Downtown Stadium Plan by May 30th

[USRufnex]

Excellent read:

#06038_The Economic of Sports Stadiums:
A Simple Discussion
An Essay by Jacob Benedict

http://ab417.org/items/index.php?itemid=36

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Excellent read:

#06038_The Economic of Sports Stadiums:
A Simple Discussion
An Essay by Jacob Benedict

http://ab417.org/items/index.php?itemid=36

quote:That being said, the argument that subsidizing a sports franchise brings economic benefits to a particular region (usually put forth by public officials) is weak. Expenditures from spectators coming to the new stadium suffers from crowding out effects – what spectators will spend at the new Wizards stadium they would have spent elsewhere in the city for similar goods (movies, food, etc.).

I tend to agree.  UNLESS the stadium is part of a development that creates an "attraction" that will draw people from the suburbs, encourage conventions to see Tulsa as a destination, or encourage further development in Tulsa instead of elsewhere.

Which he gets to a little later:

quote:There are two main reasons why governments should subsidize private investment. The first is that the subsidy will bring increased economic activity. The belief that sports teams will do this is misguided. Second, governments should encourage activity if it produces positive externalities. An externality occurs when a party other than the chief principal, in this case the owners of the Wizards, recieve [sic] a benefit from the operations of the [Drillers].

His conclusions seem logical and justified and his suggestions at the end seem spot on.  Don't tout this as a miracle economic cure for downtown or for Tulsa - but try to make it one just the same.  What's more, a stadium or any other item to make downtown vibrant only matters if there are in fact, people downtown to enjoy it.
_______________________

My money's on this not happening.  Our city government can't get anything decent done in less than a year and even then with a marginal success rate... let alone months.

Lets hear it for the Tulsa Driller's of Jenks and the Tulsa 66ers of Bixby.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Excellent read:

#06038_The Economic of Sports Stadiums:
A Simple Discussion
An Essay by Jacob Benedict

http://ab417.org/items/index.php?itemid=36

quote:That being said, the argument that subsidizing a sports franchise brings economic benefits to a particular region (usually put forth by public officials) is weak. Expenditures from spectators coming to the new stadium suffers from crowding out effects – what spectators will spend at the new Wizards stadium they would have spent elsewhere in the city for similar goods (movies, food, etc.).

I tend to agree.  UNLESS the stadium is part of a development that creates an "attraction" that will draw people from the suburbs, encourage conventions to see Tulsa as a destination, or encourage further development in Tulsa instead of elsewhere.

Which he gets to a little later:

quote:There are two main reasons why governments should subsidize private investment. The first is that the subsidy will bring increased economic activity. The belief that sports teams will do this is misguided. Second, governments should encourage activity if it produces positive externalities. An externality occurs when a party other than the chief principal, in this case the owners of the Wizards, recieve [sic] a benefit from the operations of the [Drillers].

His conclusions seem logical and justified and his suggestions at the end seem spot on.  Don't tout this as a miracle economic cure for downtown or for Tulsa - but try to make it one just the same.  What's more, a stadium or any other item to make downtown vibrant only matters if there are in fact, people downtown to enjoy it.
_______________________

My money's on this not happening.  Our city government can't get anything decent done in less than a year and even then with a marginal success rate... let alone months.

Lets hear it for the Tulsa Driller's of Jenks and the Tulsa 66ers of Bixby.

First off we arent concerned with "a region" its keeping Drillers games in Tulsa versus in Jenks. He says that spectators will spend money at the stadium and couches that as a regional thing. I we were concerned about the county, fine, that logic would hold, but we are concerned about the city.

This will be part of more development downtown. It is not a "miracle cure", but it will help, Its one more piece in a larger puzzle.

As for "a stadium or any other item to make downtown vibrant only matters if there are in fact, people downtown to enjoy it." Whats that about? The drillers dont just draw from the couple of neighborhoods around the current stadium. They draw from all over the city and county.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Excellent read:

#06038_The Economic of Sports Stadiums:
A Simple Discussion
An Essay by Jacob Benedict

http://ab417.org/items/index.php?itemid=36

quote:That being said, the argument that subsidizing a sports franchise brings economic benefits to a particular region (usually put forth by public officials) is weak. Expenditures from spectators coming to the new stadium suffers from crowding out effects – what spectators will spend at the new Wizards stadium they would have spent elsewhere in the city for similar goods (movies, food, etc.).

I tend to agree.  UNLESS the stadium is part of a development that creates an "attraction" that will draw people from the suburbs, encourage conventions to see Tulsa as a destination, or encourage further development in Tulsa instead of elsewhere.

Which he gets to a little later:

quote:There are two main reasons why governments should subsidize private investment. The first is that the subsidy will bring increased economic activity. The belief that sports teams will do this is misguided. Second, governments should encourage activity if it produces positive externalities. An externality occurs when a party other than the chief principal, in this case the owners of the Wizards, recieve [sic] a benefit from the operations of the [Drillers].

His conclusions seem logical and justified and his suggestions at the end seem spot on.  Don't tout this as a miracle economic cure for downtown or for Tulsa - but try to make it one just the same.  What's more, a stadium or any other item to make downtown vibrant only matters if there are in fact, people downtown to enjoy it.
_______________________

My money's on this not happening.  Our city government can't get anything decent done in less than a year and even then with a marginal success rate... let alone months.

Lets hear it for the Tulsa Driller's of Jenks and the Tulsa 66ers of Bixby.

Did you see the article in the World this weekend about the stadium? Support for public funding is weak on the city council and even weaker among the candidates running for council seats. Opposition is led by Martinson, Wescott and Jack "What's in it for me" Henderson.. Eagleton is iffy on it.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080210_1_A19_hTheC42121

It may not even make it out of the city council.

[Renaissance]

What you see in the paper is election posturing.

The rosy-but-realistic scenario for what is going to happen is this: by the end of the negotiation period, Lamson and Taylor, probably flanked by a currently anonymous "angel," are going to emerge with a public-private partnership to build the thing.  Sounds like it's probaly going to involve a hotel tax, which the lodging industry comes out and supports the tax on itself.  Lamson will probably sign something bindng, contingent on the passage of the tax.

The council is going to hem and haw, but the support of the lodging industry, combined with Lamson's binding promise, will convince them to "let the people decide."  Then, a modest hotel room tax increase will pass among Tulsa voters.  It might not be the prettiest election, since none are these days, but it will go through.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

What you see in the paper is election posturing.

The rosy-but-realistic scenario for what is going to happen is this: by the end of the negotiation period, Lamson and Taylor, probably flanked by a currently anonymous "angel," are going to emerge with a public-private partnership to build the thing.  Sounds like it's probaly going to involve a hotel tax, which the lodging industry comes out and supports the tax on itself.  Lamson will probably sign something bindng, contingent on the passage of the tax.

The council is going to hem and haw, but the support of the lodging industry, combined with Lamson's binding promise, will convince them to "let the people decide."  Then, a modest hotel room tax increase will pass among Tulsa voters.  It might not be the prettiest election, since none are these days, but it will go through.

+1

[Renaissance]

I'll also point out that I just booked a hotel at the downtown Westin in Chicago and the listed room tax was 15.4%.  Now, I know Tulsa ain't Chicago, but if we raise the rate from 5% to 8%, we're still at barely half that.

[brunoflipper]

going to seattle this week, the hotel tax is 15.6%...

[swake]

We also should take into account if we are worried about convention competitiveness that more important to people booking conventions than the size of the hotel tax is the average hotel rate, which is very low in Tulsa. Not only is the hotel tax low, the rate that is taxed is very low.

Pass the temporary 3% or 4% for the stadium and an additional 2% permanent hotel tax to increase the marketing dollars for the convention and visitors bureau.  Hell, extend the temporary tax a year or two and do put some of the money that the arena grabbed out of the funds for the convention center and do the convention center the right way, the way 2025 was marketed.

Build the stadium, do the convention center right and market the city better. Hotel owners will love you for it and it won't cost local taxpayers a dime. If the math on this tax makes sense to the people that own the hotels, who are the impacted parties, it should be fine for the rest of us.

[RecycleMichael]

I am in DC today. My tax here is 14.5%

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by swake

We also should take into account if we are worried about convention competitiveness that more important to people booking conventions than the size of the hotel tax is the average hotel rate, which is very low in Tulsa. Not only is the hotel tax low, the rate that is taxed is very low.

Pass the temporary 3% or 4% for the stadium and an additional 2% permanent hotel tax to increase the marketing dollars for the convention and visitors bureau.  Hell, extend the temporary tax a year or two and do put some of the money that the arena grabbed out of the funds for the convention center and do the convention center the right way, the way 2025 was marketed.

Build the stadium, do the convention center right and market the city better. Hotel owners will love you for it and it won't cost local taxpayers a dime. If the math on this tax makes sense to the people that own the hotels, who are the impacted parties, it should be fine for the rest of us.

I couldn't agree more swake.  I'd also like to point out on a boring academic note that a slight increase in the hotel rate tax is very unlikely to affect the elasticity of demand for hotel rooms within the city.  Since the tax will obviously affect every hotel in the city, there will be virtually no decrease in the quantity of hotel rooms demanded.  Customers shop around for hotels within a city, sure.  But, you can't stay in OKC to conduct business in Tulsa without an added negative consequence (being 100 miles away).

[swake]

It's now been six weeks since the announcement and the deadline is less than 90 days away.

I know there's not been anything in the news about the stadium, is anyone hearing anything else about any progress here at all?

[RecycleMichael]

I am going to Memphis tomorrow.

The hotel tax is 15.95%

[TURobY]

http://www.typros.org/events.asp?id=11&eventsid=727

quote:
Development Series to feature Drillers' owner, Chuck Lamson
3/18/2008

January 22, Mayor Kathy Taylor and Tulsa Drillers owner Chuck Lamson announced that they entered into an exclusive agreement to negotiate terms to bring the Tulsa Drillers to Downtown Tulsa. The agreement provides an exclusive period for sole negotiation between the city and the Drillers with a target date of May 30, 2008 for signing a definitive agreement.

TYPros' Development Series will feature Mr. Lamson as he discusses his hopes and plans for downtown baseball and what it would mean for Tulsa and downtown revitalization.

Please join us for this unique event.
March 18th
6p-8p
Wallace Engineering
Rooftop if weather allows, lobby if it does not.
200 E. Brady St

Please RSVP to Stefanie Phariss at stefaniephariss@tulsachamber.com

[dsjeffries]

Anyone going??? Tell us everything!