I have a question. If the bonds used to pay for a stadium are revenue bonds and not G.O. bonds (in other words are backed by a revenue stream that is un-related to taxes and not backed by the full faith and credit of the taxing authority) then why can’t the community claim that “the stadium will pay for itself?” For example, if the bonds are backed by rent from the team, ticket surcharges, naming rights, and parking fees, then how are the local taxpayers harmed?

Second, as a professional economist with years of experience in economic impact analysis and analysis of sports-related projects, I object to the notion that the stadium won’t provide economic stimulus. To the extent that it keeps discretionary income from leaving the community, or attracts new income into the community, it certainly will provide stimulus.

Also, while I realize that JC’s point has to do with the reporting of the economic impact and not the economic impact numbers themselves, as the economist that did that particular analysis, I would like to point out that just because the numbers cited in the story above were done by “an employee of the county” doesn’t mean that they are necessarily less credible.

Some Gwinnett residents will certainly be better off for having a Braves affiliate in town. As a baseball fan, if a minor league team moved to my town, I would be ecstatic about it, especially if it was a Braves affiliate. I would support such action and probably campaign for it.

But I would do that knowing full well that it was not going to provide any economic stimulus or benefit (relative to alternatives) to the county or likely to me. The real question that the decision makers in the Gwinnett case (and probably all cases) should consider is whether the cost of to the community (and to be clear, it IS going to be cost) is worth the benefits. Benefits to baseball fans in the area are that they are able to go to baseball games locally rather than having to commute. They will be able to choose to spend their time and money at the new ball park rather than, say, the local bowling alley. If you have a town full of rabid baseball fans, it’s entirely plausible that a deal such as this could increase the town’s aggregate utility.

But that’s not the trade-off that people are talking about. Indeed, the discussion seems to systematically avoid talking about the trade-off by falsely claiming stuff like “the stadium will pay for itself!” and that stadiums provide economic benefits to a region. This arguments are empirically false. But it seems that deceit is the only way to sell the large part of the population that doesn’t necessarily care that much for baseball on the plan, so that’s what we get.

Put more succinctly, the “intangible benefits” that you refer to are not typically addressed in empirical studies, but that’s not really the point JC is making. He’s arguing that the commission is being disingenuous (or just flat out wrong) when it claims that the stadium will pay for itself, that it will provide economic stimulus, and that the stadium’s cost won’t be born by Gwinnett tax payers.

JC: WAIT! The media is biased?!? Next you’ll be saying that politicians lie… haha, good post, great study!

Minor league baseball gives locals another reason to stay home to be entertained.

Now, Gwinnett has grown up enough that when fans sing “Take Me Out To The Ballgame,” they won’t have to be worried about being taken out of the county.

This keep them in Gwinnett (or whereever) mercantilism has always bugged me. What’s next a replica of Disney World so Gwinnetians don’t go to Florida or a faux Eiffel Tower so the don’t go to Paris? Heck, if keeping people at home is so important why not build a fence–call it the Gwinnett Wall–around the county?