This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
August 27, 2011
Convention cites L.A. stadium as reason to avoid L.A.
It's only one event, but the irony is still pretty delicious:
A national medical group has cancelled its 2014 convention in Los Angeles, citing concerns about the construction of a proposed downtown stadium, according to a Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau memo.
The Society of Critical Care Medicine had planned to book more than 9,000 room-nights at 10 downtown hotels for its February 2014 convention, according to LACVB documents. The convention was projected to bring 5,000 visitors to Los Angeles. But SCCM has decided to move its convention to another city "due to the uncertainty surrounding construction plans for the LACC," an Aug. 24 LACVB memo said.
Part of the rationale for the new stadium, of course, is that rebuilding part of the convention center would make it more attractive to conventions, which would create a windfall for L.A. That's arguable to start with — most convention center expansions only end up throwing good money after bad — but it's also important to factor in that some conventions may steer clear during the construction period, an impact that could stretch on for years given that no one knows when construction will begin or end.
In other L.A. stadium news, AEG president Tim Leiweke warned that the project could be derailed if the state legislature doesn't give him a get-out-of-lawsuits-free card in the next two weeks, though it's hard to picture him complaining if he gets legislation a week late. Meanwhile, the state legislative analyst's office has reiterated that the economic impact analysis of the AEG stadium overstates its benefits, in particular noting that most spending at the stadium would just be cannibalized from elsewhere in the state:
[Economist Mark] Whitaker gave his testimony during a three-hour hearing of the Senate's Select Committee on Sports and Entertainment, which was reviewing the economic benefits of the project and the potential for a bill that would allow AEG to curtail legal challenges to the project on environmental grounds. The written report received by the committee was even more blunt, with analysts saying the state and region would see "minimal" economic benefits from the project.
"The overall economic activity across the region would not necessarily increase but instead shift to Los Angeles … with little net benefit to the region or state," it said.
It's important to realize that AEG wants Los Angeles to tear down the very part of its own Convention Center that could generate revenue...
...and to leave it in rubble, generating no income of any kind...
...while AEG tries to get an NFL team to relocate to Los Angeles...
...an NFL team that will suck out every last dollar in revenue that Angelenos will be subsidizing...
...and leaving Los Angeles residents with huge amounts of public debt.
I'm not surprised that the City Council in L.A. fell for this line of NFLBS - our own City Council here in Santa Clara did the same thing, after all - but I AM surprised that no one connected the dots on the lost Convention Center revenue.
The pullout by the doctors is just the beginning.
Betcha.
Sincerely,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
-=0=-
...and since it's a post on LA, this thread will attract factless, feckless commenters who roll with the non sequiturs and ad hominems that really do rally the faithful on RedState, FreeRepublic, or Breitbart. I've yet to see a reasonable argument in favor of this project, but this doesn't make the local proponents any less vocal about it.
Posted by Anderson on August 27, 2011 09:23 AM
People are vocal about it because they have a deep down emotional connection with watching pro-football. Expecting them to explain how this is a business deal that makes logical sense for a municipality is simply something impossible for them to do. Mostly they don't think it even matters.
In Santa Clara for instance, council person (and ex-mayor) Patricia Mahan has made remarks about the joy of attending 49er games with her father as a child at Kezar. She apparently sees providing a stadium in SC as a way of maintaining a connection to her late father.
Meanwhile our central library will be closed again for the upcoming holiday weekend. Budget cuts...
Posted by santa clara jay on August 27, 2011 12:33 PM
This disgusting place called Los Angeles doesn't deserve anything.
San Francisco is the supreme place of intelligence.
San Francisco is to be bowed down to by Los Angeles.
The 49ers are the Masters of California.
Posted by San Francisco Supremacy on August 27, 2011 02:15 PM
Jay,
It saddens me that intelligent people would develop such an emotion connection to such a barbaric, anti-intellectual activity. If only more people developed such connections to science, art, theater, opera, or literature.
Posted by John on August 27, 2011 05:49 PM
John gets an important point here. One of the things I like about Los Angeles is that there's no NFL team and there are still things to do, interesting fun and useful things. Let's be honest: Buffalo needs an NFL team to have an identity. Sports futility gives life meaning there. By contrast, Los Angeles needs better bike lanes and cleaner air and everything's cool.
Posted by Anderson on August 27, 2011 06:08 PM
John,
Exactly, I believe SF can take great pride in having one of the top three ballet companies in the country. It speaks well of the community that this is the case.
I deathly tired of the symbolic warriorism imbued with pro-sports in general and pro-football in particular (don't get me started on the military jet flyovers that have come to denote a "big game").
My city is not superior to your city just because it wins a football game. Fans don't get any spoils of war if the 49ers beat the Broncos (no donkeys, woman, big screen TVs, etc.).
Studies have shown that the joy of watching "your" team with a championship are largely ephemeral. Most people would feel better long run if they went on an interesting hike.
Posted by santa clara jay on August 27, 2011 08:13 PM
Jay, Anderson.
I whole-heartedly agree. If (fingers crossed) the 49ers moved to Los Angeles, the Bay Area would not suffer at all. Sure, you'd have some fans who would complain that the object of their obsession is gone.
Furthermore, and this is a bit off topic, it saddens me to see institutions of higher education actually wasting money on things as stupid as sports. Did you know that the University of California's two highest paid employees are the Berkeley football coach and the UCLA basketball coach?
Posted by John on August 28, 2011 03:31 PM
It is a true irony that people who fashion themselves intellectuals refuse to acknowledge the benefits that successful athletic programs bring to a university. Look up the history of Notre Dame. What was once a struggling little Catholic school outside Chicago is now one of the country's most respected universities. Why? Football.
Posted by Ben Miller on August 28, 2011 05:18 PM
John,
Yes, I'm aware that college sports coaches are the highest paid public employees of many (most?) states. It's a trend that's gotten totally out of control the last few years (I believe John Wooden's last salary was $35K--not a huge sum even in 1975). Of course this has a perverting infulence on these institutions. How could it not?
To even things up a little bit, I advocate paying college players (their market value) openly and not requiring them to attend classes if they're not interested (or simply don't have the energy [these sports are full time jobs!]).
Posted by santa clara jay on August 28, 2011 05:20 PM
Ben,
I don't dispute that a few schools (such as ND & USC have became famous in large part because of their football teams. However, I still don't see what provding this sort of mass entertainment has to do with any universities alleged purpose.
Furthermore, I believe that it's other institutions desire to emulate football success of schools like ND or USC that leads to the corruption and hypocrisy that infests so many programs--it's inherent in the process.
For the record, I also like to emphatically state that I don't think I'm all that smart. I like ballet and reading Graham Greene, but that doesn't make me an intellectual.
Jay,
Ask anyone who has applied to be part of USC in the past compared to today. Since the rise of the football program in the 00's the quality of academics (students test scores, faculty resumes, facilities, etc) has risen dramatically.
Yes, some schools throw away some money chasing that football dream, but by and large it is worth having an expensive program. Marquette is the perfect example. This is still a very good school and was once even better, but their stubborn refusal to embrace football has cost them in the classroom.
Posted by Ben Miller on August 29, 2011 10:09 AM
Can you explain that, Ben? Are you saying not having football costs them money, students, faculty?
Posted by Neil deMause on August 29, 2011 10:13 AM
A) LA is the largest metropolitan area in the country. That is why there are a billion things to do. It had nothing to do with the quality of the town, just the quantity..
B) Buffalo doesn't "need" a football team anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. Buffalo is a fine town. Sure its best economic days are behind it, but football isn't going to change that, and there is plenty to do there that is not NFL related. There is plenty to do in any town in the US over about 50,000 people. To think otherwise is just to demonstrate that you are a boring person with no imagination.
Posted by Joshua Northey on August 29, 2011 10:25 AM
A) LA is the largest metropolitan area in the country. That is why there are a billion things to do. It had nothing to do with the quality of the town, just the quantity..
B) Buffalo doesn't "need" a football team anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. Buffalo is a fine town. Sure its best economic days are behind it, but football isn't going to change that, and there is plenty to do there that is not NFL related. There is plenty to do in any town in the US over about 50,000 people. To think otherwise is just to demonstrate that you are a boring person with no imagination.
Posted by Joshua Northey on August 29, 2011 10:26 AM
Hi Joshua,
My point is that the role of pro sports in giving meaning to people's lives is larger in a city with less going for it than other places. Seattle can afford to lose the Sonics more than Buffalo can afford to lose the Bills. It's a debatable claim. Call me boring and imagination-less if you like, but I'd rather debate the point than my merits as a person.
It's a feat of imagination to believe that Los Angeles is a bigger metro than New York, however. By any measure except land mass, New York is the largest metropolitan area in the United States. If you'd like others to take your positions seriously, try using verifiable rather than made-up facts. They may be boring, but they still have value.
Posted by Anderson on August 29, 2011 12:29 PM
Wow, bragging about ballet & opera over football? When did Frasier & Niles Crane find the Internet?
Posted by Mark on August 29, 2011 12:29 PM
Neil,
It's just been a tough go for Marquette in the last decade or so that football has risen so far above everything else. When you have a good team you get more students (including high achievers) interested in applying and, perhaps more importantly, you get more access to wealthy alumni and fans.
I have a friend who is a MU alumni (and Badger hater, natch) and it really frustrates him. Big money people in the state are more than happy to go out to Madison and hear some profs talk about research donations if it means access to good seats in the fall. UW also has now even become the bigger out of state draw (where tuition costs are less of a difference) and he feels that a high profile football team is a major reason for that.
Look, I used to be one of those who thought that top level university athletics were a fun distraction, but ultimately a drain on university resources. Then I asked a prof from U of Florida about it on a long plane ride and he just about cut a promo (pro wrestling term) on me. He said that when you have a hot football team it just helps everything on the academic side. We can't all be Yale, you know.
Posted by Ben Miller on August 29, 2011 12:39 PM
Far be it from me to encourage schools to adopt football programs (with all the problems that often accompany same), but in support of Ben's point I must tell you that I have been told that significantly more than half of the Div I football programs are net financial contributors to their host institutions. (We'll leave the "Oh it feels good to have a Div 1 football proram" discussion out as it is irrelevant to the financial side).
I have no data on that myself and do not know whether this takes into account all aspects of the programs (IE: substitution effect re: alumni gifts etc). But that is what I've been told.
Anyone else hear that/know anything about it?
Big division one programs make money at least in part because they don't pay their players (who hope to have a shot in the NFL).
The company where I work would be much more profitable if it didn't have to pay anyone, say, but the executives.
Posted by santa clara jay on August 29, 2011 04:13 PM
SCJ:
I think most of the big programs' players do get paid one way or another... that's part of the NCAA's present quagmire.
But it is irrelevant to the point about being a net financial contributor to the university either way.
Posted by John Bladen on August 29, 2011 08:26 PM
I don't think the players are getting their market value. For instance, didn't Reggie Bush get in trouble about a condo and some payments to his family that totaled a few hundred thousand dollars at most? His value to the university must had been in the millions. If payrolls had to honestly reflect the value of the player's work then football programs would be much less profitable.
Bama fans serenaded Cam Newton last year with "take the money and run"; they seem to have conveniently forgotten that they had hired their coach away from LSU for the biggest contract in NCAA history.
The hypocrisy of it all.
Posted by santa clara jay on August 29, 2011 10:56 PM
I don't think the players are getting their market value. For instance, didn't Reggie Bush get in trouble about a condo and some payments to his family that totaled a few hundred thousand dollars at most? His value to the university must had been in the millions. If payrolls had to honestly reflect the value of the player's work then football programs would be much less profitable.
Bama fans serenaded Cam Newton last year with "take the money and run"; they seem to have conveniently forgotten that they had hired their coach away from LSU for the biggest contract in NCAA history.
The hypocrisy of it all.
Posted by santa clara jay on August 29, 2011 10:57 PM
SCJ- the fact remains that (today) the programs are net contributors. When/if that changes, and the programs aren't adding anything to university coffers, willingness to spend on coaches, players, etc. will in all likelihood fall. The reason college football is a net contributor ("free*" labor) is irrelevant.
*setting aside scholarships and SUV stipends
Posted by biggreentevas on August 30, 2011 04:38 PM
College athletics is exactly why LA doesn't need an NFL team.
USC regularly brings in 80,000 people to the LA Coliseum, a former pro stadium. UCLA can still bring in 60,000+ to the Rose Bowl.
On top of that, the Chargers are only a short drive away, totally do-able for a day trip.
We don't really need a new team. It's not like football fans are starving. If you're a hardcore football fan you probably root for one of the college teams or enjoy seeing all of your out-of-city team's games without blackouts.
Downtown LA traffic is going to be murder on game days, even with traffic redevelopment. Simply, the streets + the MTA Blue Line + city busses together can't support 60,000+ fans + people going to LA Live + people going to offices in LA's central business district.
This isn't going to lead to redevelopment, it'll just be a big white elephant.
As I said before, a baseball stadium makes more sense there. The L.A. Live is a pre-built "sports shopping village" that can be expanded to support baseball fans before and after the game. Have Lew Wolff move the A's there. The Maloofs are already very likely to move to Anaheim. It's clear that the SoCal metro area is going to become a 3-team market in a lot of sports, due to the recession, probably along with the NY Metro area.
Build the NFL stadium out in the City of Industry, where it can support tailgating and real football culture, just don't use public funds to build it.
Posted by LA Resident on August 31, 2011 04:13 AM
Reply to LA Resident:
I completely agree with you. The City of Industry Stadium is a much better option and makes way more sense.
I've been advocating that AEG buy the Dodgers and change Farmers Field to a retractable roof baseball stadium/convention event center that connects with Pico Hall just like Farmers Field does now.
As for Leiweke saying that's impossible to do baseball is a flat out lie. They control the scheduling and could make it work very easily even if the Lakers, Kings and Clippers make the playoffs.
They already hold events at Staples Center and Nokia Theater at the same time as well as Dodger Stadium holding games and the traffic isn't that crazy as the Dodgers get about 20,000 actual fans during a regular season game.
I'm all for a Downtown Dodgers Stadium where the West Hall sits and give it all the bells and whistles you were going to do with Farmers Field. Anyways, I don't expect AEG to get Farmers Field done as more and more people are challenging them along with the fact that people are not budging on giving them lawsuit exemptions.
Posted by NFL in LA on August 31, 2011 11:41 PM
I don't agree NFL in LA.
Dodger Stadium is too ideal to give up. It's in a prime location. It's already one of the most historic stadiums in MLB (which I consider to be a huge plus, unlike most team owners). It's kept very clean and is extremely well-maintained for a stadium of its age. It's an icon of modernist architecture.
Most Dodger fans love Dodger Stadium the way it is. Attendance is down to the 10,000 - 20,000 range this season because (1) the fans hate McCourt, (2) the team is doing very poorly, (3) the incident of violence that left that SF guy in a coma scared off many and (4) McCourt has jacked up prices as the economy has nosedived. Prior to all of this, the Dodgers regularly sold out the house and were usually up there in the top 3 for attendance.
The only way a bad situation could be turned into an even worse one would be moving them into an AEG McStadium next to LA Live. That would definitively kill off the team in the eyes of most fans, I think.
Give the downtown stadium to the A's. They need it a lot more. Even a character-devoid McStadium would be a huge step-up for them. And they have a much lower average attendance, even in good economic times and when the team is doing well. A 30,000 - 45,000 seat stadium would suit them perfectly.
I think the reality is that all of the major sports leagues are overextended. A lot of teams need to relocate but have few viable options. What's the biggest metro market that MLB has yet left untouched? The Inland Empire - which most people would consider part of SoCal but MLB doesn't. SoCal will soon have a third NBA team anyway. It can support a third-MLB team. Probably a third-MLS team as well. I already consider any NFL franchise that moves here to be a "third team" next to the Trojans and Bruins.
Posted by LA Resident on September 1, 2011 04:43 PM
LA Resident and NFL in LA
I like the City of Industry stadium, as well. I don't know how willing the 49ers are to moving the 49ers there, but I hope that they at least consider it. Anything to get them out of the Bay Area.
Posted by John on September 4, 2011 02:35 PM