[JayCT]

The State Bond Commission approved $10 million to help fund the renovation of Dillion Stadium for professional soccer. Jay

CT OKs $10M for Dillon, Colt upgrades | HartfordBusiness.com

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The State Bond Commission approved $10 million to help fund the renovation of Dillion Stadium for professional soccer. Jay

CT OKs $10M for Dillon, Colt upgrades | HartfordBusiness.com

Sorry but this is a horrible idea. One of the only things every economist seems to agree on is sports complexes are a horrible public investment that has never ever been a net financial benefit to any city. Never mind a almost bankrupt city. What an incredible waste of money.

[wetnewspaper]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Sorry but this is a horrible idea. One of the only things every economist seems to agree on is sports complexes are a horrible public investment that has never ever been a net financial benefit to any city. Never mind a almost bankrupt city. What an incredible waste of money.

Agreed- I think public investment is vital, but not in sports stadiums. It's hard to justify spending dollars on sports and entertainment when the basic functions of gov't are failing in Hartford. For example, HPS class sizes are out of control.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Sorry but this is a horrible idea. One of the only things every economist seems to agree on is sports complexes are a horrible public investment that has never ever been a net financial benefit to any city. Never mind a almost bankrupt city. What an incredible waste of money.

Economists look at things from a strictly dollar and cent point of view. They do not look beyond the figures right in front of them so they don’t see the full benefits of such investments. Take Dunkin Donuts Stadium or the XL Center. From a strictly financial point of view both are bad investments but they do bring thousands of people into Hartford regularly where they spend money. That generates tax dollars for the city and state and jobs for area residents. Without these facilities those people would be spending their money elsewhere, likely out of state. Would you rather all that money go to New York, Massachusetts or Rhode Island?

Hartford has been rightly or wrongly called a boring city. Adding professional soccer to it would help change that perception. Despite all the naysaying, Dunkin Donuts Stadium has been wildly successful by any measure. There is no reason Dillon Stadium should be different. Greater Hartford has one of the largest concentrations of soccer followers in the country. This project will build on that so with a little luck and some good management, this will go a long way to be successful. Jay

[Stepfordct]

Could soccer be played at Dunkin?

[JGBigGreen]

How else are they supposed to look at things? You say they only look at dollars and cents but then claim the new stadiums bring in thousands of people who spend what? Dollars and cents. Next you talk about the benefit of tax dollars and jobs which create income for local residents. What is this? Dollars and cents. Not to mention that- in every comprehensive study done on the subject- economists do look at the things you allude they don't and still conclude they are not worth the public expenditures. Just a few excerpts of examples from more detailed research(and there are countless more)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/s...orth-the-cost/

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30...s-noll-073015/

Having said all that, as a huge soccer fan, I'd be pleased to see a semi-pro team here in Connecticut. I'd never argue that it was a good use of tax dollars to make it happen though.

Originally Posted by JayCT

Economists look at things from a strictly dollar and cent point of view. They do not look beyond the figures right in front of them so they don’t see the full benefits of such investments. Take Dunkin Donuts Stadium or the XL Center. From a strictly financial point of view both are bad investments but they do bring thousands of people into Hartford regularly where they spend money. That generates tax dollars for the city and state and jobs for area residents. Without these facilities those people would be spending their money elsewhere, likely out of state. Would you rather all that money go to New York, Massachusetts or Rhode Island?

Hartford has been rightly or wrongly called a boring city. Adding professional soccer to it would help change that perception. Despite all the naysaying, Dunkin Donuts Stadium has been wildly successful by any measure. There is no reason Dillon Stadium should be different. Greater Hartford has one of the largest concentrations of soccer followers in the country. This project will build on that so with a little luck and some good management, this will go a long way to be successful. Jay

[JGBigGreen]

It could but the seating is not ideal for soccer. Plus, if they are trying to join the USL, I believe that league has mandated soccer specific stadiums for it's teams by 2020.

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

Could soccer be played at Dunkin?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

How else are they supposed to look at things? You say they only look at dollars and cents but then claim the new stadiums bring in thousands of people who spend what? Dollars and cents. Next you talk about the benefit of tax dollars and jobs which create income for local residents. What is this? Dollars and cents. Not to mention that- in every comprehensive study done on the subject- economists do look at the things you allude they don't and still conclude they are not worth the public expenditures. Just a few excerpts of examples from more detailed research(and there are countless more)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/s...orth-the-cost/

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30...s-noll-073015/

Having said all that, as a huge soccer fan, I'd be pleased to see a semi-pro team here in Connecticut. I'd never argue that it was a good use of tax dollars to make it happen though.

Maybe I did not fully or clearly explain what I mean. These studies look at the direct financial benefit of stadiums and the “multiplier effect” of them but do not take into account the change in people's opinion of the area or community and the increased likelihood of people to return there for other entertainment opportunities.

Before XL (then the Hartford Civic Center) was built, there was little reason for families to come downtown. Shopping and entertainment (primarily movies) had already moved to the suburbs. With XL there are suddenly reasons to go downtown for basketball, hockey, concerts, etc. Places like Dunkin Donuts add to the vibrancy of the area. People begin to think they should check out other restaurants or entertainment options there instead of just heading to the suburbs. As an example, 20 years ago DW and I rarely went to Hartford for anything but the Bushnell or Hartford Stage or maybe a show or game at XL. Now we consider going there for dinner or movies. DS meets friends there at places like Bears or City Steam. Before they would head to somewhere up by the mall. Friends and neighbors are doing the same thing now. Young people are moving downtown, filling new apartments as fast as they are being built and with no end of demand in sight.

Furthermore if there was no real change and these venues were complete financial losers, politicians would not stick their necks out building them. The city took a big chance with Dunkin Donuts but their first season had numerous sold out games meaning thousands were coming that otherwise went elsewhere. That kind of benefit is something the bean-counters can't quantify but do offer a real value. Jay

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

It could but the seating is not ideal for soccer. Plus, if they are trying to join the USL, I believe that league has mandated soccer specific stadiums for it's teams by 2020.

Love soccer, played, coached. Be great to have a local team.
But if true leagues like the USL have had too much success holding local government hostage to demands.
These tax sponsored stadiums have to hit it out of the park to work when looked at on a micro level.
True though if you build enough excitement in Htfd or wherever, things can accelerate quickly into a place to be. Takes lots of $$, planning and luck

[beerbeer]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Sorry but this is a horrible idea. One of the only things every economist seems to agree on is sports complexes are a horrible public investment that has never ever been a net financial benefit to any city. Never mind a almost bankrupt city. What an incredible waste of money.

Most of those studies were done when arenas were being build in the suburbs. The key is to put the venue downtown and have multiple uses. Sacramento is proving that publicly funded arenas can spur growth development and more than pay for itself. https://www.curbed.com/2018/1/30/169...cramento-kings At the very least, you overstate your case as the benefits are mixed.

More importantly cities need arenas to promote themselves and give themselves an identity. They are an important part of building a common cultural experience. Of binding the population together. This has been true since the building of the Colosseum in Rome.

Many things a municipality does are not to done produce a profit. What does Bushnell Park contribute to Hartford? Why not sell that land? According to your argument it is an incredible waste of money. We all understand that the purpose of Bushnell Park is to enhance he quality of life of the city and state. The same is true of an arena.

Do you own a big screen TV. Most people do. There is no way to justify such a purchase for any home owner. But we almost all have one because it brings things into our home that would be impossible without it. Exactly what an arena does for a city. That is why every city large and small has an arena and sometimes several.