Chicago sports stadium funding request, therefore Crain's Chicago Business runs special section

See "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" and "Good quote on arenas and stadiums as "performing arts centers" attractions for cities" and "Follow up: arenas and stadiums as "performing arts centers" attractions for cities: experience versus retail." 

I've been meaning to write about this in terms of Salt Lake.  The State Legislature forced the City to acquiesce to a team and related entertainment district for the basketball and new hockey teams.  Many residents are up in arms, blaming City Council and the Mayor, when they were faced with fait accompli.

My biggest problem with it is the failure to get a transportation demand management program focused on getting people to the games by transit.  Plus the teams are winter-based.  Will there be a good program to activate the space in the summer and fall?

Main article

About 80% of projects get public money.

-- "Are stadiums a smart use of taxpayer money?"

1.  The argument that there aren't many net financial benefits.

2.  Velocity of requests leaves little time for thoughtful consideration

For many in Chicago, the pace of discussion around the Bears' latest lakefront proposal, in particular, is moving too fast for the plan to be thoroughly evaluated. 

“When we think about how long a neighborhood park can take, the years grocery stores take, the thought that a project of this scale could just pop up when all these other projects have to go through rigorous analyses, just feels like jumping to the front of the line,” says Gin Kilgore, interim executive director of the nonprofit Friends of the Parks, which has concerns about building on the lakefront, wanting to keep the area “open, clear and free.” These same concerns led to the filing of a lawsuit against filmmaker George Lucas that prompted him to move the development of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art from Chicago to Los Angeles, as well as an ongoing debate on the construction of the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park. 

“Everything’s been roughshod," says Chicago Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, who was surprised when Mayor Brandon Johnson voiced his support of the Bears' proposal in April, and that the conversation has not yet been brought to the City Council.

3.  Threat of relocation to get funding.

4.  Stadiums increase team valuation.  But localities rarely get any benefit from their "investment."

“As a public policy position, we’ve taken the position that we will invest and give public taxpayer dollars to men’s teams, but we’ve never done the same for women’s teams,” Leetzow says. “Men’s teams have gotten a head start by about 50 years. The question for us as a culture is, are we going to do the same for women’s teams?” Leetzow believes that women’s teams can see the same valuation growth with the same “seed money" that men's teams receive.

5.  Soccer teams don't have the same access to public funding.

6.  Especially women's teams. 

-- "Soccer teams in a league of their own when it comes to stadiums"

“If we're going to build a stadium, we will privately finance. I’m not comfortable taking public money. Stadiums, in general, are not great investments,” he says. “They are big, expensive, costly to maintain and sit empty most of the time.” Given that Illinois already has high taxes and strained budgets, he says he wouldn’t consider adding to that public burden. Other MLS teams have successfully privately financed new stadiums, including the Nashville SC. Its Geodis Park is the largest soccer-specific stadium in North America.

-- "Consider stadium financing models that also benefit distressed communities"

This article is making an equity argument that the teams should be paying a set portion of revenue back to the city, also for achieving projects around the city.  And that there should be no pass on paying out.

-- "Harris Poll: Bears having a hard time moving the ball on public support for a new stadium"

-- "Never put a cemetery or stadium on valuable real estate" by economist Allen Sanderson

Years of research and a plethora of data, some of which I have conducted and submitted myself for professional publication, all point in one direction and to one conclusion: Sports facilities, regardless of activity or league, whether publicly funded or paid for privately, do not constitute a good investment for the sponsor. 

The closest one could come to an economic “wash” would be an arena that is home to an NBA and NHL franchise, plus the periodic concert, convention or other activity. By far faring the worst is a standalone NFL stadium that is used 10 days a year. As I testified a few years ago in New York, when then-Jets owner Woody Johnson wanted to move his team to the Hudson Yards area on Manhattan: “Hudson Yards is a valuable piece of real estate. There are only two things you never want to put on valuable property: a cemetery or a football field. Everything else is negotiable.” 

Another rule of thumb: Take any dollar figure a sponsor — of the Chicago Marathon, NASCAR, a Bears game, Democratic National Convention — gives you for the economic impact of that activity on the Chicago economy. Move the decimal point one place to the left and you’re pretty close.

... Most fans at NFL games are local in nature. They spend their $200 and three hours inside, say, Soldier Field, instead of at a Loop retail establishment or a suburban mall; they don’t stay in hotels. Net benefit to the Chicago economy? Approximately $0.