RSL may seek new sites for stadium

SoccerPrime · 02-17-2005, 05:38 AM

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600112680,00.html

Jim Umber · 02-17-2005, 07:08 AM

Here's a truly beautiful quote.

Quote:

"Retail does not create economic growth. Retail is a zero sum gain," he said. "Retail does not need to be incentivized or subsidized."

😕

What does he think economic growth IS? For that matter, what does he think he means by a "zero sum gain"? For those of you who don't know, a zero sum GAME is what they call the stock and commodities markets, because for every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so if one "wins" then the other must have "lost", thus "zero sum". There is no net gain to the market. It balances out.

But retail stores don't work that way. The seller wins because he made a profit on the item, and the buyer wins because he got the item he wanted. THERE IS NO ZERO SUM INVOLVED! It is not a closed market. If new businesses open, it will have an economic impact on the economy.

What an idiot!

SoccerPrime · 02-17-2005, 08:55 AM

*gulp*
Its getting worse. Murray is NOT going to use RDA money...
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2574307
Now what?

bordelais7 · 02-17-2005, 09:01 AM

I knew that argument would come up some time, since I've heard it very often recently from anti-stadium-funding citizens. I'm wondering if there's a talk show host talking about this, or if there was an article that I missed, because they are all saying the same thing. Something to the effect of:

"Business development will not increase total sales in a given market. If RSL builds a stadium, and stores, etc. are built around it, the revenue made by those stores will be cancelled out by revenue lost by other similar stores."

Basically, this is a partial truth being over-simplified. Yes, market saturation is one aspect of business development, but by far not the only one. Not only is the concept that "people will spend the same amount of money no matter what the circumstances" false, but there is also a failure to take into consideration growing population, location, etc.

To come out and say "zero-sum" demonstrates a pathetic lack of understanding of economic structures. Either that, or I'm just an enraged clueless idiot.

Aero · 02-17-2005, 09:06 AM

Don't we have any rich soccer fans here that can put up 30 or 40 million? 😉

Wheres LHM when we need him?

Deuce · 02-17-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordelais7

"Business development will not increase total sales in a given market. If RSL builds a stadium, and stores, etc. are built around it, the revenue made by those stores will be cancelled out by revenue lost by other similar stores."

Gosh! If that is the case then why ever build any more stores at all?
For that matter why build anymore Wal-Marts and Home Depots when there are already two down the street...

Deuce · 02-17-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aero

Wheres LHM when we need him?

He is buying Baseball teams to directly compete with Real Salt Lake... So i don't think you find any help forthcoming from the Larry-Man

Aero · 02-17-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordelais7

"Business development will not increase total sales in a given market. If RSL builds a stadium, and stores, etc. are built around it, the revenue made by those stores will be cancelled out by revenue lost by other similar stores."

This is only true if by "market" you mean the entire state of Utah. People from Ogden and Prove certainly won't be spending money in Salt Lake if they don't have the added incentive of coming to soccer games. They don't seem to take into account that their statement is true only if that money would have already been spent in stores in the area. Without the stadium, the money spent in those retail shops would probably be spent in an entirely different city. Then not only do the existing stores not get anybody's money, but the city doesn't get any money from the taxes on those retail sales.

Why do these people think that we have cities competing for the stadium? Don't they realize it is because they want people to spend money in their cities instead of someone else's.

Rover · 02-17-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordelais7

I knew that argument would come up some time, since I've heard it very often recently from anti-stadium-funding citizens.

As it always does wherever and whenever a stadium proposal has been made around the country. This is just part of the pain of getting a stadium built. The collection of "taxpayer advocates" and hack economists who line up in opposition to stadium developments never look at the merits of each case. Some stadium developments have been terrible and have been economic drains on their cities. But many have been great for their cities--the list is long, but baseball parks like SBC Park, Coors Field, and Camden Yards are good examples. The key is to make the stadium a part of a larger redevelopment, which is what this legislation will hurt if not prevent entirely.

The best part of the article, though, is the strong statements from Dean Howes. Good on Howes for taking these guys on. The more the faulty economic arguments of our opponents are exposed, the less persuasive they will be.

rabble-rabble · 02-17-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aero

Don't we have any rich soccer fans here that can put up 30 or 40 million? 😉

Wheres LHM when we need him?

What we need is for a die-hard soccer Utah soccer fan to win the lottery. Hey, if on a trip to Idaho, I play the lottery and win a quarter billion dollars, I would graciously donate some of my winnings and build the best damned soccer stadium in the country.