SGreenwell wrote:Rhodymob05 wrote:I see the issues with the funding aspects, although they have been transparent and created some interesting diagrams showing who pays what, and about the possible return on investment. Everything in life is a risk, but it just seems like a good enough deal to me. I just wish people would stop seeing this as "why help a billionaire"....because he can give us what any sports fan wants, a beautiful new stadium so we can continue those same traditions since the early 70s and to give the dying city of Pawtucket a jump start. Not to defend him (luhccino) but I'm pretty sure you're supposed to make money in life.
Pretty much every study on ballparks and stadiums shows that it doesn't have much of an economic impact, though. On game days, sure, you do OK with people in the immediate area. But even MLB teams only play 81 home games, meaning you usually have prime city real estate dormant for the other 180 days (365 minus weekends). The jobs you're creating are usually seasonal or temporary as a result.
I understand there can be a prestige or pride thing associated with having a pro sports team, but if you wanted to actually improve the city, a better option would just be to give the check to Google or Amazon or Good Business Of Your Choice Here, and tell them it's $40M free as long as they stay for X years. (This option usually isn't politically tenable though, whereas in the past it was usually easier to pass or get support for some sort of stadium bond.)
As Ramster points out, RI did this with 38 Studios. I'm not against that, I just kind of wish the state had chosen an established company in a growing industry, instead of giving it a guy with almost no experience in a new field that's incredibly volatile.
This may also help answer some questions, I'm especially excited about the first few bullet points about it being an "park in the park that is accessible year round to the public"