Why We Build Ballparks
by Jon Marthaler on May 10, 2010 7:00 AM EDT
in Quick Hits
Email
Print
Sunday, my parents went with me to their first game at Target Field. (Happy Mother's Day again, Mom!) Like just about everyone that's been there this year, they were quite taken with the park; Mom called it an "urban jewel," and Dad could hardly stop commenting on how nice our seats were, even though we were down the left-field line in the second-to-last lower-deck section.
It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon to sit in the sun and watch the Twins take it to Baltimore, and once again it got me thinking about why we build these ballparks.
In general, economists agree that the financial-benefit figures circulated by stadium planners - not just at Target Field, but everywhere - are myths, that parks do not "pay for themselves" in any meaningful sense. Airy arguments about needing to "keep Minnesota major league" may not be completely supportable, either; even without a baseball team, Minnesota will still be home to Fortune 500 companies and a Big Ten university and the best theater outside New York and lakes and parks and farms and all of the things that make this the greatest state in the union. The Twins are a part of that, but without the Twins, those things do not shrivel up and expire.
Ballparks do provide one thing, though; they're a community gathering place. This is true whether it's at Trojan Field for an Ortonville Rox townball game; or if it's at tiny Rosen, Minnesota, where the ballpark and the Rosen Express are just about literally the only thing in the entire town; or if it's at Target Field, where the park's big enough for the entire area - "Twins Territory," according to the marketing slogan - to come together on a Sunday afternoon.
Maybe I'm just naive, or maybe I'm just a soft-hearted, soft-headed, drippy-eyed doofus, but I think that this is both valuable and overlooked. I think communities need this sort of place, where people can come together and make common cause with each other to root for the home team - whether we're referencing a state of more than five million people, or a town with five hundred and five people.
It seems, then, that it's a good thing that Target Field is here. It's good that we built the kind of ballpark that people will want to see, that my Mom will enjoy on Mother's Day, that kids and Dads and grandparents and neighbors and politicians can all enjoy together. We have one of the nicest ballparks in the big leagues, and it's a destination kind of park, and it's bringing us together again and again this year - and hopefully for years and years afterwards.
Despite the high cost, I think that's valuable.
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Economists
I can’t help but think there is some flaw in their logic. Perhaps within their theories, there is no economic benefit. To me, so much the worse for their economic theories. The theory is based on the principle that people would just spend the money some place else. I don’t buy it. I have spoken to dozens of people who have gone to Target Field more than once this year when they could count on one hand the number of times they ever went to the Dome. What did they do with the money in past years? Nothing. Is doing nothing with the money the same as doing something with it? No.
To say nothing of construction jobs and all the commerce surrounding the park. Without the park, people would just stay at home and eat TV dinners instead of going to the park and eating $20 in food.
I have studied their theories and I just don’t buy it.
Good piece though. You have hit on the real value for the community.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
The economists are right
It’s simply not true that people don’t spend the elsewhere, they absolutely do, and mostly on things that were a lot less costly to the taxpayers than a stadium. People don’t save more money because there isn’t a new ballpark.
I hate to be the turd in the punchbowl, but building stadia is a terrible, terrible investment by governments. While Jon suggests a reasonable non-economic benefit, which certainly exists to some extent, it’s pretty limited. It seems great to him (and us, though I no longer live there), because he’s a baseball fan. It’s a great thing for baseball fans. But how many people in Hennepin County, and the state of MN, don’t give a rat’s ass about baseball? A lot. And for them, this non-economic benefit is extremely minimal.
There are a lot of ways to try to build that community feeling that Jon speaks of; many of them cheaper than building expensive stadia for uber-wealthy owners of professional sports franchises. And to further that point, let me add this to one of Jon’s eloquent sentences above:
“I think communities need this sort of place, where people WHO CAN AFFORD IT can come together and make common cause with each other…” CAPS added by me. This isn’t a public entity that’s free and open to all, like a park.
Look, I’m happy it’s there; the Dome sucked. I hope to get to enjoy it sometime this summer. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t primarily a massive giveaway by the taxpayers of Minnesota to one of the wealthiest families in the state. We can enjoy the results of that largesse, and I hope lots of people do, but we don’t need to make excuses for how ridiculous spending that kind of money on a stadium is in order to have fun there. It seems to me that we are better off if we face and accept the negatives as well as embrace the positives.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 10, 2010 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Turd in the punchbowl
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Tours
I was going to say “but what about the free tours they’re giving?”. I thought they were going to open it up to the public for free tours, which are well deserved given the taxpayer contribution. However, I was wrong: http://mlb.mlb.com/min/ballpark/tours.jsp
$15 for adults! That’s a bleacher seat at a game, just to look around…
By the way, in regard to all those people in the bars, spending, etc… I think there is a “splurge” factor this inaugural season. I think most working class families can only afford a few trips to the ballpark a year, in the long run, unless ticket prices go down.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming." -Teddy Roosevelt
even if the tours were free
that is hardly the same as watching an actual game.
"You must be the dumbest SOB in the league. Everybody in the stadium knew you were going to get drilled, except you.'' - Jody Davis
What I don't get
Economists are always citing how consumer spending is driving an upswing in the economy. For example, in the early 00s, B2B was down by B2C was up, keeping the economy afloat. The implication is, if consumers had not been spending, the economy would have been in trouble. Holiday economics is based on consumer spending—sometimes they do sometimes they don’t. Or, take travel. The tourism industry has suffered the last decade because more people are staying home and saving their money.
Obviously, economists do not believe that consumer spending is constant. It varies with such things as consumer confidence. It also varies with spending opportunity. Consumers will be more likely to spend if they have better spending opportunities. If they have a great venue to watch a game, they’re much more apt to buy tickets than if it’s a dump. Would they spend that money elsewhere? Not necessarily. They’ll stay home and save their money.
Does savings help the economy? Well, yes. But nothing stimulates the economy more than consumer spending.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Savings
Savings actually stimulate and stabalize an economy much more than consumer spending. Granted, you need both, but our country is in dire needs of more savings and if people would save that money rather than spend it on a game, that would be much better for the economy.
There is no target number for savings% of earnings, but 10% – 20% seems to work well in foreign nations. We are up to about 6% I believe, though that has certainly (and foolishly) dropped as spending has risen the last couple months. Savings is a necessity that grows the economy at a stronger pace and those investments allow those investors to spend even more money and still have more in reserves.
Finally, here is the most entertaining and educational economics lesson I have ever seen—> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk.
by PinkiePinkerton on May 10, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Check Eric's post again
Obviously, economists do not believe that consumer spending is constant. It varies with such things as consumer confidence. It also varies with spending opportunity. Consumers will be more likely to spend if they have better spending opportunities. If they have a great venue to watch a game, they’re much more apt to buy tickets than if it’s a dump. Would they spend that money elsewhere? Not necessarily. They’ll stay home and save their money.
No study has ever shown that hypothesis to be true. In every one I’ve heard of, they found that new stadiums do not stimulate consumer spending – they merely redirect it. Generally, people have a fairly fixed entertainment budget, and the presence or absence of a stadium is only a factor for determining where to spend the money, not how much of it to spend.
As you said, consumer spending is elastic, and entertainment is certainly one of the things that is discretionary, but the amount spent is determined more by overall economic conditions (including stuff like consumer confidence) than the presence of additional entertainment options.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Still not sure
I can cite all kinds of examples of new stuff stimulating discretionary spending. For example, before cheap flat panel TVs, electronic stores had a tough time selling home theater systems. Better TVs led to more spending in this area. You can argue that buying home theater prevents other spending. I think credit is a lot more fluid than it used to be. More people spend money they don’t have and find a way to pay for it later. Many work harder to do so.
And the one thing it did do: It led to hundreds of medium-term construction jobs and more than 100 permanent jobs that would not be there long term. Like it or not, the Twins would not stay in this market without a better stadium than the Hump. You lose a $250 million business and it hurts the county and the state.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Better use of resources
You can make a strong argument that building a stadium in an urban core that already has infrastructure is much better than trying to build a stadium in an outlying area that requires everything else to be built. It is in our overall economic interest to maximize our investment in our large cities rather than letting them decay. Stadiums can be a part of that.
Absolutely
I’m not going to say that there’s no community value in a stadium.
I will say that there has to be a better way to get community value than to have the taxpayers of one county toss a billion dollars over 30 years into the pockets of one of the most out-of-control industries in the world.
I have less than zero interest in attending anything in this palace of greed.
by dwintheiser on May 10, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Your choice
I suppose you don’t shop in MOA or use MSP International Airport for the same reason. Both received more taxpayer investment and less private investment per dollar of cost then this stadium.
One thing though. When you make statements, please use accurate numbers to the best of your abilities. It’s not anywhere close to a billion dollars. At the end of the 30 years, all the taxpayer financing will be repaid to the County. The taxpayers of Hennepin County are giving the Twins a loan for construction, not a payout. The county is investing in the stadium in the hopes of raising more revenue than it could through straight taxation. The return on that investment will likely be better than any mutual fund or money market account by an order of magnitude. The end result will be lower taxes for residents of Hennepin County.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
My friend
Let’s not forget that the Government built the Metrodome, and what a waste that was, on multiple levels for so many years. So, there is building a stadium and then there is building a shitty, anti-baseball, poorly designed piece of crap that is used for Monster Truck mud pulls.
That said, on economists, you know, have you ever heard one of them say: “You know, I was wrong about that.” And, in point of fact, for a science, even a pseudo-science, there is no way to ever prove an economist wrong. There are no thesis, just endless data, and they argue about it ad-nauseum. Until there is a way to prove one economist right and one economist wrong, there is no reason to grant them any level of credibility. I mean, my God, they want to hire and fire teachers based on the test scores of students in their classes, and yet, what kind of accountability is there for economists? The world economy almost collapses out of the blue and did you hear any mainstream economists sounding an alarm?
And, frankly, yes, I am driving an hour into downtown Minneapolis a couple of times a month, eating a nice meal at a local restaurant, paying for parking, going to the game, drinking some Summit EPAs, gassing up the car, stopping at the coop on the way home—I’m spending money in Minneapolis that I would absolutely not normally do. Maybe I’m an aberration, but every joint I look into marching to the Park tells me that there is a lot of vibrancy in downtown on game days. Maybe we need to look at the per square foot asking price of buildings in the immediate area to prove it, but Target Field is a winner on multiple levels for Minnesota and Minneapolis. And you can take that to the bank.
All that said, I agree with Mr. Marthaler. What we ultimately “get” from Target Field is not measurable in purely economic terms, as sad as that may be to the empiricists of the world.
by Old Twins Cap on May 10, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Good Post. I agree 100%.
Further more, you never hear anyone say they were wrong b/c no body takes responsibility in this country. Can someone just stand up and admit that they messed up. Most politicians and people of power, put blame on everyone but themselves. This needs to stop if we are ever going to move forward.
Yes, there were
Plenty of “mainstream” economists were sounding plenty of alarms. Purported economists employed by CNBC and the WSJ? Not so much. Your second paragraph seems to argue that, because there’s room for disagreement and nuance in economics (and some use that room for political purposes), we should disregard the entire discipline. Truisms in biology and physics are proven incorrect around every turn, too – should we just dump the whole “science” thing entirely, then?
Anyway, that gas you buy at a station in Minneapolis on the way home is $$ taken from the station in Lakeville or Minnetonka or wherever, just as the money going to Gluek’s from patrons who want to be downtown close to the stadium is being siphoned from the revenues of the local place in St. Louis Park they might otherwise frequent. There are now parking lots and ramps going under over by the river, no doubt, due to the lost revenue of 81 nights of baseball. Maybe there are some people who tweak their spend/save annual budget somewhat to increase spending based on a new and better stadium and Twins experience, but they’re not the norm. Most people will spend just about the same amount of disposable income as before, they’ll just do it in a different place. Also, I’m thinking it unlikely too many people who are driving downtown three times a month now will be doing so a decade from now, when the new stadium excitement is long since worn off.
Straw man
No where did I advocate that we ignore science. In fact, my point is that in other sciences, you can prove someone’s ideas wrong. You cannot do that in economics, which makes it a bastard science, if you can call it a science at all.
Scientific ideas are reversed regularly. At one point humans believed the world was flat and that the sun circled the earth.
In economics terms, you could not undo that level of thinking, which is why people such as yourself can argue, with a straight face knowing that no one can ever prove you wrong, that somehow Lakeville and St. Louis Park are bearing the burden of Target Field’s success.
Which is idiotic on its face.
Thanks for making my argument for me.
by Old Twins Cap on May 10, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Tweet!
15 yard penalty for unnecessary condescension!
Speaking of straw men, here’s one: People, most notably economists, claim that Economics is a hard science and that everything economists say should be verifiable. You’ve done a nice job knocking that one down.
You actually stated “Until there is a way to prove one economist right and one economist wrong, there is no reason to grant them any level of credibility.” This strains your own credibility, as it implies that the entire history of economic thought, from Adam Smith to modern Game Theory, is worthless. As if our understanding of how economies and businesses, and the individuals acting within them, hasn’t advanced one iota in the last few centuries. I’m not sure from where the venom spews, but it make you appear to have a shallow understanding of the field mixed with some sort of resentment.
Thanks for calling my perfectly logical statement “idiotic,” though. You seem to be reacting as though I’m somehow making a plea for the poor downtrodden mom and pop store in the face of the big bad corporate Twins or something. If so, stop making assumptions not supported by the wording. Perhaps you could, instead of ad hominems, explain why the counterintuitive opposite of my statements are true. Why is it so plainly obvious to you that movement of discretionary spending by individuals, when aggregated, does not have any effect on the previous spendees? Take a theoretical example (obviously extreme to serve as an example): City A has no professional baseball team, but a major league appetite for consumption of baseball entertainment, sated by numerous minor league and town teams scattered across its metro area. City A petitions for and receives an MLB franchise. Will not a significant number of people who previously attended baseball games in Suburb B on a regular basis likely substitute attending some games for City A’s new team? How does this not decrease attendance in Suburb B? Flesh out the specifics, sure, and note the various shading and minimizing factors, but they don’t overwhelm the basic logic of changing consumption patterns and their effects.
$.03 on every $20
Hardly a burden. In point of fact, the Metrodome taxes hotels and restaurants more than Target Field, after all these years.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Have you ever bought a new car.
A new car is a terrible investment its worth about half of what you paid for it after about 3 years.
It sure is a much better ride than that old clunker though. The Dome sucked and everybody new it. This Stadium is A1. Its a place to show off like that shinny new car. Yes it cost a lot of money but unlike the car it will be packed full of money spending fans. We will most likely set an attendance record this year even though the dome held a lot more people. So yes it will generate more money for years to come. The fact that people are excited to go there has to count for something.
The economists haven't convinced me.
You say you’re enjoying it. I am too. And that’s the point. Like any spending on entertainment, if people enjoy it enough, it will have been worth it. That we’d be doing something else with our money if we weren’t enjoying the ballpark misses the point. If we thought whatever else we’d be doing was a better value proposition for our entertainment dollars, we’d still be doing it. Saying that “mere entertainment” value shouldn’t be assessed in the economic analysis seems like lazy economics to me.
And the fact that some people don’t give a rat’s ass for baseball doesn’t mean it’s necessarily unfair to build a publicly financed ballpark. Some people will never use museums, the courts, light rail, libraries, public schools, parks, or just about any other public service you can think of. Obviously you can have a reasonable argument against spending public money on any of these things, ballparks included, but the idea that ballparks are necessarily *Economist Certified Inefficient* just seems like more than economists are actually capable of demonstrating.
Big, huge, gigantic, enormous, tremendous, humongous difference
Some people will never use museums, the courts, light rail, libraries, public schools, parks, or just about any other public service you can think of. Obviously you can have a reasonable argument against spending public money on any of these things, ballparks included, but the idea that ballparks are necessarily Economist Certified Inefficient just seems like more than economists are actually capable of demonstrating.
None of the things you listed there are built for the direct financial benefit of a private, for-profit corporation. When you pay for admission to a museum, that money goes toward operating the museum, indirectly paying back the government for the investment. When you pay for admission to Target Field, the government gets the sales tax, same as if you’d spent that $30 at Famous Dave’s.
I will grant that there are benefits to a new stadium that transcend the financial benefits, but I have a very hard time believing that they are even close to as efficient in terms of value per dollar spent as would be the same investment in other public works. That’s where the claims of inefficiency come in – for the money Hennepin County spent on Target Field, they could’ve covered half the county in libraries, museums and parks.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad the Twins have a new stadium, and I’m looking forward to going there. That still doesn’t mean that I have to like the idea of the taxpayers of a city building facilities for billionaires.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
for profit
Mall of America, Northwest (Delta), Medtronic, Imation, 3M, Best Buy and Target are just three companies that directly benefited from funding and/or financing to build infrastructure and buildings for their businesses. Relatively speaking, the Twins received less public benefits than those companies.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
three?
oy, I meant some.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
True
I know the Twins aren’t the only corporate welfare recipient in the Twin Cities (I’m not a local, so you certainly have better awareness of the others than I do). That doesn’t mean that I have to approve of those, either. I’d also point out that the other companies provide a lot more jobs than the Twins do, although I don’t know whether the jobs per dollar of investment is a better ratio.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
That's what I meant by "relatively speaking"
The cost per job for Northwest, for example, was something like $100 million. We gave them a loan for $2 billion to build maintenance facilities for Mesaba. It was supposed to revitalize the Iron Range economy. I think there’s less than 1000 jobs left from that. We then forgave the loan, while Northwest was busy laying off hundreds of workers. The guy who brokered that deal came away with $900 million in private wealth from his portion of the sale of the company to Delta.
And that doesn’t count the $4 billion the Met Council has spent on the airport over the last 20 years, were Delta get’s the pick of the terminals.
3M is another one: We spent hundreds of millions to help them over the years. What did they do? They dumped chemicals into the water supply that eventually polluted the largest aquifer in the state. Now they want the state to help with clean-up.
The Twins are model corporate citizens around here. They will eventually pay back this loan, unlike most of the others, who get forgiveness at some point. And they rival Target in corporate philanthropy.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Also, tax revenues generated might be a better measure
The Twins won’t have a lot of employees, relative to Best Buy or Target. But the payroll is substantial. I’m sure Ramsey County is pleased with this deal. People who shop in Hennepin County help finance the stadium, which generates enough revenue to hire Joe Mauer. Joe pays substantial taxes in Ramsey County, where he lives.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
"People don’t save more money because there isn’t a new ballpark."
I, for one, am spending like a fucking demon. I used to always eat a quick bowl of Mac and Cheese before games at the Dome. Now I think “Well, might as well celebrate.”
"It may be cloudy in my right eye, but the sun is shining very brightly in my left eye." - Kirby Puckett
If the sea of people patronizing bars and restaurants in the area around Target Field between games on Saturday is any indication, this is an absolute shot in the arm to that area’s economy. Got a table at the very crowded Loon, and there was a line waiting to get into Kieran’s (and Kieran’s is a huge space). Also: Target Field is as advertised. Wonderful despite March weather and a rough game.
Economic islands
Stadium are actually very good at aggregating economic activity. Entertainment $$ that were spread out throughout the state (bars, restaurants, golf courses, etc) are being aggregated in the Minneapolis warehouse district because of Target Field, Target Center and smaller venues. A vibrant entertainment district is of value in attracting intellectual capital (investors, highly skilled workers, etc). I would say there is an economic multiplier in taking a night at a bar in Mora, Detroit Lakes or Austin and transferring it to Minneapolis. It also draws in people that would ordinarily not spend money in your area (non-residents).
A new stadium can’t be the end of your economic development though. Detroit has several new stadiums and it’s economy is deteriorating slowly but surely.
Detroit is tanking
b/c of other issues. Minneapolis is much more diverse that Detroit.
exactly
A new stadium does not mean a healthy economy by itself. It can add to the goodness being generated elsewhere but Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit aren’t going to stadium-build themselves out of structural problems any more than Flint, MI was able to become a tourist destination.
I agree with the economic multiplier effect. Considering that folks might otherwise see a movie, or order Papa John’s with their dollars, much of the money being spent in and around Target Field stays in the local economy. It can also ad vibrancy and a critical mass of people to create more economic expansion DT.
I also think that amenities matter. If you’re trying to attract smart, talented people to your region, having high quality amenities will impact where those folks choose to locate. That has an impact on business recruitment, tax base, etc.
In the same way I think the multi-million subsidy the Guthrie got was worthwhile, I think Target Field was as well.
A professional team
I moved to Albuquerque, NM about 5 years ago from the Minneapolis area. We have a AAA team for the dodgers here and about nothing else. We have no theaters, bands skirt of area on tours and our parks are mostly a joke. As a result, we have more restauants per capita than any city in the world, ridiculously high teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates, multiple multi-DUI offenders stopped every night and a meth problem so bad HBO made a show about it. There is literally almost nothing to do in town except eat, drink, screw and do drugs.
While tax subsidized projects have a negative economic impact about 99% of the time, they provide a positive societal activity and common ground for a community. The emotional positives provide enough benefit to society to negate economic losses…or so the collective voters of Hennipen County have said.
by PinkiePinkerton on May 10, 2010 2:14 PM EDT reply actions
tax subsidized projects have a negative economic impact about 99% of the time
I disagree. More often than not, public investment spurs private investment. Without roads and other infrastructure, companies don’t invest in new operations. Look across the state at the largest and most prosperous companies and you will see a healthy dose of public financing/funding. Cargill, Medtronic, Imation, 3M, Delta, Best Buy and, yes, Target have all reaped the benefits of new infrastructure and tax free zones to stimulate job creation. Jobs mean tax revenue, so bonding pays for itself fairly quickly.
The alternative is to cut cut cut, which leads to the North Dakota syndrome. They had a no-new-taxes program up there for years. One company after another left despite the lower corporate taxes. The population was down to around 600,000 for the whole state until they discovered oil. The main reason was the state refused to invest in infrastructure. Companies need good infrastructure to operate.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
The fallacy
The fallacy is not that tax subsidies don’t work to accomplish a short term goal, it’s the belief that they are necessary and the most efficient way to spur growth. The problem with them is that money that was going to small businesses in the suburbs is now being taken from them to go to massive “too big to fail” corporations in the urban cities. The money is being utlized inefficiently along the way to those corporations as well.
So, rather than the people deciding where growth should take place, thru patronization and investments, the governement (ehhm…corporations) takes that potential growth and puts it toward projects that will not result in as much growth on the aggregate. Sure, Minneapolis certainly benefits from Target Field, but Eden Prairie gets hurt. That family that would go out for dinner, a movie and bowling in their home town that invests in their most immediate community now spends that same money in Minneapolis. While the money being spent in Eden Prairie did not cost the taxpayers a dime, that same money was added to the taxpayer subsidation to generate.
I’m not saying that these subsidies are bad for a community. You may have gathered from my original post that I would like to see more spending in my own town. Just don’t talk yourself into believing that it is the most efficient and economically sound course to pursue.
RE: North Dakota, Are corporations leaving your state such a bad thing? Unemployment levels stayed steady throughout the last decade as small business filled the gaps and has consistently stayed in the lowest 5 states in the nation for foreclosures and unemployment over the past three years. Maybe they’re doing something right?
by PinkiePinkerton on May 10, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
unemployment rates
The population of the state went from1.4 million to 600,000 in like 13 years. When you bleed that many people, the unemployment rate is not likely to go up. If all those people had stayed, the unemployment rate would have been astronomical. Most of those people left because there was not enough employment.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Wages
Wages rose faster than the national average from 1998 to 2005 while that happened. Again, from a pure economical standpoint, it made the most sense for the state.
by PinkiePinkerton on May 10, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
North Dakota’s population in 1990 was 638,000. In 1999 it was 634,000. Now it’s about 647,000. The population peaked at 680,845 in 1930. When was it ever close to 1.4 million?
I read that in a local rag (City Pages)
They did a whole story about how North Dakota had lost so much of its population over 13 years. Perhaps it was all a farce. I took it seriously. My bad for not double checking.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Just one of many, I'm sure,,,,
I live in Isanti, a bit of a trek north from Minneapolis. I normally avoid the city like the plague if I can help it, except for maybe one game at the dome every 3 years and any other time I’m forced to make it down there (ie: calling high school football for the state tourny at the dome). But I’ve already been to one game, spent a ton on food and parking and gas in the area. And I had a great time and plan to make a bunch more Twins games this year. This is money that I would most definitely not be spending in Minneapolis for any other reason than to see the Twins play in their new beautiful stadium.
One other thing that has never been talked about too much publicly:
I roll in a wheelchair, and the Metrodome was/is the absolute worst for handicap seating of any venue I’ve been in across the country. There were hardly any dedicated handicap seats, there is always a bar right at eye level, and it was hard on the back facing forward and trying to crane my neck because of the bad sight lines.
The new park has way more seating with way better options. Even down the 3rd baseline on the lower level along the field. Rolling around the larger concourses, with much better restroom facilities, man it’s just a whole ‘nother experience altogether. I love the new park. I’ll spend money in the city that I would probably give to the reservation up in Hinkley for my entertainment budget.
And you know what? I bet there many, many others like me out there.
by toke1 on May 10, 2010 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I swear this must be the smartest baseball blog on the internet
btwn this conversation and the posts regarding the new AZ law, I feel like I’m back in school…
thank god gamethreads still provide a little baseball on top of all this “smart talk”
"You must be the dumbest SOB in the league. Everybody in the stadium knew you were going to get drilled, except you.'' - Jody Davis
I think there is some lint in my bellybutton
go f#k yourself, assh@le!@
by montanatwinsfan on May 10, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
darn, darn, darn
sarcasm font is smarter than me
by montanatwinsfan on May 10, 2010 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
sarcasm font fail was the perfect reply for a "smart talk" comment
go f
"It wasn't long ago that Kubel communicated mostly by nodding and mumbling." - Souhan
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on May 10, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no idea why you guys responded the way you did
unless you don’t like being called smart…whatever…
"You must be the dumbest SOB in the league. Everybody in the stadium knew you were going to get drilled, except you.'' - Jody Davis
We aint lukin to kindley on no fansy buk lurnin in thes her paurts, sity slikur
Komin in her weth yur fansy stor bot unmeshinabils an al
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"Positive happines come whit sucess if you no have that is all bs" -Ozzie Guillen
by less cowbell, more 'neau on May 11, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
"We don't take kindly to your type round here!"
"It wasn't long ago that Kubel communicated mostly by nodding and mumbling." - Souhan
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on May 11, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
sarcasm, joking, immature and innapropriate behavior,
you know, the usual.
Besides we Montanans (like former Governors of Alaska) dont take kindly to being compared to high falutin intellectual types.
by montanatwinsfan on May 11, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with Jon.
I think his point was that baseball can bring people together for a common cause (be it a small town or large state), and this particular stadium is something we can all be very proud of. To this I give two enthusiastic thumbs-up.
The difference
I think we’re missing a little bit of the nuance in the “is it a good investment” discussion here. The question around which the majority of economic thought has reached a consensus “No” answer isn’t whether building stadiums with public money is or is not a good idea. The issue was mostly that proponents of publicly-funded stadiums (i.e. professional sports leagues and their franchises and owners holding cities hostage under the threat of leaving for greener pastures) were disingenuously arguing that their new stadia would “pay for themselves” through stimulating the local economy. That’s been mostly proved bunk, as Jon alluded to. They’re mostly a zero sum game and a reallocation of funds from one place to another. In this case, I’d imagine it’s mostly from one side of downtown to another, and from the surrounding metro area toward Minneapolis proper. So a good thing for the area around the park, and probably a net good thing for the city as a whole, while probably a bad thing for Seven Corners and downtown White Bear Lake and even to an extent places outside the metro area entirely.
That doesn’t mean economists and public policy wonks who’ve studied stadium building have reached a broad consensus that keeping major league sports teams in town, or putting them in new publicly-funded digs isn’t a good “investment.” The secondary effects of increasing civic pride, providing a place for the community (who can pay for it) to gather and watch a sporting event, increasing or maintaining a city’s external profile, etc. can’t really be measured in any fiscal sense, or a value placed on those things to compare with the cost of the stadium.
It’s just that the whole “this will revitalize the neighborhood” and magically create more money in the universe, and directly attribute tax revenues to the community sufficient to offset the investment expenditure promise, has been shown to be pretty flimsy.
All that said, I’m glad we’ve got the new stadium and people are loving it, and I can’t wait to get there myself.
+1
I was thinking of chiming in here, but you hit is mostly on the nose. I’m generally in the camp that solely from an economic standpoint, it’s pretty much a non-effect on the larger economy. The question is, at how large a level does it have an effect? Obviously the immediate vicinity of the ballpark, there’s a positive effect. But the greater downtown? I don’t know. It’s possible that we’re talking about shifting spending from one part of downtown to another, but I suspect there are additional dollars from out of state that are now being spent downtown. But your point is a good one. The economic argument is not that building the ballpark is a bad idea, just that the “it will pay for itself with economic expansion, etc” argument is pretty much bunk.
Me, I think it was a great idea, for reasons far beyond simple economics. Same with the Guthrie, even though I don’t go there, it’s part of Minneapolis / Twin Cities / Minnesota culture. I can’t wait to attend a game. Keeping my fingers crossed for this August.
by Adam Peterson on May 11, 2010 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Choices
An interesting thing about the Twins as opposed to many baseball teams is how geographically dispersed our fans are. My family is from Northwest Iowa and, while we made a point to make the four hour trek to Minneapolis once every few years, for the most part, we were happy to turn on the radio to follow. This season, not only is my family making the trip, we are bringing our grandparents, our aunts and uncles, our cousins (no, seriously, I just bought 24 tickets for a Twins game). In addition, many, many of my friends and their families are making the trip. Certainly the money they (and we) are spending on the tickets, the hotel, the meals, the souvenirs, etc. is coming from somewhere else, but in the case of the Twins, it may well be coming from someplace outside of the state. I live in Chicago now. Maybe I would have skipped going to the Metrodome this year and went to see them at the Cell instead. My parents like to take trips to visit us in the summer. Maybe they would have flown to NYC to see my sisters instead of taking their vacation to Minnesota (oh, yeah, we’re also pumping money into your economy by renting a cabin for a week to go fishing :) I have no idea how the economics work in the aggregate, but in my very small sample size, Minnesota is getting money that otherwise would have been spent out of state. It will certainly be interesting to see how long the out of state interest stays high (especially given that we now have to deal with the possibility of rain outs).
I Find it Interesting How...
Minneapolis city planners have been trying SO HARD to get people to go downtown, with Block E and all that crap, for an awful long time with no success. They built Target Field, and now everyone wants to be downtown (at least 81 days out of the year).
Stadiums aren’t always such a success, for sure (look at the empty seats in Yankee Stadium and Citi Field last year). I think for several reasons Target Field is different. Perhaps not am immediate, smashing success, but in the long run I think it will be great for the economy and the community. Honestly, I think it’s really going to put Minneapolis “on the map,” in terms of bringing more people to the city (either to visit or live).
"It may be cloudy in my right eye, but the sun is shining very brightly in my left eye." - Kirby Puckett
I don't know too many people that make decisions on where to live based on who has a nice stadium
I think the percentage of people who would consider living or visiting Minnesota simply because we have Target field is very, very, very, very small.
Where in MN?
For those who have decided to live in MN, Target Field could certainly influence where they decide to live. There has been a recent phenomenon of educated white people coming back to Minneapolis. I’d say facilities like the Guthrie and Target Field are part of that.
Maybe not consciously
but there’s no reason to think that on a subconscious level, the community pride that’s emitted from a place with a successful sports franchise and its stadium doesn’t mark the city as “attractive” and end up in the “pros” column of any decisionmaking process. I’ll bet there are lots of seniors in college every year who have some shorthand knowledge of the Twin Cities (Vikings, the lakes, the U, Twins, arts scene, music scene, Prairie Home Companion, whatever) that allows them to say “yeah, I’d live there” and interview with 3M. Glowing reports about Target Field throughout the media (sports media, at least) adds to the general impression built in the minds of outsiders that Minneapolis is a place of quality. Conversely, the continual suckitude of the Royals and their generic baseball stadium is one (of many, I suppose) reasons the same people would probably immediately dismiss Sprint from their list.
It happens in college admissions all the time – good sports programs builds applications. Why shouldn’t it happen in the real world, too?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big-league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
