urbanSTL

Another day, another take.....

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R ... Louis.aspx

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 811f5.html

Harvard business students study St. Louis riverfront stadium proposal

A team of Harvard University business students studied the potential economic impact of a new NFL stadium on the riverfront and concluded it would be a good investment.

Anant Vinjamoori, a 29 year-old Chesterfield native Harvard business grad, led a group of Harvard MBA students who analyzed using a nearly $1 billion dollar NFL stadium near downtown's riverfront as an anchor to spur new development.
...
Vinjamoori, who lives in Boston, said he got involved because he wants to see the city succeed.

"I'd love to see the city become a better place," he said, saying he hopes to move back to the St. Louis area some day.

The group found the stadium is well-suited for the downtown market because it would more quickly spur development on the north riverfront, shore-up struggling business districts like Laclede's Landing, and incorporate parkland as an added amenity.

Just like the last 4 stadiums did!

The study is in contrast to many economic experts who say sports stadiums have little economic impact.

But we'll ignore all those studies and focus on this one even though

Vinjamoori admitted the study isn't perfect.

"These are just orders of magnitude estimates, not meant to be precise," Vinjamoori said.

and

Vinjamoori agrees that stadiums aren't always good for cities

as has consistently been the case in St. Louis so far.

And despite overwhelming research to the contrary, and every precedent in the last 60 years, Vinjamoori still

said St. Louis' challenging downtown development market makes it a strong investment

because all the other stadiums have proven to be such strong investments.


If you make enough assumptions and completely disregard precedent your "study" can show anything you want it to show.

^

What a "study" I laughed, I cried, I was infuriated.

They lay out the challenges of the area pretty well, though forgot the undermining of property values for many decades by policies and subsidies that encourage development on the edges of the region.

One key item missing is the return on investment compared to alternatives!

The blighted area is 90% vacant, yet home to the most concentrated poverty in the city, huh?

How can you assume all this development around the stadium when the much easier and more appealing devel opportunities around the new Busch Stadium haven't happened yet?

Seemed to me the most impactful way to resolve the accessibility problems would be to turn the highway into a boulevard. Let's study that!

123 event days a year? LOL! Many of those events would be cannibalized from elsewhere in the region. Half are "catered events" with 400 attendees. How about host them at the Opera House, Central Library, etc? Something tax payers are already paying for, you know leverage better assets we already have, high ROI!

They correctly identify the portion of sales tax that goes to the city, but not the portion of property taxes that goes to the city.

Appreciated that they assumed that the stadium and parking lots won't pay property tax, which is correct.

I hope all this concern for the blight of the north riverfront continues even if the stadium plan falls through.

Can we please drop the BS and just say "This is what we have to do to have an NFL team" ?

This makes my point that when you throw out all those ancient studies -- more appropriate for the EJ dome deal, and rather look at this specific plan that brings in $450 million from the NFL & returns more money from player & staff state income tax to the state than it costs the state, then you come to a different conclusion. And those old studies are flawed anyway for our situation, since they wrongly assume we Rams fans will march robotlike into the city and lay out the same thousands we spend on Rams tickets, parking, food, clothing, etc. for other attractions in the city if the Rams leave. Does anyone seriously believe that? Has a single Rams season ticket buyer agreed that they will spend those same thousands on another city entertainment venue? Which one? Casinos? Not likely. Don't say baseball -- I already spend too much time and money there. And nearly all the games sell out anyway. It was a very bad assumption for our city -- but it is the one that KC side legislators Rob Schaaf and Silevy and his Show-me friends have latched onto as their one reason for opposing the stadium. America might break even on my entertainment dollars, but St. Louis and Missouri will come up short.

gary kreie wrote:Here is story from earlier this year saying the state profits if they build the stadium and the Rams stay.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-a ... touch=true

ah, the old $9.8 million per year over 30 years again... so then based on the life of the EJ Dome (about which similar promises were made) the state can expect to collect about 2/3 of that ($197 million) which, again, is change compared to the 30-year revenue generated by the additional convention capacity created when the Rams vacate the dome. well, at least the first $99 million should just about cover the upkeep on the new stadium at the 10 year mark and... oh... wait. that's the state's money, not the city's.

urban_dilettante wrote:

gary kreie wrote:Here is story from earlier this year saying the state profits if they build the stadium and the Rams stay.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-a ... touch=true

ah, the old $9.8 million per year over 30 years again... so then based on the life of the EJ Dome (about which similar promises were made) the state can expect to collect about 2/3 of that ($197 million) which, again, is change compared to the 30-year revenue generated by the additional convention capacity created when the Rams vacate the dome. well, at least the first $99 million should just about cover the upkeep on the new stadium at the 10 year mark and... oh... wait. that's the state's money, not the city's.

Besides the city and state making out on tax revenue from this, St. Louis County and St. Charles County will get free tax money from the practice facility and money spent where players live. I would hope they could all figure out how to split the tax loot among themselves and return enough for maintenance for 30 years. There is more than enough for all to profit. Otherwise, they sound like pirates arguing over who gets how much gold while the treasure ship is slowly sinking. And, again, if the City cannot deal with the political pressure of building a stadium because it has other problems, then I have no problem with building it in O'Fallon.

And another thing. They make a big deal on how one developer is much preferred in this case. Seems to me most of the places people like to be were developed piecemeal over generations.

Link to the .pdf of the Harvard Study on the St. Louis stadium.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... bd.pdf.pdf

Vinnie Bonsignore's new LA NFL page. The best thing he wrote was that Carson has taken the lead. That could mean STL's Task Force is getting closer to nailing down the financing.

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/

I will hate it if the league decides to create expansion franchises.

Keep the league at 32 teams. It works.

The NFL won't be worth following in 50 years when they've got 50 teams, with 15 overseas.

I heard some people talking about the Rams are "our" team, and it got me thinking. The Rams have been STL's since 1995, 20 years. Before STL, the Rams were in LA for 40+ years. Anyone feel like the Rams were "borrowed" from LA and they're now going back home?

Nope.

stlien wrote:I heard some people talking about the Rams are "our" team, and it got me thinking. The Rams have been STL's since 1995, 20 years. Before STL, the Rams were in LA for 40+ years. Anyone feel like the Rams were "borrowed" from LA and they're now going back home?

Definitely not.

I think the reason that anybody would feel that way, is that fact that the franchise brought the name here and basically changed nothing. They eventually went with the gold helmets and Ram logo, but nothing much else to differentiate the LA and STL Rams. Back then, that was common. Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Colts.....then Titans, Ravens, changed names. Browns kept name, which should be the rule in the NFL. If you move, you lose the name, have to start all over. If the Rams would have changed the name or at least incorporated unique STL characteristics, fans would have better adapted. I still think, now that younger generations have come along, the Rams are identified with STL. That would continue, as future generations come along. I want the Rams to stay and now feel like the Rams are STL. I didn't so much feel that way first, but the Greatest Show changed all of that.

On a different note, apparently, Terry Bradshaw said his sources tell him the Rams are going back to LA, 100%. I did not actually hear the interview. A friend told me about it. I assume it will be posted on insidestl.com soon.