- Details
-
Tuesday, 06 February 2024
-
Written by John Hood
Will North Carolina snag one of two new Major League Baseball franchises? That’s what Gov. Roy Cooper, Carolina Hurricanes owner Tom Dundon, and other civic and business leaders are hoping.
They’re prepping a bid for a team to be based either in Raleigh or Charlotte. As soon as MLB announces its process and timeline, they’ll try to make their Carolina baseball dream a reality.
I couldn’t care less, frankly. I don’t follow professional sports closely — and even if I did, my interest would be in football, not baseball. Still, it’s a free country. If MLB does decide to expand to 32 teams and a North Carolina ownership group uses its own resources to go after a franchise, fine by me.
That’s not what will happen, however. The prospective owners will demand that taxpayers subsidize their team by building a ballpark for it. They’ll argue that such a project will expand our economy and create new jobs. This is, in a word, false.
“Sports stadiums are provably ineffective economic development tools,” writes John Mozena, a fellow with the Better Cities Project. “Once you look past rosy economic impact predictions and the glittering stadium renderings, the evidence of decades’ worth of real-world results from across the country is crystal clear: Stadiums strike out when it comes to economic development.”
Last September, the Journal of Economic Surveys published a comprehensive review by three university professors of more than 130 academic studies of the issue. The results “confirm the decades-old consensus of very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums,” the authors wrote. “Even with added nonpecuniary social benefits from quality-of-life externalities and civic pride, welfare improvements from hosting teams tend to fall well short of covering public outlays.”
In other words, it costs taxpayers more to subsidize a sports enterprise than they get back in benefits.
Some taxpayers don’t mind, of course. They are superfans who regularly attend games and derive personal enjoyment from following the team. But most residents compelled to subsidize the stadium don’t fit this description. The only way the math works for them is to benefit indirectly — by attracting legions of free-spending fans from elsewhere, or to raise the national profile of their community in ways that promote growth and development.
That’s always the promise. It’s rarely the result. “Nearly all empirical studies find little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity,” the professors concluded, “and the level of venue subsidies typically provided far exceeds any observed economic benefits.”
On other issues, competing philosophical camps may hurl competing studies at each other. That’s not the case here. In 2016, three scholars affiliated with the left-of-center Brookings Institution wrote that “decades of academic studies consistently find no discernible positive relationship between sports facilities and local economic development, income growth, or job creation.”
Tim Carney, a senior fellow at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, made a similar point in a 2022 column. “A city or county does not see net economic growth from subsidizing stadiums,” he wrote. “This is one of the most consistent findings in economics.”
Now, I wasn’t born yesterday. And I’m hardly new to the stadium beat. Although the case against sports subsidies is solid, I knew full well that advocates of a Carolina team will lobby aggressively to grab our money to fund their pet project. Some politicians will fold quickly (as Governor Cooper already has). But others will understand that a tax dollar spent on a baseball park represents a tax dollar not spent on a core public service, or not available to taxpayers to spend on a good or service of their choice.
Fiscal conservatives should be ready for a long fight. We should block any attempt to use state revenues or regional authorities to subsidize a ballpark. And we should urge our city and county officials not to get distracted by shiny objects like sports franchises. They have far more important issues to work on.
Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).
- Details
-
Tuesday, 06 February 2024
-
Written by Margaret Dickson
"Woe is me” is much in the air these days, likely ginned up by the 2024 election cycle.
Actually, it is more like “woe is us,” as millions of Americans decry the direction they see our nation and the world taking. Here are some of our Chicken Little fears. Our culture is increasingly violent, facilitated by out-of-control gun ownership—more guns than Americans.
Covid threatened our lives, and human-induced climate change threatens to make the earth uninhabitable. Technology in general and A.I. in particular could get so smart, they could take control of everything, even if we humans fail to realize it. Our nation is on the brink of being overtaken by a possibly deranged, fascist dictator.
And what if ongoing global conflicts trigger World War III? Is it wise to turn life-threatening issues such as A.I. development, climate change, and space exploration over to the private sector?
The list of woes goes and goes.
Tyler Austin Harper, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Bates College in Maine, recently published an article in the New York Times, addressing what he terms “extinction panics.” Working from the adage that everything old is new again, Harper asserts that such panics occur about every hundred years and that this one has arrived right on schedule. The last one struck us in the 1920s.
The extinction panic of the 20th century has much in common with the one we are experiencing. The world had just survived a flu pandemic, estimated to have killed 50 million people across the globe. There were no effective treatments, much less vaccines to prevent it. The US economy seemed to be roaring, but it got so heated that it ultimately crashed in 1929, triggering the Great Depression.
Fueling that extinction panic was the spread of fascism in Europe, which by 1939 had blossomed into what became World War II and which ended with the world’s first atomic explosions. More than 200-thousand people died almost instantly, with hundreds of thousands more maimed and/or sickened.
It is almost impossible to miss the parallels.
Harper quotes from HG Wells’ 1928 book, The Way the World is Going, which still resonates a century later. “Human life is different from what it has ever been before, and it is rapidly becoming more different….Perhaps never in the whole history of life has there been a living species subjected to so fiercely urgent, many-sided and comprehensive a process of changes as ours today. None at least that has survived. Transformation or extinction have been nature’s invariable alternatives. Ours is a species in an intense phase of transition.”
Hard to argue with that.
Harper himself seems more optimistic than Wells. He writes in the Times, “as for machine-age angst, there’s a lesson to learn here, too: Our panics are often puffed up, our predictions simply wrong.
Human life and labor were not superseded by machines, as some in the 1920s predicted. Or in the 1960s or in the 1980s, two other flash-in-the-pan periods of A.I. hype. The takeaway is not that we shouldn’t be worried but that we shouldn’t panic. Foretelling doom is an ancient human hobby, but we don’t appear to be very good at it.”
As for this writer, the threats seem very real and increasingly urgent. But our “species,” as Wells identified us, has indeed survived millennia by using our big brains and probably some dumb luck.
We do see what is facing us, and if we really are smart, we will choose to act on these threats, not to ignore them.