The Royals, who have spent more than three years insisting they will vacate the K after their lease expires in 2030, face a conundrum: they have no new stadium site selected, no clear funding source, and no legislative momentum. Missouri lawmakers are on track to adjourn without approving any stadium funding bills. Kansas, meanwhile, has not yet extended the STAR bonds meant to lure the team across the border.

The Royals’ 2024 pitch for an East Crossroads stadium fell apart when Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a new 40-year sales tax. Since then, the team has gone quiet. They have options—North Kansas City, Washington Square Park, and previously Overland Park—but each presents new complications. Land assembly, tax votes, and public skepticism loom large.

According to Friestad, the Royals do have the option to extend their lease at Kauffman for up to 10 additional years, through 2041. The provision, part of their 2006 lease, only requires 12 months’ notice and a clean track record with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority.

That means the team isn’t nearly as cornered as some may think. And as experts in Friestad’s piece explain, the ticking clock shouldn’t pressure local officials into bad deals.

“This point just means your current agreement ends,” said Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado-Denver professor who studies sports economics. “Nothing bad happens at this point.”

Indeed, Propheter compares it to a standard lease renewal in the housing market—if both parties want to keep the arrangement, they’ll find a way. That’s an important reminder in Kansas City, where both major sports franchises have long benefited from generous public terms. Royals critics, such as former City Councilwoman Becky Nace, argue that the team already enjoys the best deal they’re likely to get: a dedicated sales tax for stadium maintenance and operations, covering hundreds of millions in costs. Proposals in Kansas and downtown Kansas City would cover only construction, not ongoing upkeep.

The article also touches on the broader context. MLB relocations are rare and messy. Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas are often floated as threats, but relocating to any of those locations would involve significant political or financial headwinds. Economist Victor Matheson called such leverage “overstated,” pointing to the Oakland A’s relocation saga—the team is now stranded in a minor league stadium with uncertain funding for a Vegas move.

What emerges is a portrait of slow-motion bargaining. The Royals’ ownership may still prefer a new stadium, but they’re learning what voters and lawmakers have long suspected: urgency doesn’t equal necessity, and options, while limited, do exist.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has floated a revised package between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion for either a new stadium or a Kauffman renovation, though specifics remain scarce. Meanwhile, voter fatigue and fiscal realism continue to grow.

The takeaway is clear: a looming lease expiration should not be confused with a deadline for action. Kansas Citians rejected a rushed deal last year. If there’s a better one to be had, it will take time, transparency, and trust to get there.

The post Royals May Stay at Kauffman Amid Stadium Inertia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a report released by Populous in 2022, a stadium design firm that’s done work for nearly all MLB teams, The K suffers from severe structural issues that would cost more to fix than a new stadium would be to build.

The link included in that text, however, is no longer available. It now defaults to a splashy artists’ rendering of a downtown ballpark.

That report became an issue again when the Royals announced they wanted to leave Kauffman Stadium. The findings from the Populous report run counter to another publicly available engineering report that found Kauffman to be in satisfactory condition, with no mention of any significant concrete issues.  According to a January 31 story in The Kansas City Star:

When The Star asked a team spokesman about the discrepancy, the Royals issued a statement that said those annual assessment reports and the one Populous produced for the team are not comparable.

“The shortest and simplest answer is that these are two very different reports aimed at very different objectives. One is an annual repair plan and the other is about long-term viability,” the Royals said. “The study referenced in the public meeting came from a leading structural engineer of sports facilities. This firm knows our building well after working on the 2008 renovation. We asked them to evaluate long-term structural issues and the feasibility of extending the existing structure for 40 more years.”

Jackson County Executive Frank White asked the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which oversees the Chiefs and Royals stadia, to conduct an investigation. It declined.

At the March 19 library event, Mayor James held up a stack of paper when referring to a study of Kauffman Stadium. I asked for and received what he held up. Ms. Tourville, a spokeswoman for the Royals, previously referred to a report from 2007 “that has shown significant deterioration and concrete cancer.” Indeed, what Mayor James handed me are two reports dated 2007. (The scanned document is available here.)

But what about that Populous report mentioned in the media?

When Mayor James handed me the report, there were two brightly colored sticky notes on the report. On each was written “Populous studies.” (Photographs available here and here.) But the documents themselves were not the Populous study.

The Royals seemed to drop the claims of faulty concrete pretty quickly. On a March 27 discussion on Sports Radio 810, Royals President Brooks Sherman said, “We need a new stadium to be competitive with our peers” (found at 38:26 in the audio here). Later on that same program, Executive Director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority Jim Rowland said, of the teams, “They’ve kept the buildings in first class condition” (found at 1:13:35).

Hopefully the Royals will release whatever study Populous conducted on Kauffman in the name of transparency. If it found “severe structural issues” with Kauffman Stadium as claimed, it would be a significant development. Otherwise, this episode seems to be one of many examples of a poorly conceived and poorly run effort to get Jackson County voters to part with their money.

The post Where Is That Populous Report on Kauffman Stadium? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On April 2, 2024, Jackson County voters will be asked to approve a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support improvements to “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

Learn more here.

The post KC Stadium Tax: The Opportunity Cost appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 27, Sports Radio 810 WHB in Kansas City hosted a roundtable with Senior Fellow at the Show-Me Institute Patrick Tuohey, former KC Mayor Sly James, and Executive Director of the Jackson County Jim Rowland to discuss the upcoming vote on a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The post KC Stadium Tax Debate with Patrick Tuohey, Sly James and Jim Rowland appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 20, Patrick Tuohey joined Mundo in the Morning on KCMO to discuss the recent debate held on the new 3/8 percent sales tax being proposed to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The vote will be on April 2.

The post KC Stadium Tax: “They Are Asking Us to Give Them $2 Billion” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Chiefs are putting in a relatively small amount of money for renovations. According to Kansas City PBS affiliate KCUR:

The total cost of the proposed renovations is estimated at $800 million. Chiefs Chairman Clark Hunt says the Hunt family would pay $300 million of that total. Jackson County taxpayers would be on the hook for the remainder . . .

Got that? Taxpayers are putting up the lion’s share of the renovations to a stadium owned by billionaires. It gets worse. As if learning that taxpayers will fund the majority of the Chiefs’ plans isn’t bad enough, Chiefs President Mark Donovan chose to insult voters’ intelligence. Again, according to KCUR:

Unlike the Royals, who last year cited structural concerns at Kauffman Stadium as one of the main reasons for building a new downtown facility, the Chiefs intend to stay in the same arena bowl over the long haul. Arrowhead opened in 1972, one year before Kauffman Stadium.

Donovan chalked the contrast up to construction differences.

“Believe it or not,” Donovan said, “One team got a good batch of concrete, one team didn’t.”

This is more ridiculous than it sounds because we already know, thanks to KMBC News, that Kauffman Stadium is perfectly fine:

The Royals have repeatedly said the concrete has an issue, but a study reveals that Kauffman Stadium is in “satisfactory condition,” consistent with a “first-class” MLB baseball stadium.

Jackson County voters are being asked to support a new tax because John Sherman, the billionaire owner of the Royals, wants a new stadium in downtown Kansas City. The Chiefs don’t need a new tax. The existing Royals stadium isn’t falling apart. The deal won’t add value to downtown or be good for residents. This press conference made it fair to wonder how much of this is just a power play for personal gain.

The post Arguments for a New Stadium Fall Apart Like Bad Concrete appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On April 2, 2024, Jackson County voters will be asked to approve a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support improvements to “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

Learn more here: https://bit.ly/3SPIAGQ

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Spin vs. Reality: The Jackson County Stadium Tax Proposal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On February 28, Patrick Tuohey joined Mundo in the Morning on KCMO to discuss a new 3/8 percent sales tax being proposed to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The vote will be on April 2.

The post Listen: The Latest on the New KC Stadium Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Proponents present this as an extension of that tax and not a new tax.

They are wrong. It is a new tax.

First, think of this logically. If the county legislature did not act—or if the voters reject the measure—the current sales tax would expire on September 30, 2031. The legislature is seeking voter approval exactly because this is a new legislative action to impose a new tax.

Second, let’s examine the original tax approved by voters in 2006. The legislation does not contemplate an extension. It does not set up any mechanism by which the tax could be extended. It simply imposes the tax and states that it will expire after 25 years.

Third, the legislative language Jackson County voters are being asked to approve this time around would sunset the existing tax (the original tax would end—the two taxes would not run concurrently) and explicitly states this is a new tax. Per Section 2: “Subject to the approval of the voters of the County, the new levy will begin upon the date first imposed and continue for a term of 40 years . . . ” (emphasis added)

Even the title of the ordinance confirms that we are being asked to impose a new tax:

AN ORDINANCE submitting to the qualified voters of Jackson County, Missouri, at a special election to be held on April 2, 2024, a question authorizing Jackson County to impose a countywide sales tax of three-eighths of one percent for a period of forty years for the purpose of retaining the Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs sports teams in Jackson County, Missouri. (emphasis added)

Perhaps supporters of the measure believe that voters are more likely to extend a tax than they are to vote on a new tax. But that is a political concern. Their claim is campaign messaging, not the facts of the measure on the ballot.

Journalists covering this issue should resist parroting talking points and stick to the basic facts: Jackson County residents are being asked to impose a new levy on themselves. It’s that simple.

The post Let’s Be Honest about the New Stadium Tax in Jackson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to Ballparks of the Ozarks COO Bob Ramsey,

[the investors] didn’t want chain link fences [for their baseball development.] We didn’t want dusty, aluminum bleachers, with mom and kids baking in the sun and everybody complaining.

What did we want? We wanted [a] destination. We wanted amenities.

Our fields as constructed will be state-of-the-art. What will push our ballparks beyond what competitors have to offer will be our amenities. Families and teams from across the nation will be drawn to the “America’s Baseball Resort” experience.

As a former little leaguer, I’m actually pretty fond of chain-link fences, dusty fields, and aluminum bleachers, but we all know that resorts are supposed to be glitzy and glamorous. If given the choice between little league and big league amenities, developers will understandably pursue the big league amenities.

Folks may not know that to get those big league amenities, this proposed baseball-themed complex may be swinging for the fences to get financial assistance from the government. Novogradac, a national accounting firm that among other things helps “prepare tax credit applications,” hosts on its website what appears to be a New Markets tax credit allocation request for Ballparks of the Ozarks. New Markets tax credits are intended to

foster the construction and rehabilitation of real estate and the expansion of operating businesses in order to create jobs, generate economic activity and improve the quality of services in low-income communities and to low-income persons.

Unsurprisingly given those requirements, the request specifically says that the resort will “support existing ‘lake’ area businesses which struggle during off peak seasons” and will provide “opportunities for low-income, minority and disadvantaged youth to utilize high quality athletic facilities through affiliated organizations.”

In other words, to help the poor, the project summary suggests that the government should help pay for a baseball resort—and indeed, quite a lot of it. Novogradac’s page suggests Ballparks of the Ozarks is seeking to have $14 million in tax credits allocated to the project, and not only that, the summary implies that but-for the federal money, the project might not go forward.

How that jibes with the project’s recent “groundbreaking,” I don’t know.

I wish the developers of Ballparks of the Ozarks the best of luck, but there may be cause for concern from the perspective of sound public policy. If a resort can’t make it on private funds alone, taxpayers shouldn’t have to cover the gap.

The post Is Ballparks of the Ozarks Swinging for the Tax Incentive Fences? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Reviewing the literature on collective bargaining recently reminded me of this little bit of baseball history. The Missouri National Education Association (MNEA), one of Missouri’s teachers’ unions, published a pamphlet arguing that successful collective bargaining requires an “exclusive representative” who negotiates a contract on behalf of all employees, whether or not all employees want to join the union. I pointed out in a recent post that a teachers’ association need not represent all of the teachers in a school district in order to effectively represent its members. The Koufax-Drysdale holdout illustrates this point.

It would have been absurd for Koufax and Drysdale to force the rest of the team into their mini-union. More importantly, forcing everyone to accept representation from the same negotiator would be wrong. If another member of the Dodgers’ pitching staff would have refused representation from Koufax and Drysdale, it would have been his choice to make.

MNEA could learn a thing or two from the Koufax-Drysdale holdout. Rather than forcing every teacher in a school district to accept representation from their organization and negotiating a contract on behalf of all teachers, MNEA could seek to represent teachers in a members-only capacity. Members-only representation is where a union only represents its own members and neither forces nonmembers to pay fees nor forces them to accept a contract the union negotiates. Members-only agreements allow workers the freedom to choose whether or not to be represented by a union. They also give unions the freedom to withhold services from nonmembers.

The Koufax-Drysdale holdout is just one example suggesting that there are alternative ways for groups of employees to bargain with their employers. These alternatives can be as effective as exclusive representation—and they can be done in a way that fosters individual freedom.

The post What Teachers’ Unions Could Learn from Koufax and Drysdale appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Every year there are arguments about the budget. Every department wants everything on its wish list and there is only a finite amount of money. Some (like yours truly) argue that certain programs shouldn’t even exist. However, things have started to degenerate. Now it seems that the governor and the legislature cannot agree about how much money there even is to dole out. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is much more bullish about the future of the state’s revenue collection. He expects revenues to grow by 5.2 percent this year. Conversely, the legislature believes the state’s revenues will grow by only 4.2 percent. That seems like small potatoes but the difference in terms of actual dollars is in the hundreds of millions.

The fact that the legislature and the governor haven’t settled on a consensus revenue estimate is newsworthy because these types of disagreements are rare. However, this disagreement isn’t a cause to panic. The House will mark up its own appropriations bills and the budgeting process will continue. It’s just disappointing to see that governor and legislature can’t seem to agree on a revenue estimate, which is probably one of the more straightforward, less partisan issues. Hopefully, next year, both sides can agree on a number. Then the real fighting can begin.

The post Budget Battle Breakdown appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In all three indicators, Missouri compares poorly to other states and the country. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Missouri under-performs when compared to the U.S. as a whole in all three categories. Missouri ranks 48th out of 50 states in state GDP growth, 45th in per-capita real GDP growth, and 45th in total employment growth. In fact, when one compares Missouri with the three best and three worst performing states for each indicator, Missouri’s performance nearly mirrors that of the bottom three states (and in the case of state GDP, Missouri IS one of the bottom three performing states). Missouri’s troubles also cannot be blamed on the most recent economic troubles. Over a period spanning from1997 to 2010, Missouri consistently under-performed the national average and was close to the bottom in all three indicators.

Considering how Missouri is ranked relative to the rest of the country, the question should be asked, “How about a new line-up?” The Show-Me Institute has conducted research on ways Missouri can improve its economic standing. Given Missouri’s current situation, how much worse can the state do if it considers implementing some of these suggestions?

The post Three Strikes? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Like most people, NFL players have to pay taxes on their income. A team located where income tax rates are lower theoretically could offer contracts that are lower in nominal dollars but allow the players to receive higher take-home pay (for the purposes of this post, I am not taking into consideration deductions and tax loopholes, nor am I factoring in cost-of-living adjustments).  Which team’s players have the lowest income tax burden in the NFL? Well, there a couple of things to consider. First, what is the state and local income tax rate for where the players play their eight home games? Next, what is the state and local income tax rate for each of the team’s divisional foes (the players will travel for a road game against each of their divisional opponents)? The other games on a team’s schedule change from year to year, so the combined burden the players face will change somewhat from year to year.

So, for the 11 games (out of the 16 total) that a NFL team has on its schedule every year, is there a noticeable difference between the income tax burdens that the players on different teams face? From my calculations, there is (basic calculations —I only used the top marginal rate, so these numbers do not take into account the lower rates for the lower brackets and these numbers are slightly higher than they really would be). Take, for example, the Houston Texans. A team member who plays a game in Houston would pay no income taxes at either the state or local level. Therefore, for the eight games played in Houston, a Houston player will pay no income taxes. A Houston player will pay no income taxes for the road games in Jacksonville and Nashville, and $1,973.13 for the one game in Indianapolis. Therefore, the total income tax burden for a Houston Texans player making the median salary for these 11 games is $1,973.13. In contrast, a NFL player making the median salary would face a state and local income tax burden of close to $46,000 if he played for the Oakland Raiders (9.3 percent tax rate for eight games in Oakland and one game in San Diego plus the 4.63 percent and 7 percent rates for the games in Denver and Kansas City, respectively). Multiply that figure by 53 (the total number of players on the active roster) and the burden on a team’s players can increase substantially. If you used the mean salary ($1,900,000) instead of the median salary, the burden also increases.

Would this tax burden make much of a difference? I cannot say definitively (I am not an economist), but if one team had to pay a couple of million dollars, which counts against the cap, to just the income taxes, while another team only paid $100,000 or $200,000, I can tell you which team I would rather own.

The post Another Way To Keep Score? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Just how rich does this make Albert? Well, one local sportscaster estimated today that if Albert bats five times each game next year for the Angels, he will be raking in a cool $30,000 each time he steps into the batter’s box. Not bad, huh?

But if it makes you feel any better, it may not be all win-win for our legendary No. 5. Consider income taxes. Missouri’s top personal income tax rate is 6 percent, which kicks in at $9,000 (he would have also paid an additional 1 percent earnings tax [click on policy study and scroll down to page 46] in Saint Louis). In comparison, California’s top rate is 10.3 percent for incomes above $1 million (of course it might not STAY that way). I am not the only one to notice the possible influence that income tax rates could have had on Albert’s decision (this was regarding the offer from the Miami Marlins).

However, at the margins, how much of a difference would these tax rates have made on Albert’s decision? First, consider that Albert will only have to pay this 10.3 percent top rate for games played in California. He will play a good chunk of his games in states with NO personal income taxes (Washington and Texas). Now, I am not an economist and there are other factors involved here, but just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the home games, I found that Albert would pay slightly more than $4.6 million more in taxes over the life of his contract in Anaheim than Saint Louis. Considering the supposed $30 million to $40 million difference in value of the contracts, would the tax factor make that much of a difference? It is certainly possible (even though Albert did decide to leave). If the Angels had offered him the same amount as the Cardinals, the tax difference would cost Albert approximately $3.7 million.

Who is to say if the difference would matter, especially for a single individual who has to weigh many factors in his decision to move. However, if you are a business, that tax difference could influence a decision between paying taxes or hiring a couple of new employees. Just some things to ponder while Albert packs his bags.

The post A Heavenly Deal? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For most of baseball’s history, even the best professional players did not make salaries hundreds of times greater than the average American. In large part, this was attributable to the reserve clause attached to player contracts that forced them to bargain solely with the team that signed them — even after the contract expired. In 1975, an arbitrator allowed two players to become free agents, effectively striking down the reserve clause. From that point forward, general managers have been forced to compete against each other for free agents, driving player salaries skyward.

In most cases, these multimillion-dollar salaries benefit everyone involved. Most obviously, the players benefit because they earn more money. And, although ownership would undoubtedly like to return to the days of the reserve clause and cheap labor, they still generally prefer paying stratospheric salaries instead of fielding a third-rate team. Most importantly, baseball fans enjoy watching their highly paid stars play up to their potential, as shown by our willingness to spend money on the sport. Until the recession hit in 2008, Major League Baseball (MLB) set attendance records on an almost annual basis, peaking in 2007 with more than 79.5 million tickets sold — an average of 32,785 fans per game. Attendance has declined about 7 percent since then, down to (still healthy) 2003 levels. The reason that superb athletes like Pujols can command millions or even tens of millions of dollars per year is because people willingly give their hard-earned money to watch them perform.

Seen from the perspective of the value he brings to fans, Pujols is a bargain at $25 or even $30 million a year. The Cardinals had the fourth-highest MLB attendance in 2010, with 3,301,218 fans attending 81 home games, according to ESPN. If each of those fans contributed only nine dollars — just once — it would net Pujols $30 million for the year. Of course, this dramatically understates how dearly Cardinals fans value his skills, because it ignores attendance at away games and the much larger audiences listening on the radio and watching on television. J.C. Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University and author of The Baseball Economist, estimates that an eight-year contact with Pujols is worth $350 million, based upon similar deals to other superstars and current revenue growth. That’s $43.75 million per year. Another examination, using the statistic Wins Above Replacement (WAR), pegs the dollar value of an average season for Pujols at $32.3 million.

This analysis is complicated by subsidies that the Cardinals have received from the government — mostly in the form of deferential tax treatment and government-secured loans for the construction of the new Busch Stadium. Some area taxpayers do not care for baseball or the Cardinals, so they lose out on that deal. Such subsidies, however, are not an argument against high salaries per se, but rather against government favoritism toward certain businesses.

In 1960, Stan Musial came off a substandard season and requested a pay cut from $100,000 to $75,000. It was an honorable move from a man who demanded nothing short of perfection from himself. But nothing suggests that Pujols’ success as a player will decline any time soon. The value that Pujols has added to his fans’ lives far outstrips even the eight-digit figure on his current contract — so go ahead and pay the man what he deserves.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Pujols Is Worth Every Penny (All 3 Billion of Them) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Full Interview (MP3)

The post Is Albert Worth 30 Million? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“To play for a million dollars, I’d rather stay with my private business and share more time with my family,” he said. “Thank God I’m well off financially and my money is well invested.”

Now, many people will look at this and see an example of an overpaid sports star, greedily seeking an ever larger pile of money, but I think it nicely illustrates two economic concepts: diminishing marginal utility and opportunity cost. Playing Major League Baseball is a major time commitment (162 regular season games per year, 81 of them on the road), and, according to his statement, his next-most-valued use of that time is spending time with his family in Colombia, so giving up family time was his opportunity cost to earn those huge salaries. However, Renteria has earned many millions of dollars over the years, and apparently he has invested it wisely, so each additional $1 million is worth far less to him than the first million he made. As his baseball salary dwindles, the amount of time he has left to spend with his family is also shrinking, so that good is becoming ever more valuable. Whereas $1 million was easily worth the opportunity cost for a childless and dramatically poorer Renteria in the early nineties, it’s simply not worth the effort now that he is financially comfortable with a family to tend to.

In a similar fashion, income taxes artificially encourage people with the means to opt out of the labor market to consume more leisure. There’s nothing wrong with that choice, but, as a consequence, society will be a little poorer without the wealth that this labor would have created. Consequently, we should minimize the distortionary effects of taxes by keeping them low and let markets signal what people need and want through prices.

The post Major League Tradeoffs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I think it is terrific that Kansas City gets the All-Star Game in 2012. All sports fans know that baseball’s All-Star Game is the only one in which the players legitimately compete. (This is mainly because of the lower marginal risk for injury in baseball than in other sports.) But the Freakonomics blog has a post up today that could give Kansas City pause and Saint Louis some statistical revisions.

The post is about the economic impact of major sporting events. Needless to say, they generally don’t live up to the hype. From the entry:

The gist of it is that you can make an economic impact study say pretty much whatever you want, since it’s an exercise in speculation, and that the economists hired by bid committees make sure the numbers say yes.

The entry goes on to quote economist Dennis Coates:

Few analysts who aren’t in the employ of the event boosters have ever found such events to pay for themselves in a purely dollars and cents view.

A study on this issue published in the Southern Economic Journal reported :

In March 2005, Denver, Colorado, tourism officials predicted 100,000 visitors for the NBA All-Star Game. Considering that the Pepsi Center, the game’s venue, only holds 20,000 fans and taking into account that Denver has only about 6000 hotel rooms, it is not clear exactly how such an influx of basketball fans would be possible.

At the very least, we should question numbers thrown around without any supporting documentation, as in this article:

Major League Baseball estimated that last year’s All-Star Game in St. Louis had an economic benefit of $60 million on the city. The game a year earlier at Yankee Stadium had a positive fiscal impact of $148.4 million on New York — while San Francisco’s estimate in 2007 was $65 million.

I recognize that there is a big difference between hosting an event for which you have to build facilities, like the Olympics, and hosting an event for which you already have the requisite facilities for other purposes. The All-Star Game fits into this later category, which means it is far easier to make money — or, at least, limit any losses. I am sure that the 2012 All-Star Game will be great for Kansas City in many ways, but I hope people don’t believe the financial projections and hype without any evidence to back it up.

I have no idea whether the 2009 All-Star Game in St. Louis actually resulted in the $60 million impact that all of these articles cited. The consistency of the number does not make me more likely to believe it — rather, it tells me that someone came up with a preliminary estimate and everybody else likely repeated that number after Googling it.

The post Will They Push George Brett Around in a Wheelchair? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Only one-third the size of the 2009 program, it barely has enough funds to take care of the existing system.

Is it possible that an extraordinary set of circumstances in 2009 — perhaps a massive stimulus proposal intended to get the economy moving — might be why the 2009 program was so large, and why future programs look small by comparison? Why, we had the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that year, of course. I realize that this is a minor quibble, but comparing government funding in other years to 2009 will always be unfair. It’s like talking about Major League Baseball piching stats from 1968, or hitting stats from 1930 — you have to give some allowance for context.

But onto the bigger question: How will these upcoming annual appropriations affect Missourians? I, for one, am underwhelmed by the risks. For starters, it is only logical that at some point in a state not experiencing much population growth, expansion of the transportation system will level off. Eventually, an adequate system has been built, and if the population is no longer growing, it does not need much expansion. However, I do agree with the central point of this statement by the MoDOT chairman:

“It’s not just jobs that are related to the construction of the highways. Economic development follows transportation.”

The key for me is that I’d like to see as many of those transportation improvements as possible be private, rather than public. (Note: This observation in itself does not entail a critique of MoDOT, which is also pursuing expanded opportunities for public-private partnerships and tolling, in some instances.)

I could (emphasis on the could, not would) support a gas tax increase if it were used to fund necessary transportation improvements and system upkeep that the upcoming levels might fail to meet. I see no way in which I’d support a general sales tax increase for something like our transportation system that can be paid for in a much more targeted and efficient manner — be that tolling, gax taxes, or property taxes for local roads.

Thanks to Combest for the link.

The post State’s New Road Plan Involves Fewer Roads appeared first on Show-Me Institute.