No one said we don’t do things big here in the biggest of everything, etc. The Times takes a dull pencil to the Ernst & Young numbers regarding the ‘economic impact’ of the proposed Jets stadium. Since, unlike the Nets development, they don’t have any angle to play (the new Times Tower is being developed by Bruce Ratner, who is currently papering Brooklyn with glossy brochures touting the benefits of the new Gehry-copia of arena, housing and general whiteness), they take a tempered, albeit negative view of the projected benefits.
Turns out E&Y and Doctoroff expect economic benefits on the order of five times what has been measured by any comparable facility in the country. A total of 50 new trade shows are expected to flock to the billion dollar stadium, which currently only has a total guaranteed booking slate of eight events a year (if you are into numbers, that means it they city will spend $6.5 million each Sunday a Jets game is played for the next twenty years).
Why a dull pencil? Well, the economic analysis is a retread of the usual routine, in which canned numbers are projected using assumptions which are not grounded in any analytic reseach; that is, no data is supplied, either systemic or anecdotal, to indicate whether there are even the mythical 50 events looking for a home in the oversaturated exhibition market. It’s not quite that simple (you have to earn those consultant dollars somehow), but that’s the top line, and its an approach that has been neatly debunked a number of times. And even though they do a decent job of exposing some of the weak logic, there is a larger body of analysis that should bolster a harder line against the ‘economic benefit’ front. That is not to say that no benefits are realized. There is a thin slice of data indicating that cities that win Super Bowls realized a net gain of rental income, even though personal income drops. But this correlation is about a winning team, not a new stadium.
New York gave a bit more of platform to Dan Doctoroff last week to explain his vision, which includes a big park and a branch of the Guggenheim (which is the easy lay you ask to every party these days; can someone please tell Thomas Krens to keep it his pants once in a while? You would think he would show a little discretion considering the recent self-funded survey that indicated that the majority of visitors show up for the Wright building and not the art. Learning from Las Vegas, indeed). The cornerstone of his argument is that you have spend the $600 million to develop the site no matter what, so why not a stadium? His point about public investment is fine, but since his numbers project that if the stadium hits a home run (or, to make the metaphor sports appropriate, connects on a Hail Mary) right out of the gate, the most the city can expect is a net gain of $30 million yearly in tax revenue, maybe some research on what revenue benefits accrue from any other types of development are in order first. Fairly put, $600 million is only 1.2% of the annual budget, and thus a sum that the city can manage, but if the benefit to New Yorkers consists of a facility they have access to (but don’t own) only eight days a year, and with an entry fee in the neighborhood of $50, perhaps we should be rethinking what an the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development should actually be doing on our dime.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
But where’s the bread?
No one said we don’t do things big here in the biggest of everything, etc. The Times takes a dull pencil to the Ernst & Young numbers regarding the ‘economic impact’ of the proposed Jets stadium. Since, unlike the Nets development, they don’t have any angle to play (the new Times Tower is being developed by Bruce Ratner, who is currently papering Brooklyn with glossy brochures touting the benefits of the new Gehry-copia of arena, housing and general whiteness), they take a tempered, albeit negative view of the projected benefits.
Turns out E&Y and Doctoroff expect economic benefits on the order of five times what has been measured by any comparable facility in the country. A total of 50 new trade shows are expected to flock to the billion dollar stadium, which currently only has a total guaranteed booking slate of eight events a year (if you are into numbers, that means it they city will spend $6.5 million each Sunday a Jets game is played for the next twenty years).
Why a dull pencil? Well, the economic analysis is a retread of the usual routine, in which canned numbers are projected using assumptions which are not grounded in any analytic reseach; that is, no data is supplied, either systemic or anecdotal, to indicate whether there are even the mythical 50 events looking for a home in the oversaturated exhibition market. It’s not quite that simple (you have to earn those consultant dollars somehow), but that’s the top line, and its an approach that has been neatly debunked a number of times. And even though they do a decent job of exposing some of the weak logic, there is a larger body of analysis that should bolster a harder line against the ‘economic benefit’ front. That is not to say that no benefits are realized. There is a thin slice of data indicating that cities that win Super Bowls realized a net gain of rental income, even though personal income drops. But this correlation is about a winning team, not a new stadium.
New York gave a bit more of platform to Dan Doctoroff last week to explain his vision, which includes a big park and a branch of the Guggenheim (which is the easy lay you ask to every party these days; can someone please tell Thomas Krens to keep it his pants once in a while? You would think he would show a little discretion considering the recent self-funded survey that indicated that the majority of visitors show up for the Wright building and not the art. Learning from Las Vegas, indeed). The cornerstone of his argument is that you have spend the $600 million to develop the site no matter what, so why not a stadium? His point about public investment is fine, but since his numbers project that if the stadium hits a home run (or, to make the metaphor sports appropriate, connects on a Hail Mary) right out of the gate, the most the city can expect is a net gain of $30 million yearly in tax revenue, maybe some research on what revenue benefits accrue from any other types of development are in order first. Fairly put, $600 million is only 1.2% of the annual budget, and thus a sum that the city can manage, but if the benefit to New Yorkers consists of a facility they have access to (but don’t own) only eight days a year, and with an entry fee in the neighborhood of $50, perhaps we should be rethinking what an the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development should actually be doing on our dime.