Ultimately I think it comes down to location. AT&T has had a positive impact on the city because it spurred development in an area that was underdeveloped and created a market for bars and restaurants that didn’t previously exist. It works because it’s centrally located. There were already a lot of people nearby and it served to draw them to the area around the park. Likewise the arena in San Jose capitalized on an area where people worked but didn’t spend evenings or weekends and turned downtown San Jose into more of an entertainment district than it had ever had before (it’s also one of the busiest arenas in the world).

Contrast the impact of AT&T and HP Pavilion with Candlestick, which was a miserable failure on all fronts. It’s not close enough to where people already are to draw them to the area for anything other than games. It didn’t encourage any development of the area surrounding the park and therefore had no positive economic impact. Looking at the proposed Santa Clara 49ers stadium I think Santa Clara is sorely mistaken if it thinks a 49ers stadium will spawn any economic development near the stadium. There’s some stuff already there, the Mercado theaters and Great America, but it’s not an area where a significant number of people already spend time.

The economic impact of a stadium, ballpark, or arena depends almost entirely on location. Put it where people already are and the impact is negligible. Put it close to where people already are and I think it can have a positive impact. Put it where people don’t go and it will be a real detriment to the city that builds it.

Regardless of the impact though, I don’t think government should be “investing” a significant amount of taxpayer dollars into these facilities. The Giants were able to build their park almost entirely with private funding so it is possible if the owner is committed to doing it. I don’t have a problem with a city or state helping out with some of the financing or with tax incentives, the same as they would for any other corporation, but it doesn’t make sense to give owners the money for the facilities as well as control of the facilities themselves.

It’s hard for me to get my mind around the idea that Obama’s $1,000,000,000,000 “stimulus” was a good idea, but spending $400,000,000 (which equals roughly 1/2500th the stimulus) to build a multi-use arena– that would, among other things, keep a sports team in town for decades — is a moral outrage.

No. It’s like we’re telling people they are wrong to expect the entire population of taxpayers to pay for their Big Macs.

I’m just saying it’s a matter of opinion how much a park is worth to people in a particular city, and if the people decide it’s worth it to them, you can’t tell them they are wrong.

It’s like you are telling people they are wrong to like Big Macs, because Big Macs aren’t healthy.

If this was the case, then the owners could privately finance a new stadium, charge extra for tickets, and the whole thing would be viable without any public money.

I could maybe get behind your argument if the owners pushing for a stadium came out and admitted that the stadium would be an economic loss, but asked the public to nicely give them money anyway. Instead they use misleading figures to convince people the stadium will benefit them.

I understand your point, but as stated on twitter, strongly disagree.

For those who might be reading your blog, my rebuttal: http://tinyurl.com/3bn3m4j