Mayor Hardberger and Tom Benson want the San Antonio Saints

[TheWriter]

Interesting, although not exactly what I was looking for. What I wanted is the number of households in each income range.

However, there is one important piece of data you can extract from this:

			Employment      Median Hourly   Mean Hourly  	Mean Annual 
San Antonio      	721,620  	$11.87  	$15.66  	$32,570  	
Austin/San Marcos	681,240  	$14.38  	$18.47  	$38,410

Austin/San Marcos only has 40K less number of people employed than all of SA, and in terms of total annual salary actually has a HIGHER total income even with fewer people ($23.5 billion/year for SA vs. $26.1 billion/year for Austin).

So I would argue this strengths my point that inclusion of Austin is necessary.

Shoogar, those are actually very midleading numbers for San Antonio.

The MSA for this website does not include 4 of the 8 counties that make up MSA San Antonio.

Here's what they have:

San Antonio, TX MSA
o Bexar County
o Comal County
o Guadalupe County
o Wilson County

They're missing Atascosa County (42,969), Bandera County (19,754), Kendall County (27,214), and Medina County (42,269).

[TheWriter]

Shoogar, those are actually very midleading numbers for San Antonio.

The MSA for this website does not include 4 of the 8 counties that make up MSA San Antonio.

Here's what they have:

San Antonio, TX MSA
o Bexar County
o Comal County
o Guadalupe County
o Wilson County

They're missing Atascosa County (42,969), Bandera County (19,754), Kendall County (27,214), and Medina County (42,269).

As of last count there's are over 800,000 jobs in MSA San Antonio.

[TheWriter]

Imagine had Hardberger not won but instead... oh... uh... eh...

[2centsworth]

evidence

Read your evidence and Kudos in actually having something to support your claims. However, as big of a fan of the Cato Ins ue as I am I still have a few disagreements with the study.

First, The economic Impact in the first two case studies , though low as a % of the estate economy , are large in absolute numbers ar($102-$120mm) and growing I assume.

Secondly, economic impact in most of these studies neglect Goodwill and publicity. Look at any corporate balance sheet and Goodwill is a resellable asset! Also, any company would die for the constant publicty sports franchises produce for their cities.

Then Lastly, the study subtracts from the economic benefit lost opportunity cost. This too is a faulty argument because no one has a crystal ball when it comes to investments. To criticize a profitable investment because you think you could have done better elsewhere can be foolish, especially when it comes to government which has a track record of throwing money away and not making profitable investments.


Again, I would like to see a cost benefit analysis specifically for Saints project before making any conclusions.

[goliath]

If Garza was mayor he would be using the Saints attendence to show that SA could support a MLS team

[Marcus Bryant]

Read your evidence and Kudos in actually having something to support your claims. However, as big of a fan of the Cato Ins ue as I am I still have a few disagreements with the study.

First, The economic Impact in the first two case studies , though low as a % of the estate economy , are large in absolute numbers ar($102-$120mm) and growing I assume.

The point was that relative to local area income and tax collections those benefits were quite small, if the benefits even materialized.

Secondly, economic impact in most of these studies neglect Goodwill and publicity. Look at any corporate balance sheet and Goodwill is a resellable asset! Also, any company would die for the constant publicty sports franchises produce for their cities.

How does a city trade goodwill? Sure, the value of that would presumably materialize in some form, such as a greater number of visitors to the city, a greater number of individuals seeking to live there and driving up property values which then would flow back to the public coffers, a greater number of firms seeking to relocate to the city, etc...

That was the point of the models they developed to test the significance of the sports franchises in explaining the variation in per capita income.

What they found was no significant impact of a pro franchise on per capita income growth and a significant and negative impact on the level of real per cap income.

Then Lastly, the study subtracts from the economic benefit lost opportunity cost. This too is a faulty argument because no one has a crystal ball when it comes to investments. To criticize a profitable investment because you think you could have done better elsewhere can be foolish, especially when it comes to government which has a track record of throwing money away and not making profitable investments.

If you assign uncertainty to the opportunity foregone, you also have to apply it to the activity undertaken.

Again, I would like to see a cost benefit analysis specifically for Saints project before making any conclusions.

The basic problem is, as the authors describe, that you are assuming the relationships between income and output stay constant, as well as the assumption that you don't have the subs ution going on in spending by households and that those who are the first/second recipients of the expenditures on games will spend that money locally. People undoubtedly would change their spending habits in response to the location of a team in SA. When a pro athlete buys X number of homes in vacation spots around the world instead of in the local market, that kills the impact of those expenditures (his salary).

[2centsworth]

If you assign uncertainty to the opportunity foregone, you also have to apply it to the activity undertaken.

Yes, but the activity undertaken is proven unlike the opportunity foregone.

How does a city trade goodwill? Sure, the value of that would presumably materialize in some form, such as a greater number of visitors to the city, a greater number of individuals seeking to live there and driving up property values which then would flow back to the public coffers, a greater number of firms seeking to relocate to the city, etc...

Bingo!


One last item, this city is much different than Jacksonville and Baltimore because of our number one Industry- Tourism. The constant publicity would surely impact us much differently than it would most other cities. Again, I would like to see the numbers specifically for this market. Who knows the proposal they bring to the table could be the worst deal ever.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, but the activity undertaken is proven unlike the opportunity foregone.

Not at the start. That's how I understood the authors' argument.

Bingo!

The authors put that to the test with their models.

One last item, this city is much different than Jacksonville and Baltimore because of our number one Industry- Tourism. The constant publicity would surely impact us much differently than it would most other cities. Again, I would like to see the numbers specifically for this market. Who knows the proposal they bring to the table could be the worst deal ever.

Then you have a tremendous expenditure made to generate job growth in a low wage sector. That also does not account for the impact of the subs ution households in the area would make with respect to their 'entertainment dollars' as well as the fact that the output multiplier on a sports team is going to be fairly low as a lot of the income earned by the players is spent out of market.

Again, it seems as though the basic argument is that a majority (or a vocal minority) want a team in a city because they like that given sport. So the community benefits because that desire is fulfilled and it has some non-pecuniary value for people.

The authors examined it in the right manner. Any positive, significant impact of a local area being home to a pro team would've been picked up in their regressions.

[2centsworth]

Not at the start. That's how I understood the authors' argument.




The authors put that to the test with their models.




Then you have a tremendous expenditure made to generate job growth in a low wage sector. That also does not account for the impact of the subs ution households in the area would make with respect to their 'entertainment dollars' as well as the fact that the output multiplier on a sports team is going to be fairly low as a lot of the income earned by the players is spent out of market.

Again, it seems as though the basic argument is that a majority (or a vocal minority) want a team in a city because they like that given sport. So the community benefits because that desire is fulfilled and it has some non-pecuniary value for people.

The authors examined it in the right manner. Any positive, significant impact of a local area being home to a pro team would've been picked up in their regressions.

Not to say I didn't respect you before, but I have a new found respect for you MB. I'll take a closer look at the study and get back with you.