Marlborough Mesa

I really hope that this issue does not pit neighbor against neighbor. To me, it boils down to a simple question: Should the citizens of Mesa have a say in whether or not the city should enter into a 30-year business venture with the Cardinals and the TSA? If you say yes, then sign the petition that will send the stadium to the ballot for MESA citizens to vote on. If you say no, then don?’t sign the petition. Simple. I just want people to know the truth and be educated citizens when it comes to voting.
I have signed the petition and here is why. I have been following this issue since the legislature started drafting the bill that sent Prop 302 to the ballot. I opposed, and still oppose, having tax dollars fund professional stadiums. But that battle has been fought and lost. So, why would I oppose a stadium that is not going to cost me anything? Allow me to explain in the following manner:
MYTH #1: It is not going to cost Mesa anything. Only tourists are going to pay.
FACT: Maricopa County residents will pay an estimated 5% of the construction costs, which IF the cost stays at $350 million, that would mean you and I are going to pay $17.5 million. If you don?’t believe me, see paragraph 6 of the TSA?’s own press release at www.az-tsa.com/docs/Statement%20following%20House%20passage%20of%20HB%202654.pdf.
FACT: According to a recent AZ Republic article (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0330downandout30.html), Tempe cannot put it?’s finger on what sort of hit their economy is going to take if and when the Fiesta Bowl and Cardinals leave, but believe that they will SAVE money if and when they do leave.
FACT: So far, for the current Fiscal Year 2002, the state General Fund has transferred $3.32 million dollars that Cardinal players and staff have paid in income taxes to the TSA ( see TSA?’s recent monthly report www.az-tsa.com/webtext/Pres%20reports/Monthly%20RPT%202002-2.PDF). That is $3.32 million that will not go to education, public safety or any other government service that you and I pay taxes for. This transfer will occur and the minimum transfer will INCREASE 8% every year for 30 years (see Legislative Fiscal Note www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/fiscal/sb1220.doc.pdf).

More to come.....

By Kevin

Part II

MYTH #2 ?– This will be an economic generator for Mesa
No one has been able to show me (believe me I have asked and searched) a validated study that stadiums generate substantial NEW revenue. I only hear ?“estimates?” and ?“projections?” from those who are in favor of such projects. If you are interested, here is a link to the Heartland Institute who has done studies in this area www.heartland.org.
Here is a quote from the summary of one of their studies:
For cities that are considering the construction of a new stadium to attract or keep a franchise, the evidence is far less encouraging. No municipally owned stadium analyzed in this study has earned enough to generate a positive net accumulated value. That is, when fixed costs such as debt service and foregone property taxes are considered, every municipally owned stadium reviewed generated a net loss of wealth to the city's taxpayers. That loss ranged between $836,021 (incurred by city taxpayers for the renovation of Buffalo's War Memorial Stadium) and $70,356,950 (for the New Orleans Superdome). The average per capita loss was $19.62. Given the nature of the subsidy and the elasticity of the demand for sports, it was surmised that sports fans benefited little from such subsidies.

Privately owned Dodger Stadium is the only stadium reviewed in this study that achieved a positive net accumulated value for the taxpayers' investment. Municipal involvement in Dodger Stadium was limited to building access roads and bringing utilities to the site. The owners were not granted a property tax abatement by city officials, and so the facility also contributes to the city's property tax collections.

Or, you can check out a lecture given by Allen Sanderson, a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of Chicago and a Senior Research Scientist at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). He also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Sports Economics. You can find it at http://wc.wustl.edu/baseballtranscripts/AllenSanderson.pdf

I would be happy to read any study that shows the economic benefit of publicly funded stadiums.

As for the Super Bowl argument, there was an article in the Republic shortly after the World Series (sorry I didn?’t save it) that reported on Phoenix?’s difficulty covering the costs (primarily overtime for police coverage) of hosting the World Series! The World Series was more than one game and yet Phoenix had difficulty covering the costs.


By Kevin

Apples and Oranges

''As for the Super Bowl argument, there was an article in the Republic shortly after the World Series (sorry I didn?’t save it) that reported on Phoenix?’s difficulty covering the costs (primarily overtime for police coverage) of hosting the World Series! The World Series was more than one game and yet Phoenix had difficulty covering the costs.''

This is irrelevant.

The Super Bowl is awarded YEARS in advance, giving plenty of time to prepare for proper security, manhours, etc. You can't predict if you're going to make the World Series in any given year... Phoenix PD (my cousin is a Phoenix officer) had to scramble to get enough officers for the large WS ceowds in fairly short notice and on top of already full schedules.

Totally exclusive situations.

Fruit Talk...

Thanks for the reply Brian. I was not going to discuss this anymore because those who believe this stadium is a good idea are going to believe it no matter what evidence I present to the contrary. But you chose to respond with a generality to just one of my points and I find that very interesting. Not to brag, but I know this issue very well. I can back what I say with proof. I have yet to hear anyone, either on this site or in any discussion, provide any factual, verifiable information to refute my facts. It's all based on a wish and a prayer.

By Kevin