Re: What is D.C. thinking?

WaPo’sSally Jenkins adds a terrific column on the $440 million DC deal which actually cites real research into the whole public stadia building craze, like this from Stanford economist Roger Noll:

Any independent study shows that as an investment, it’s silly. If they’re trying to sell it on grounds of actually contributing to economic growth and employment in D.C., that’s wrong. There’s never been a publicly subsidized stadium anywhere in the United States that had the effect of increasing employment and economic growth in the city in which it was built.

It’s taxing ordinary people for a stadium attended by upper income people, and then the income generated goes to even higher income people, namely players and owners. Basically, you’re taxing people who make $30,000 a year to generate a toy for people who make $200,000 a year, and income for people who make millions of dollars a year.

Jenkins also notes that the stadium George W. Bush built for his Texas Rangers has not improved the rundown neighborhood around it. And she wonders about DC’s new team quickly leaving DC should an even better deal emerge. There are no legal restraints in the package which can stop them.

“They’ll enjoy big crowds for a season or two but the novelty will wear off, and then what?” Jenkins predicts.

“When the team isn’t very good and they don’t have enough TV revenue and the crowds stop coming out, what keeps them from pulling up stakes? And going to Charlotte, or Vegas, or San Juan?”

Oh, please. Not that.