Bloomberg says Camden Yards was a stupid idea

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Source: Ted Lerner met with Mayor Gray with a proposal for a $300 million retractable roof over Nats Park. Gray was "shocked," said no.</p>— Adam Kilgore (@AdamKilgoreWP) <a href="

">November 26, 2013</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Straight Stealing. I wonder how he would spin that for increased revenues into our Nation's Capital.

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Yankees ask taxpayers for $300 million to pay for Robinson Cano.</p>— Conor Glassey (@conorglassey) <a href="

">November 26, 2013</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Well this makes more sense.

[Mondo Trasho]

If anyone wants to know why these stadium deals happen, I have three words: Public Choice Economics.

Stated differently: concentrated benefits, dispersed costs...

[weams]

If anyone wants to know why these stadium deals happen, I have three words: Public Choice Economics.

Stated differently: concentrated benefits, dispersed costs...

What if public authority financed a stadium, but then negotiated a fair lease and a per ticket fee to go Back into public coffers. Instead of the ownership that benefits from the edifice. Does that work? Does that centralize the cost a bit better?

[skanar]

I have become convinced over time that public stadium deals are a way for rich people to get a handout and for mayors/city councils to measure their *****.

But Camden Yards seems a pretty bad example - the city/state got a very good deal (at least relative to other stadiums) and it's worked out OK for the area. Like Verizon Center in DC.

[Mondo Trasho]

What if public authority financed a stadium, but then negotiated a fair lease and a per ticket fee to go Back into public coffers. Instead of the ownership that benefits from the edifice. Does that work? Does that centralize the cost a bit better?

I would wonder why the team owner couldn't go to a private financial institution and get a similar deal. My guess is that private financial institutions, with strict underwriting and risk assessment standards, would deem the return on investment as not worth the cost. Public finances don't have those same restrictions, and to the extent that they do the consequences won't be felt until current officeholders are long gone. Hence the Public Choice element.

[weams]

My guess is that private financial institutions, with strict underwriting and risk assessment standards, would deem the return on investment as not worth the cost.

Na. They would just dummy up the documents like is always done on these types of matters. And then make it into some kind of hedge fund offering.

[Mondo Trasho]

I have become convinced over time that public stadium deals are a way for rich people to get a handout and for mayors/city councils to measure their *****.

But Camden Yards seems a pretty bad example - the city/state got a very good deal (at least relative to other stadiums) and it's worked out OK for the area. Like Verizon Center in DC.

You are right in your assessment. OPACY is far from an unmitigated disaster. Still though, it's a net loss. Not a big net loss, but a loss all the same.

There's a podcast in which Roger Noll is interviewed about the economics of sports. He talks a bit about public financing for sports stadiums. I won't link to it in case it's considered political, but a google search should bring it up. It's worth a listen to if anyone is interested in the subject.

In any case, basketball arenas actually break even. And that's because you can use them almost all year round. You can have concerts, the circus, conventions, etc. Not just outdoor events in warm or temperate weather.

[Nigel Tufnel]

This kind of makes sense, but zero chance Lerner puts up his own money.

“Great idea, but the Lerners would have to pay for it and I think there are creative ways to do that,” said D.C. Councilman Jack Evans, D-Ward 2, a leading proponent of sports and entertainment facilities in the District.

Evans suggested, if the Lerners want a roof, they should leverage some of their many real estate holdings to cover the debt, and then use the incremental revenue generated by the roof — with off-season events and such — to cover what's due.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2013/11/nationals-pitch-300m-stadium-roof.html

[Satyr3206]

I would wonder why the team owner couldn't go to a private financial institution and get a similar deal. My guess is that private financial institutions, with strict underwriting and risk assessment standards, would deem the return on investment as not worth the cost. Public finances don't have those same restrictions, and to the extent that they do the consequences won't be felt until current officeholders are long gone. Hence the Public Choice element.

You're on the right track but you need to remember a few things. Most of the NFL owners have been very, very successful in business and are great negotiators. Elected officials, not so much. Who would you rather deal with, Bankers wanting an equity position or people elected that may have majored in something not even remotely related to economics?

[Mondo Trasho]

You're on the right track but you need to remember a few things. Most of the NFL owners have been very, very successful in business and are great negotiators. Elected officials, not so much. Who would you rather deal with, Bankers wanting an equity position or people elected that may have majored in something not even remotely related to economics?

Oh yeah, it certainly goes both ways. Elected officials and team owners both get something out of the deal.

The point is though, that if you are getting a better deal than what the market would give you, it's probably leaving someone on the short end of the stick.

[Nigel Tufnel]

lol

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Christmas list: 1 Large Roof please. ' ol</p>— Ian Desmond (@IanDesmond20) <a href="https://twitter.com/IanDesmond20/statuses/405476790866419712">November 26, 2013</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[weams]

lol

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Christmas list: 1 Large Roof please. ' ol</p>— Ian Desmond (@IanDesmond20) <a href="https://twitter.com/IanDesmond20/statuses/405476790866419712">November 26, 2013</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Eleven.

[Satyr3206]

Oh yeah, it certainly goes both ways. Elected officials and team owners both get something out of the deal.

The point is though, that if you are getting a better deal than what the market would give you, it's probably leaving someone on the short end of the stick.

That's the Crux of this entire discussion. Elected officials making decisions with the peoples money they may or may not be qualified to do. I personally don't have that big of an issue with publicly funded stadiums but most localities could do a much better job protecting the taxpayers money. And the ROI.

[CheeryO]

Inner Harbor area was what it is now before Camden Yards ever existed. Camden Yards is a nice stadium but other than the bars like pickles and parking garages I don't know how much it really helped the downtown area. I mean we lost HammerJacks.

This is true. Camden Yards had very little to do with revitalizing the Inner Harbor. Harborplace, the Aquariam and several other attractions revitalized the Inner Harbor several years before a baseball park at Camden Yards was even thought of.