January 04, 2010
Giants group demands A's guarantee stadium benefits
Stand for San Jose, the San Francisco Giants-funded group fighting the Oakland A's possible move to the South Bay, issued a demand last week that the A's agree to make up any shortfalls in promised economic benefits from a new San Jose stadium. In a letter to San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, the group said that the A's owners shouldn't be allowed to "attempt a hidden-ball trick to conceal the true costs to taxpayers."
There are two ways of looking at this: On the one hand, it's a savvy way to point out that economic benefit studies are, by and large, a load of crap. On the other, it's a largely meaningless request — actually measuring "economic impact" is more art than science, especially when you take into account things like spending that is diverted from one part of town to another (the substitution effect). So even if the A's owners agreed to such a provision, it would be fairly easy for them to concoct some numbers that showed the stadium was living up to its promises.
In any case, as eminent Stanford sports economist Roger Noll tells the San Jose Mercury News, there's no way the A's will agree to this: "Economic impact statements have a huge amount of uncertainty in them. No one would guarantee their validity. It's like somebody came in with the Farmer's Almanac and said, 'On Oct. 17, it will rain.' You can't guarantee it for me." Still, it's a nice way to poke fun at the Farmer's Almanac.
It's quite clear to me that San Jose will get their baseball park and the A's. Next up, the Tampa Bay Rays who will then push the accelerator on either getting a new ballpark in St. Petersburg or seriously consider the other side of the Bay in Tampa. They're the only two baseball teams without "modern" ballparks in a sense that can generate revenue to today's MLB standards. Though I do have to say that MLB has been the most successful in getting a new ballpark for every team.
Posted by Stadium Czar on January 4, 2010 08:17 PM
Neil, I know I should know this without having to ask, but I seem to remember reading something here a while ago to the effect that the Giants' vaunted privately financed stadium was not truly entirely privately financed (they at least got the land for free or something). If so, did they at the time guarantee any shortfalls in economic benefits to the city of SF? If not, then this moves from the current two options into the category of "unmitigated gall".
Posted by Tom on January 5, 2010 09:23 PM
They got free land, yes. I don't know offhand whether they promised economic benefits in exchange, though. Joel Ventresca would, if he's still around anywhere.
Posted by Neil on January 5, 2010 10:41 PM