debate is not a narrow, Rays yes vs. no argument. But in THIS particular thread, I was only addressing the line of thinking and the general tenor of the comments before, and there seems to be a debate, again, in THIS particular thread, of the merits of having a team here and what benefits derive from it. I personally think that's ridiculous to even question. That's all I am trying to say.

It's not about St. Pete trying to be like Tampa or trying to be different from Tampa or blah blah blah and flooded streets and whatever (by the way I live in South Tampa and almost never see flooding anywhere around here). So call all the names you want and rip Tampa, I could care less. That was never the argument I was trying to make.

My only point, all along is that the general theme over there ought to be, "How can we make this work?" rather than the constant chorus of no's and the fear mongering and the shouting at the rain. Basically, I am saying St. Pete needs to try harder because a simple lease doesn't make this team your birthright if it's not going to be accomodated the right way. And yes, you better believe you should be accomodating them, I don't care how much money they make or if you think they are "carpetbaggers" or any of the other narrowminded stuff I keep reading over and over. This whole area needs to work together and do it right. You don't get a do over once you build a new place.

[John]

We don't get a do-over Bobby, really?

Then how do you explain "plan B"???

That's EXACTLY what it is, a "do-over" of a rushed, unplanned, uninformed, nonsensical ridiculous circus that ended when the Rays came to their senses and abandoned "Plan A". And galvanized the community as a side-effect. Great work, no?

When people such as yourself stop calling each other lunatic village idiot malcontents, perhaps we really will make some headway towards a new stadium.

Your blather isn't helping one bit.

[Bobby Fenton]

By do-over, I mean once contruction starts and a new stadium actually gets built. The original waterfront plan, and everything else before the day comes that a decision is made is prelude. THAT is what I meant. There is a Plan B, C, D and on and on. Nothing is off the table right now, and whatever ultimately gets decided on has to be the right park in the right part of the area. To be short, we have to get this right. That's my whole point. And yes I said "we" because this is not only a St. Pete issue despite what many of you seem to think.

And it's not my "blather" that's the problem, it's many of the citizens of St. Pete, guys like Dr. Dug, who was the subject of my village idiot remark which I stand by one million percent.

Does that make any more sense to you?

[Jon McPhee]

Bobby

There doesn't really seem to be a "debate" in this thread, or elsewhere on this whole blog about "the merits of having a team here and what benefits derive from it."

We have RRiick and his various alter egos setting up his kewpie dolls and straw men and red herrings and "revealing" claims of 'billions and billions,' starting with his childish attempt to create a new hate category called "ANTIs" and running out to the charming posts about Green Benches and Pontiacs and Blue Hairs. We do have challenges to the amounts and types of benefits claimed by the uncritical boosters.

We have some folks who hold pretty strongly to the idea that Al Lang, promised by the Council to be pretected as park area, is not going to be the place for a new stadium.

There are overlapping sets who believe a public subsidy is a fraud on the public, but have various ideas for an eventual new stadium for the TEAM. I almost said "new home," but in the avaricious and duplicitous and anti-trust exempt world of MLB, Inc., there is no such thing as a "home," just a waystation on the path to ever greater subsidy deals in other cities. Although our staggering economy may tamp that dollar-seeking wanderlust down for a while now.

You're in the majority, I think, in wanting the Team (the players) to stay around. There is a growing sense of pride in the TEAM, the guys on the field that is, and a lot of breath-holding in anticipation of what shape of poop the franchise owners and Mayor R-ick and city staff and the Council are going to extract from their back sides next and tell the rest of us to eat it, without salt or salsa even. Much less an opportunity to vote. Which the RRRiiiccckkks howled so loudly about earlier in this game, "LET US VOTE!," DO YOU REMEMBER, and are now absolutely silent on, hoping for success by the sleazeballs wanting to rob the public till for at least one order of magnitude more tax money than was just secretly gifted to Jabil Circuit.

I read that the entire Rays team payroll at $41 million is $8 million less than just the left side of the Yankees infield. Good-oh on Sternberg and friends for fielding a presently cheap (relatively, of course), winning team that our instincts draw us to now support. That support is no spite of Emperor Baker's Midnight Surprise of a billion-dollar subsidy package for THE OWNERS.

Many of those tuning in here are justifiably skeptical that the Lie-Ash"coalition" will be working toward what's good for the WHOLE community, but would be delighted to be surprised the other way.

But John is absolutely right about a chance, this time, to maybe, possibly get it right. (Insert picture here of 900,000 people on their knees, arms lifted in prayer, tax bills peeking from back pockets, fingers crossed for good luck.)

[mike]

Go to Tropicanafiled.com and vote for your place the Rays should call home!!

[since1962]

kneeling prayerful peasants

a scene even rick would approve!

with the "God","redemption", and"sin" themes prevalent in his posts.

Voters will be very tough negotiators for round 2.
Very irreligious if this blog is indicitive.

[John]

Don't forget that overdue Citizen's Insurance re-assesment notice, Jon.

Here's a thought...

Why can't our "green Mayor" figure out a scam to make a profit off free curbside recycling, like the rest of civilized cities? Use that revenue to fund a new sandbox. Eventually.

[Rick K]

This is the first post by Rick in this thread.

Some of you have truly gone 'round the bend.

Dug and 1962 have to be someone playing around. No one could think the way they think and still function.

[since1962]

Unlike you, I wouldn't presume to speak for others on this blog but I function quite well.

I don't need their affirmation or "redemption" but Council affirmed majority FUNCTIONING opinion this AM.
INCLUDING MINE

The Rays withdrew YOUR. raison d etre.

Function in the NEW PARADIGM.

[Rick K]

It is simultaneously amusing and frustarting to see the very same hard headed ignorants in this thread, clinging to their very same fantasies, with the very same words that they have been using for three months.

Let's review.

Of practicing econimists in America, fewer than 1% subscribe to the fringe view that public investment in sports stadia produce negative economic benefits.

A handful (twenty to forty, you pick the number) of these "economists" have published various works espousing their fringe beliefs. The rest of the economics profession views their work as quackery. Since it almost always completely ignores accepted laws of economics, or misapplies them.

There are a pocket of people in St. Pete who really, really, really, really want to believe that the public investment in the Bay Area sports stadiums have (so far) produced negative economic benefits. This pocket of people are very committed to clinging to their fantasy.

So, even though there has been no credible study applying the laws of economics to the Rays and the Trop, this "committed pocket" continue to pretend that there has been such a study.

They take their lunacy several steps further, though. The impact studies which have been performed are dismissed by these fringe lunatics (who unfortanately, actually comprise a majority of the most active posters in this Blog).

Let me restate that. The fringe lunatics who believe something which is the opposie of both common sense and the overwhelming majority of professional economic research, wish for others to IGNORE the work of trained professionals who have performed the work of trying to measure the impact (of the Rays/Trop), in place of FANTASIES that are crafted from the imaginations of the lunatics.

I don't see that happening, outside the walls of the Sunny Shores Sanitarium.

There have been no less than 21 court cases in Florida in which the court was asked to weigh in on the question of whether or not public investment in sports stadiums produces positive economic benefits. In every case, the court found that there are real and significant economic benefits. In no case has a court in Florida bought into the quackery that suggests the opposite.

There has not been a court anywhere in the United States that has bought into the quackery. Courts, as impartial arbiters as we could ask for, have, in fact, always evaluated the evidence available and come to the conclusion that public investments in sports stadiums produces significant (net) positive economic benefits.

Combine that reality with a bunch of other observable facts, apply a little common sense, and you are left with the inescapable conclusions that the most committed ANTI's who post in these threads WISH that something which is not true WERE true.

They SO badly want their fantasies to be true, that they will stoop to anything, no matter how ridiculous or insupportable.

First, they attack who performs a study. Unless it was authored by one of their committed economic quacks, it is unworthy.

Ignore for a moment that they pretended for the longest time that the TDC would take the position that the Rays/Trop do not benefit the tourism industry. Now that it is known that the TDC has known all along that the Rays contribute to Tourism, the ANTI lunatics wish to pretend that the credible and reasonable study by the TDC is not worthy of the TDC's attention.

The Chamber of Commerce sought the truth. They engaged perhaps the world's best Accounting Consultancy practice to attempt to measure the economic impact of the Rays (and a new stadium also). That independent study came back with estimates of annual economic impact exceeding one hundred million dollars.

But the committed ANTI's think that because the WISH the study was invalid, this is somehow the equivalent of a reality in which the PWC Economic Impact study is invalid.

I admit it is very odd. I cannot think of many comparisons. It's as if the most committed ANTI's who post here are members of some cult, whose members cling to irrational beliefs so far outside the mainstream that it makes the rest of us just scratch our head and think, "How nutty!"

[Jon McPhee]

Rick K is actually a POWW plant, intending to annoy everyone else so much at his "unusual" and "very revealing" and "silly" and "nutty" and "irrational" but at least totally linear arguments, that they flip on over by ANTI-gravity to the Far Side."

[Don Mott]

"A handful (twenty to forty, you pick the number) of these "economists" have published various works espousing their fringe beliefs. The rest of the economics profession views their work as quackery. Since it almost always completely ignores accepted laws of economics, or misapplies them." Wow in all of my searching and Googling I have not found these stats! Imagine THAT! "There have been no less than 21 court cases in Florida in which the court was asked to weigh in on the question of whether or not public investment in sports stadiums produces positive economic benefits. In every case, the court found that there are real and significant economic benefits. In no case has a court in Florida bought into the quackery that suggests the opposite". In all of my searches and Googling I have never found 21 or more court cases suggesting this! "Now that it is known that the TDC has known all along that the Rays contribute to Tourism, the ANTI lunatics wish to pretend that the credible and reasonable study by the TDC is not worthy of the TDC's attention". It was a bogus survey and does not mean squat. I don't think anyone with a vested interest, (TDC), buys into someone standing out side of the stadium asking people where they are from! Let's find out how many tourists come here "strictly" for a baseball game. Those numbers would be blown out of the water! How nutty indeed!

[since1962]

Like shooting your best friend in the face?

Obsfucation!

"practicing" economists?

Expenditures(subsidies) and impacts proportional to ACTUAL net benefits AND as a component of TOTAL ECONOMY.

sorry to reduce these arguments professor I know how you like your blog bloating diatribes but unlike rabid fans and paid consultants...
I have cherished the entire peninsula since 1962.

[Rick K]

Don Mott's post at 7:15 defies logic, baffles the imagination, and contradicts multiple assertions made by Don like-minded posters. Don, in essence is telling us that "his" research (consisting of some 'googling,') did not lead him to the information that would clearly convince him that he is wrong. Good point Don.

Obviously, if you had done better research, you wouldn't still believe that which is not true. If you googled or did research with the intent of testing the claims that you like, to see if they survive scrutiny, you would know that the stuff you constantly link to is quackery.

If you had visited any of the links provided by people offering to enlighten you. If you had read criticisms (some of which are available at Amazon.com, for example) of Zimbalist's and others books, you would know more than you know. If you had done any work at all Don to contact economists and ask them, you'd know that Zimbalist and his ilk are quacks who suspend the laws of economics in their work to come to conclusions which are not supported by facts or science.

Ditto the court cases. If Don had tried to find out what Courts in Florida have said about public financing of sports facilities, he would know that the courts have always dismissed the quackery and ruled that sports facilities yield significant positive ecnomic benefits. There is no better example of the silly problem which infects the ANTI's like Don, than the illuminating example which presents itself in the form of Florida court cases about public investment in sports facilities.

Even though there have been no less than eight separate entries in these threads including links to the Florida Supreme Court Case (90233) which dealt with the financing arragements which built Raymond James Stadium, Don tells us that "his" research did not lead him to any cases.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/90223/op-90223.pdf

The Supreme Court opinon in that case is helpful, because it mentions several other Florida Supreme Court cases dealing with public financing of sports facilities. The Court draws our attention to its own prior precedents, which, among other things, take up the issue of sports contributions to attracting tourism, pointing out that tourism is a competitive business and declaring, famously, "the sand the sun and the water are not sufficient to attract those seeking a vacation and recreation."

In the Tampa Stadium case, the Supreme Court opinion points out the findings of the trial court which found the evidence about positive economic benefits from the Stadium to be credible. The ANTI view's evidence was found to lack credibility.

Yet Don Mott wants to pretend that because HE is ignorant of the truth, this is somehow equivalent to the truth being invalid.

Silly.

And Don seems to want us all to forget that up until a few days ago he and all the other ANTI's were insisting that the Rays were not a positive contributor to Tourism and that the interests of the TDC were contrary to those of the Rays. Now that we KNOW that this is not true has conducted its own research which indicates the Rays do contribute to tourism, Don and his ilk now tell us that "obviously" the TDC are interested in padding the Rays numbers because the Rays are a contributor to tourism.

Huh?

[since1962]

Then interview beach tourists as our primary respondents rather than Rays patrons if "the sun the sand and the water are somehow no longer sufficent" for our 60 BILLION DOLLAR TOURISM INDUSTRY.

MLB chose Florida for TWO teams in an industry with 26 locations.
Who needs WHOM?

[Don Mott]

Dear RRRick, Seems funny that all of the economists I Googled were adamant that pro sports stadia provide no or very little economic benefit. Maybe YOU might find one or two who disagree but I couldn't. I could post many links but you would just dismiss them without offering anything to disprove them so I won't waste my time. Not to mention you are calling college professors, some with Phds quacks? But I guess you are smarter than them HUH? And nowhere in that Supreme Court ruling did it mention 21 sports stadia cases in Florida which is what you stated there were. That was what I questioned, your exaggeration of numbers. There was the Bucs stadium and Daytona International Speedway. Explains why I couldn't find the other nineteen. The rest of your post is rambling and delirious. Where did I say the TDC was padding the Rays numbers regarding tourism? Dude you are shot out.

[Rick K]

Sure Don.

Sure.

I know you want to believe that. But I don't believe for one minute that you actually still cling to the fantasies you present as posts.