Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In using the term "underperforms" you presume that the city of San Diego is actively trying to attract professional sports teams and just can't get it done. The opposite is true. San Diegans showed the Chargers the door by rejecting the hotel tax. We could have easily kept them. I was very proud as a San Diegan to reject the stadium tax. Similarly with the Clippers. They relocated from Buffalo and left after a few years due to lack of interest. SD could have pro sports teams, we just don't want them.
Of course, if you're now going to include Tijuana, the SD/TJ market is the only one with a bullfighting ring and the rest of the country is "underperforming".
Not at all. It's good to see a city not allow a multibillionaire franchise owner to hold it hostage over a tax giveaway every now and again, and it's not uncommon for close proximity to a larger market to act as a liability for a smaller market when it comes to retaining major league sports teams.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,410 posts, read 6,556,774 times
Reputation: 6685
Help me understand this and correct me if I’m wrong—voters rejected a hotel tax that visitors/tourists, not residents, would have paid—no??....if I’m also not mistaken, wouldn’t that tourist funded hotel tax also have helped support expansion of the downtown Convention Center which is needed, in large part, to appease Comic con—the city’s largest annual event—from bolting to another city in a few years as well? Has there been an alternate source of funding for the Convention Center expansion, if not keeping a sports franchise, in recent years??
There is city pride and revenue generated from sports franchises (from locals and visitors alike) let alone hosting prominent events that generate significant economic impact ($300- 500M for a Super Bowl in normal years). San Diego was primed for that every 5-10 years with a new stadium given its temperate winter climate. Perhaps with LA getting its new SoFi stadium San Diegans and City planners thought any non-tourist supported additional expenditures to keep the Chargers might result in fewer Super Bowl hostings than if LA wasn’t getting a new stadium of its own?...then again, Tampa is hosting this years Super Bowl (granted, less economic impact than normal due to Covid which was unforeseen 5 years ago when they were chosen), a year after Miami hosted it.
There was quite a bit of initial local resistance to bringing a new baseball stadium (Petco Park) to downtown. That went through though and has worked out—with the City, not just the baseball team, benefitting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprez33
In using the term "underperforms" you presume that the city of San Diego is actively trying to attract professional sports teams and just can't get it done. The opposite is true. San Diegans showed the Chargers the door by rejecting the hotel tax. We could have easily kept them. I was very proud as a San Diegan to reject the stadium tax. Similarly with the Clippers. They relocated from Buffalo and left after a few years due to lack of interest. SD could have pro sports teams, we just don't want them.
Of course, if you're now going to include Tijuana, the SD/TJ market is the only one with a bullfighting ring and the rest of the country is "underperforming".
Last edited by elchevere; 01-02-2021 at 12:13 PM..
.
But I truly do appreciate the information. It's somewhat amusing that for so long, Austin seems to have had some version of Peter Pan syndrome by continuing to act like a large college town and not the metropolis it was clearly and intentionally transforming into.
That Peter Pan syndrome is going to be totally demolished in a few years.
Little known suburbs in the metro are growing rapidly.
Austin is growing tremendously but so are is suburbs.
As cost increase in Austin and its burbs get more attention as they grow they will be able to attract more jobs to the metro and before you know it Austin is a huge metropolis like Houston Jr.
Is crazy that little San Antonio took on 400,000 new residents the 1st 9 years of the decade but it's even crazier that even smaller Austin took on 500,000 in that period.
In using the term "underperforms" you presume that the city of San Diego is actively trying to attract professional sports teams and just can't get it done. The opposite is true. San Diegans showed the Chargers the door by rejecting the hotel tax. We could have easily kept them. I was very proud as a San Diegan to reject the stadium tax. Similarly with the Clippers. They relocated from Buffalo and left after a few years due to lack of interest. SD could have pro sports teams, we just don't want them.
Of course, if you're now going to include Tijuana, the SD/TJ market is the only one with a bullfighting ring and the rest of the country is "underperforming".
This is the standard San Diego face saving pro sports talking point.
San Diego absolutely could and should host at least 3 pro teams. We just blew an easy layup at getting MLS, then bizarrely obtained a minor league soccer franchise in place of that. The Gulls are one of the top attendance teams in the indoor hockey league they play in, but remember, pro sports are irrelevant in San Diego "because there is so much else to do outside." At the time the Clippers were sold, its safe to say that any market hosting a 17-65 team would have faced the same lack of interest. It was a not a typical franchise relocation, and the NBA even intervened to keep the Clippers in San Diego. The Clippers were even worse, a bigger joke in Los Angeles but apparently they decided it was just better to have an NBA team than not have one and kept them through the hard times.
The Chargers were a successful legacy NFL franchise in San Diego.
The city feels (pre pandemic) awkwardly uneventful in their absence, but not any less crowded or congested. Just sort of a weird "shouldn't there be some bigger events going on in a place this size" vibe.
I'm still waiting to hear what the big downside of the hotel tax was supposed to be for San Diego.
Help me understand this and correct me if I’m wrong—voters rejected a hotel tax that visitors/tourists, not residents, would have paid—no??....if I’m also not mistaken, wouldn’t that tourist funded hotel tax also have helped support expansion of the downtown Convention Center which is needed, in large part, to appease Comic con—the city’s largest annual event—from bolting to another city in a few years as well? Has there been an alternate source of funding for the Convention Center expansion, if not keeping a sports franchise, in recent years??
Wow! You sound like an advertisement for the Yes on Measure C campaign! But seriously, that's how it was presented but counter arguments were in two categories: 1) By increasing the price of hotel rooms there would be fewer stays and fewer conventions, and the cost ultimately was borne locally and 2) the hotel tax revenue projections were pretty rosy and if they didn't materialize, guess who was on the hook? The taxpayers. Same one still paying $12M/year to the Chargers for ticket guarantees at the unused Qualcomm stadium. Also, the convention center 'expansion' would have been part of the stadium and detached from the current convention center by a couple of blocks.
Convention Center expansion funding has not been secured. There was an effort (Measure C) to cobble together a hotel tax increase for convention center expansion, homeless funding and road repairs. That failed. Hard to fool enough voters. If the city wanted to, they could vote today to expand the convention center and pay for it out of the increased operating revenues.
[/quote]There is city pride and revenue generated from sports franchises (from locals and visitors alike) let alone hosting prominent events that generate significant economic impact ($300- 500M for a Super Bowl in normal years). San Diego was primed for that every 5-10 years with a new stadium given its temperate winter climate. Perhaps with LA getting its new SoFi stadium San Diegans and City planners thought any non-tourist supported additional expenditures to keep the Chargers might result in fewer Super Bowl hostings than if LA wasn’t getting a new stadium of its own?...then again, Tampa is hosting this years Super Bowl (granted, less economic impact than normal due to Covid which was unforeseen 5 years ago when they were chosen), a year after Miami hosted it.[/quote]
The 'city pride' thing is debatable. And the 'revenue' projections from a Superbowl are fictitious.
"The expense is always justified as an ingenious way to create jobs and prosperity. But economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys surveyed the research on the impact of teams and stadiums on local economies and found "no substantial evidence of increased jobs, income or tax revenues."
Team owners, however, can always find some city or state willing to fleece taxpayers in the fallacious hope that prosperity will follow. It's a play fake that never fails."
[/quote]There was quite a bit of initial local resistance to bringing a new baseball stadium (Petco Park) to downtown. That went through though and has worked out—with the City, not just the baseball team, benefitting.[/quote]
Thanks for the info. Granted I'm not a big boxing fan and I associate high-profile boxing matches with Vegas almost exclusively but a simple Google search revealed that the Alamodome--which I kinda forget about since it doesn't permanently host any major league pro sports franchises--is one of the best boxing venues in the country and a couple of fights have been relocated there recently in the midst of the pandemic. I'm also not an avid soccer watcher and I vaguely recall the FIFA World Cup happening in 2019 (I think the excessive brain fog of 2020, and possibly the progression into my 40s, is causing me to forget some stuff from years prior), but I don't recall it occurring in the U.S., much less San Antonio.
The Alamo Bowl...duh lol. Brain fart on my end, and this is bowl season right now although they just aren't the same in the middle of a pandemic.
Most of the other events, or some version thereof, are more or less standard for metro areas of roughly 2M+ which are expected.
But I truly do appreciate the information. It's somewhat amusing that for so long, Austin seems to have had some version of Peter Pan syndrome by continuing to act like a large college town and not the metropolis it was clearly and intentionally transforming into with an apparent disinterest in pursuing pro sports teams out of loyalty to UT sports--or was UT Athletics actually trying to box out potential non-collegiate sports teams? That's certainly not uncommon for D-1 universities in growing small-midsized cities with the population base to at least sustain a few minor league teams. At any rate, hosting pro sports teams/major sporting events is a glaring example of an area wherein Austin lacked notoreity given its rapid growth and suitable size for at least the past 10 years. For what it's worth, San Diego underperforms in this area given its size also, especially after losing yet another pro sports franchise to LA (the Clippers made the same move in the 80s) but at the least it's been on the map for while in the world of pro sports.
S.A. hosted several FIFA world soccer league tournaments; Argentina versus Mexico, Bosnia Herzegovnia vs Mexico, USA vs Mexico, and Korea Republic vs Mexico.
San Antonio is also a potential host city for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,410 posts, read 6,556,774 times
Reputation: 6685
Not sure a 2.5% increase in hotel taxes would have that dramatic effect on number of room reservations or conventions (a whopping $6.25 extra on a $250/night hotel room).
Super Bowl LIV (last year) had an economic impact of $572M to SoFla per following, substantial increase (more than 2x) from the previous SB held here in 2010 along with other economic data :
Given a choice, many cities would welcome the revenues and publicity such an event brings but I tend to be pro-development.
As for Petco, do you think East Village would have developed to the same extent without the ballpark and other events and/or restaurants and bars there and the nearby Gaslamp would have the same revenue on slower weekday nights?—be good to see more current data for that than the following from 2013 which shows a positive impact during the ballpark’s first 10 years of existence:
Wow! You sound like an advertisement for the Yes on Measure C campaign! But seriously, that's how it was presented but counter arguments were in two categories: 1) By increasing the price of hotel rooms there would be fewer stays and fewer conventions, and the cost ultimately was on borne locally and 2) the hotel tax revenue projections were pretty rosy and if they didn't materialize, guess who was on the hook? The taxpayers. Same one still paying $12M/year to the Chargers for ticket guarantees at the unused Qualcomm stadium. Also, the convention center 'expansion' would have been part of the stadium and detached from the current convention center by a couple of blocks.
Convention Center expansion funding has not been secured. There was an effort (Measure C) to cobble together a hotel tax increase for convention center expansion, homeless funding and road repairs. That failed. Hard to fool enough voters. If the city wanted to, they could vote today to expand the convention center and pay for it out of the increased operating revenues.
There is city pride and revenue generated from sports franchises (from locals and visitors alike) let alone hosting prominent events that generate significant economic impact ($300- 500M for a Super Bowl in normal years). San Diego was primed for that every 5-10 years with a new stadium given its temperate winter climate. Perhaps with LA getting its new SoFi stadium San Diegans and City planners thought any non-tourist supported additional expenditures to keep the Chargers might result in fewer Super Bowl hostings than if LA wasn’t getting a new stadium of its own?...then again, Tampa is hosting this years Super Bowl (granted, less economic impact than normal due to Covid which was unforeseen 5 years ago when they were chosen), a year after Miami hosted it.[/quote]
The 'city pride' thing is debatable. And the 'revenue' projections from a Superbowl are fictitious.
"The expense is always justified as an ingenious way to create jobs and prosperity. But economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys surveyed the research on the impact of teams and stadiums on local economies and found "no substantial evidence of increased jobs, income or tax revenues."
Team owners, however, can always find some city or state willing to fleece taxpayers in the fallacious hope that prosperity will follow. It's a play fake that never fails."
[/quote]There was quite a bit of initial local resistance to bringing a new baseball stadium (Petco Park) to downtown. That went through though and has worked out—with the City, not just the baseball team, benefitting.[/quote]
Could be. Would love to see an analysis of this.[/quote]
Last edited by elchevere; 01-02-2021 at 03:53 PM..
As for Petco, do you think East Village would have developed to the same extent without the ballpark and other events and/or restaurants and bars there and the nearby Gaslamp would have the same revenue on slower weekday nights?—be good to see more current data for that than the following from 2013 which shows a positive impact during the ballpark’s first 10 years of existence:
Its going to be really hard for the "San Diego doesn't want or need pro sports" crowd to tap dance around this question. Anyone who has been to a Padre game knows that it is a massive catalyst for general activity downtown.
From what I hear, downtown was not much to write home about in the years prior to the Padres arrival there (look up before and after skyline photos) and its hard to imagine East Village amounting to anything without Major League Baseball.
Really makes you wonder what an additional downtown NFL venue might have done for the place. Guess we'll never know!
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,410 posts, read 6,556,774 times
Reputation: 6685
I’m still friendly with a couple of business owners in East Village who would not be there without Petco Park—this includes the owner of Fit, a successful (or was, pre-pandemic and draconian lockdown and 10% capacity limitations) multi outlet gym whose original and flagship location is in Diamond Tower overlooking the stadium (ditto for Fox Sports) and a couple of restaurant and bar owners. Not to mention all the condo development. One could successfully argue Petco Park transformed that entire section of previously run down downtown San Diego.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Its going to be really hard for the "San Diego doesn't want or need pro sports" crowd to tap dance around this question. Anyone who has been to a Padre game knows that it is a massive catalyst for general activity downtown.
From what I hear, downtown was not much to write home about in the years prior to the Padres arrival there (look up before and after skyline photos) and its hard to imagine East Village amounting to anything without Major League Baseball.
Really makes you wonder what an additional downtown NFL venue might have done for the place. Guess we'll never know!
I’m still friendly with a couple of business owners in East Village who would not be there without Petco Park—this includes the owner of Fit, a successful (or was, pre-pandemic and draconian lockdown and 10% capacity limitations) multi outlet gym whose original and flagship location is in Diamond Tower overlooking the stadium (ditto for Fox Sports) and a couple of restaurant and bar owners. Not to mention all the condo development. One could successfully argue Petco Park transformed that entire section of previously run down downtown San Diego.
Its pretty much a historical fact.
A downtown NFL stadium would have likely had a even bigger impact, maybe even leading to challenging height restrictions downtown.
"Lol real native San Diegans don't care about NFL or the Chargers we're too cool and smart for that!"
Yeah, got that message but I'm thinking having hundreds of thousands of people flying in from the top 30 metros around the country, buying hotel rooms, eating and drinking downtown each year might be better than not having it. Could just be me.
I lived right in the middle of one of the main nightlife districts in uptown San Diego for two years....you wouldn't believe how quiet it was sometimes even on Friday nights. The idea that SD doesn't need an influx of people to get things going is hilarious to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But seriously, that's how it was presented but counter arguments were in two categories: 1) By increasing the price of hotel rooms there would be fewer stays and fewer conventions, and the cost ultimately was borne locally and 2) the hotel tax revenue projections were pretty rosy and if they didn't materialize, guess who was on the hook? The taxpayers. Same one still paying $12M/year to the Chargers for ticket guarantees at the unused Qualcomm stadium. Also, the convention center 'expansion' would have been part of the stadium and detached from the current convention center by a couple of blocks.
