Development of the Parking Garages...

[HalfSmokes]

Just to continue playing both sides, I don't agree with this necessarily. There are plenty of local expenditures on things like homeless shelters, art, libraries, education etc. that make life in the District better for all its residents that don't have a quantifiable ROI.

because both sides are interesting, those services are considered integral to what you expect from government and are open to all residents at low or no cost. The stadium largely caters to non-residents (be it the owners, players, or fans) and a relatively high cost. Further, if a city art museum actually managed to turn a profit, the money would go to the city coffers, if a stadium turns a profit, the city's take is usually either capped or a small percentage of the overall profits with the majority going to a private organization unaffiliated with the city

[Ray D]

Just to continue playing both sides, I don't agree with this necessarily. There are plenty of local expenditures on things like homeless shelters, art, libraries, education etc. that make life in the District better for all its residents that don't have a quantifiable ROI.

But if you have a positive return, you end up with more than you started with, and have more to spend on shelters, libraries, etc.

[Ray D]

Yea, I get the concept.

I didn't doubt that, but has anyone seen any practical economic model by which one can reliably predict a positive return?  Or is it still just an abstract concept.

[NJ Ave]

because both sides are interesting, those services are considered integral to what you expect from government and are open to all residents at low or no cost. The stadium largely caters to non-residents (be it the owners, players, or fans) and a relatively high cost. Further, if a city art museum actually managed to turn a profit, the money would go to the city coffers, if a stadium turns a profit, the city's take is usually either capped or a small percentage of the overall profits with the majority going to a private organization unaffiliated with the city

$25 or so million a year in bond payments over rent and other income streams is not a "relatively high cost" in Washington DC. You're talking about something like a quarter of one percent of city revenues, paid out of an additional tax that to my knowledge has neither impeded businesses nor high-income people from flocking to the city.

Was it a ransom? Sure. A ransom like Tiger Woods paying a kidnapper $500,000 to get his kids back.

Walking around money.

[Slateman]

I didn't doubt that, but has anyone seen any practical economic model by which one can reliably predict a positive return?  Or is it still just an abstract concept.

Pretty much all concept. At best, it's a very long term investment with a high cost up front. Actually, a lot like reloading.

I think it also suffers from the faulty premise that you can build a stadium in a bad part of town and it will improve that part of town. Chinatown wasn't as much a bad, crime riddled part of town as it was economically dead. Putting in a venue like Verizon Center (or whatever it was called back then) brought a legit reason for people to be down there. Government offices moved down there. But the main thing is that there is generally something going on down there every night. Unlike an outdoor football or baseball stadium.

[HalfSmokes]

$25 or so million a year in bond payments over rent and other income streams is not a "relatively high cost" in Washington DC. You're talking about something like a quarter of one percent of city revenues, paid out of an additional tax that to my knowledge has neither impeded businesses nor high-income people from flocking to the city.

Was it a ransom? Sure. A ransom like Tiger Woods paying a kidnapper $500,000 to get his kids back.

Walking around money.

I was referring to a high cost for the user. But if you want to talk about city wide, it's the bond revenue, the maintenance, and the lost tax revenue on the parcel. Not a huge expense, but If I wanted to have the city cover those costs for my home, I'd get laughed at- that should be the response when a private entity approaches a public entity looking for that kind of a handout 

[NJ Ave]

I was referring to a high cost for the user. But if you want to talk about city wide, it's the bond revenue, the maintenance, and the lost tax revenue on the parcel. Not a huge expense, but If I wanted to have the city cover those costs for my home, I'd get laughed at- that should be the response when a private entity approaches a public entity looking for that kind of a handout 

I think you're ignoring the fact that the city doesn't CARE about whether you live in your home, and that there are millions of yous out there.

DC hasn't had baseball in 35 years, and there wasn't going to be another baseball team for a long, long time. A LITTLE more leverage than an individual has.

Now maybe you can't argue that cities should say no, go screw yourself MLB, take it elsewhere. That's why I get a little tired of this anti-public funding nonsense - recent history has shown over and over who has the leverage here, and it's NOT the cities. A city has the right to say, we won't be held hostage, and MLB can take their act to any number of other localities like Cobb County that are perfectly willing to be held hostage.

If DC wanted to play hardball, MLB would have gotten an equivalent package from NOVA or PG County.

[HalfSmokes]

If DC wanted to play hardball, MLB would have gotten an equivalent package from NOVA or PG County.

you could argue that would have been the better economic outcome for DC. I do wonder how much longer leagues will be able to get these deals from cities with almost every economic report saying that they are a bad deal. In the abstract, I guess there is something to be said for having a team in the city, but there are other projects that can provide better bang for the buck- which do you think will end up generating more revenue, the convention center or nats park, national harbor or fed ex field?

[NJ Ave]

you could argue that would have been the better economic outcome for DC. I do wonder how much longer leagues will be able to get these deals from cities with almost every economic report saying that they are a bad deal. In the abstract, I guess there is something to be said for having a team in the city, but there are other projects that can provide better bang for the buck- which do you think will end up generating more revenue, the convention center or nats park, national harbor or fed ex field?

1. Again, there are more to city politics and life than economics - cities spend money on plenty of things that don't give a financial return.

2. As far as the other concern, I think it should go without saying that neither DC nor PG county was actually FACED with that choice, and both ended up with both. Further, should DC have built a second convention center in place of the ballpark, since CC1 might make more money than the ballpark? The answer to that is, no. There's a reason hardly any cities have 2 Convention Centers

3. The real question you're asking is whether DC should have used the space for something else more effective economically? I don't know. Again, we're talking about tenths of a percentage point on bottom line revenues, one way or the other, and the city is making tons of money either way. I'm glad it's in the city on a metro line and not out in Ashburn. In my opinion, football stadiums belong outside the city and baseball stadiums belong inside the city.

[HalfSmokes]

meh, it's the principle of transferring public money to individuals that bothers me. Someone cheating the city out of $1 million is a rounding error on the budget, that doesn't mean it's ok

[blue911]

Oh c'mon Blue - there are other factors beyond the stadium, such as the influx of professionals into the DC area and the shrinking housing supply.  I'm not saying every sports development turns into a bonus, but the one on the DC waterfront did turn into a great success

I would point to DOT moving it's HQ to 4th & M and NavSea leaving Crystal City for the Navy Yard as better causes for area growth. Those people are in the area 200 days a year, and are more likely to visit a local business than a person coming in to see the Nats. The area was already on the upswing before the Nats even existed.

[Mathguy]

I agree there was a lot going on already.  But adding Nats Park was definitely a positive benefit for the city and a reason why the city was willing to move forward on the stadium

I would point to DOT moving it's HQ to 4th & M and NavSea leaving Crystal City for the Navy Yard as better causes for area growth. Those people are in the area 200 days a year, and are more likely to visit a local business than a person coming in to see the Nats. The area was already on the upswing before the Nats even existed.

[Dave B]

Oh c'mon Blue - there are other factors beyond the stadium, such as the influx of professionals into the DC area and the shrinking housing supply.  I'm not saying every sports development turns into a bonus, but the one on the DC waterfront did turn into a great success

 it's a moderate success.    dc is booming and other dc  neighborhoods have accelerated past the ballpark area,  without a ballpark  to drive growth.  it's not like it is the fastest growing area in a fast growing city.  it's kinda getting pulled along.  there are still a lot of stalled projects there where in other neighborhoods,  they can't build fast enough.

[GburgNatsFan]

I wonder if in other areas, though, there's so many damn parcels on which you can develop. Go from the ball park up to Metro Capital South and its acres and acres of new condos.

it's a moderate success.    dc is booming and other dc  neighborhoods have accelerated past the ballpark area,  without a ballpark  to drive growth.  it's not like it is the fastest growing area in a fast growing city.  it's kinda getting pulled along.  there are still a lot of stalled projects there where in other neighborhoods,  they can't build fast enough.

[OldChelsea]

[...]If DC wanted to play hardball, MLB would have gotten an equivalent package from NOVA or PG County.

Where in NOVA could they have located? (and don't say the Dulles area - too far from the centre, that's a non-starter)

Definitely not in Arlington or Alexandria (remember how those jurisdictions shot down a Redskins stadium back in the 1990's) - WE OWN NIMBY.

[RL04]

because if you have a normal budget with normal allocations, there normally is no issue, it's when you consider spending a large amount of additional money.

If the city is in a position to raise that extra money (which they seemingly are if they decide to do it for an arena), why not open a debate about the best use for the additional money?

I suggest you (and your ilk)  take a course in municipal financial management and budgets because you have no idea what you’re talking about.   This has nothing to do with having a “normal budget with normal allocations.”

There is a difference between general fund/operating expenses and capital improvement projects/special assessments.

Every taxing authority (cities, school districts, highway administrations, even HOAs, etc.)  fund large projects outside of the general budget.   This has nothing to do with “paying teachers more money, or more books for the library, or hiring more police," etc.

Gosh. <sigh>   I could talk until I’m blue in the face but there is obviously no point to go on any further.

[HalfSmokes]

I suggest you (and your ilk)  take a course in municipal financial management and budgets because you have no idea what you’re talking about.   This has nothing to do with having a “normal budget with normal allocations.”


There is a difference between general fund/operating expenses and capital improvement projects/special assessments.
[
Every taxing authority (cities, school districts, highway administrations, even HOAs, etc.)  fund large projects outside of the general budget.   This has nothing to do with “paying teachers more money, or more books for the library, or hiring more police," etc.

Gosh. <sigh>   I could talk until I’m blue in the face but there is obviously no point to go on any further.

so there should be no debate about spending money on a ballpark because it's outside of the normal budgeting process? You do realize that the taxes passed to fund it bring in regular revenue not special nats dollars that can only be used to pay off stadium bonds? Or maybe the taxes don't count as taxes because their revenue is already earmarked? You do realize that these taxes aren't a one time thing, but continuing- so yes it really is a choice about priorities.  To build Nats park, the city issued a large amount of debt and passed taxes to pay off that debt- the fact that the debt has to be paid means that it does have something to do with choosing where to allocate money (unless you believe that somehow businesses have an infinite capacity to generate tax dollars)

[mitlen]

Gosh. <sigh>   I could go on until I’m blue in the type face but there is obviously no point to go on any further.

[RL04]

I could go on until I’m blue in the type face but there is obviously no point to go on any further.

Cute.     Yeah, I realized that as I was typing.

[Dave B]

dc  is fortunate that it has  like a 400  million dollar surplus.  maybe for a couple years running.   whether or not the stadium was a good use of funds isn't much of an issue.

[Mathguy]

PLEASE DO !!!

Actually your insights are a welcome thought, even if some disagree - or like Vega, turn pink

Gosh. <sigh>   I could talk until I’m blue in the face but there is obviously no point to go on any further.

[NJ Ave]

dc  is fortunate that it has  like a 400  million dollar surplus.  maybe for a couple years running.   whether or not the stadium was a good use of funds isn't much of an issue.

This is precisely the point. Whether or not stadiums make sense in cities that are already struggling financially, DC is not in that position. To the extent that a stadium is a luxury purchase for a city, DC can afford a few luxuries. I don't know that the Stadium is any more or less a bad investment than a $100 million streetcar system to service H St, which is already served by the existing bus system, for example.