Dear Mr. Singer, We are writing as citizens of North Augusta in firm opposition to placement of a riverfront baseball stadium as specified in the Jackson Project. Our reasons are as follows. Old Reasons We list these as old reasons because they have been said before at many times by many people. Even though you may have heard them said in many ways, they remain compelling arguments against a baseball stadium. Traffic Concerns. The number of cars needed to bring 4000 to 5000 fans, added to the existing traffic and traffic arising from any new stores, apartments and hotels would simply overwhelm the city of North Augusta. Just a quick drive through the area shows that access is limited to a few narrow streets, that access from Augusta is largely limited to one bridge, and that the largest of parking garages will fail to accommodate the thousands of cars that will descend during each of the 70 home games each summer. Traffic will slow to a crawl throughout the city for hours before and after each game, making life miserable for all. Creating new roads that can handle this would require rebuilding almost the entire city, and a ‘band aid’ approach that widens one or two entryways will fail. Who would agree to rebuild the entire road system of North Augusta? Who will pay for it? Have the developer’s offered specific and realistic plans? Crime and Garbage Concerns. The possibility of violent crime within a ‘safe’ public area became a reality when a man and woman were recently severely beaten on the Riverwalk in Augusta. Crime is real, crime happens, and the chances of crime of all sorts will increase with the introduction of crowds and of long waits as traffic snarls at night. Who will pay for increased security? And who will clean up the related garbage along our beautiful riverfront arising from thousands of people, night after night? Have the developer’s offered specific and realistic plans? Environmental Concerns. The proposed site of the stadium borders the now-pristine Brick Pond, a habitat for wildlife in a setting that all can enjoy. The noise, lights, traffic and crowds of a stadium will kill the Brick Pond, and will mar the appearance of the riverfront itself. These effects will be worsened by the roads and parking garages that will be erected in an attempt to handle the traffic. We will be rightly viewed by our descendants as poor stewards of a precious environment that could have been enjoyed for generations. New Reasons Financial Risk. Much has been said about the financial risk of the Jackson Project, but we have some comments that may be new (and were new to us). Risk #1: Lack of Gain to North Augusta. The developers who will profit from the Jackson Project assure us that a new baseball stadium will boost the local economy by providing tax revenues, new jobs and new stores, bars and restaurants. They point out that a minor league baseball team is worth more than $20 million, and perhaps even more as attendance increases every year. There is lots of money to be had, and bringing the Greenjackets to North Augusta will bring profits for all. What they will not tell you is that profitability for the baseball team is not the same as profitability for North Augusta. In fact, urban scientists who have extensively studied these issues tell us that the surrounding communities usually see no meaningful financial benefit. This seems counterintuitive, but an overwhelming number of scientific studies show in fact that major league baseball stadiums add little to the local economy. Furthermore, in the words of one researcher who has devoted years to the study of minor league teams, ‘no research has substantiated or refuted these assertions [of financial benefit to the city] at the minor league level’ (Agha, p. 228). The developers that tell us that financial success for the community is a ‘done deal’ are therefore either ignorant of modern data or are simply lying to us about the risks and chances of benefits to North Augusta. But how can the developers be wrong? How could an activity as popular as baseball fail to create economic gain for the surrounding community? Again, the scientists who have studied the question provide some potential reasons. First, the majority of baseball revenues are paid to the baseball team, its players and its owners – and those funds are therefore likely to leave the community rather than build it. Second, most people attending a minor league game live locally, and so the money they spend for related activities – tickets, dinner, parking, etc. – is money that they would have spent elsewhere in the community, especially during our difficult economy. The net result to the community is thus a shift rather than an increase in money. Third, a stadium brings with it costs of maintenance, road construction, continued security and garbage removal – costs that erode the value of the stadium to the community. Finally, supporting a baseball stadium – however convoluted the route – means that opportunity is lost to support other efforts that may be more beneficial to the community. Rather than argue opinion, let’s look at the data. Here is a summary of that scientific literature, with the articles listed at the end of this letter. 1. In an exhaustive analysis published in 2013, Agha examines all minor league baseball teams over a 26 year period to show that Class A teams such as the Augusta Greenjackets cannot be shown to have brought economic improvements to their surrounding communities. At very least, this definitive study demonstrates the fallacy of assuming a stadium will yield economic success for the community as well as for the developers. 2. In an extensive review in 2008, the economists Coates and Humphreys concluded that ‘sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation’. They also report the startling results of a survey showing that only 5% of American economists believed that local governments would find it worthwhile to subsidize professional sports franchises. Furthermore, after reviewing 46 scientific papers, they summarize: ‘The large and growing peer-reviewed economics literature on the economic impacts of stadiums, arenas, sports franchises, and sport mega-events has consistently found no substantial evidence of increased jobs, incomes, or tax revenues for a community associated with any of these things…we find near unanimity in [this] conclusion…’ To the point of claims by developers, they say ‘promoters’ claims of such local benefits don’t hold up’ . Given that economists rarely agree with one another, this result dramatically underlines the high risks of assuming that a baseball stadium will bring economic growth to the community. 3. Jasina and Rothoff show that baseball stadiums have very little effect on local payrolls. 4. In an earlier paper, Coates and Humphreys show that baseball stadiums do not have significant impact on retail and service industries in the local economy, and that significant increases in revenue from hotels or retail sales are unlikely. 5. Siegfried and Zimbalist conclude that sports facilities should not be counted on as significant contributors to a city’s tax base because of associated costs, maintenance, and security. They point out again that most of the revenues go to the baseball teams, players and owners who do not spend it within the community. 6. In a series of early papers, Baade showed that none of the 35 stadiums studied produced economic growth and concluded stadiums do not add economic activity to their surrounding communities. Futhermore, 30 of 32 metropolitan areas studied showed no growth in per capital personal income related to baseball stadiums. Doubtless, this data will be vilified, ridiculed and attacked by the developers of the Jackson Project and by certain local politicians. They will give a thousand reasons why the data listed above somehow does not apply to them or North Augusta. They will produce assessments and business plans that support the purchase of a baseball stadium and franchise. And they will say that the use of a TIF plan for financing is different from the use of subsidies and entails no risk. But consider three things. First, regardless of the complexity of TIF financing, we should listen to the message given almost unanimously by American economists: the chances of a community deriving financial benefit from a new baseball stadium and franchise is so low that the local governments should not participate. Even if the convoluted intricacies of TIF financing hide the risk, it is nonetheless there and our economists are providing ample warning. Second, if the baseball project is in fact risk free, the developers would finance it themselves (in other words, look at the walk, not the talk). Third, consider the source of the data. On the one hand, we have pointed to peer reviewed work published by unbiased economists who have thoroughly studied the economic aspects of baseball stadiums; on the other hand, the developers will likely point to business assessments written by those who have a stake in the business. Who will you trust? A large group of unbiased urban scholars who have arrived at the same conclusions over many years of painstaking research, or the developers and politicians who stand to personally profit from its approval? Risk #2: The Behavior of Augusta. We are not privy to discussions between civic leaders, but there has been little resistance from Augusta at the thought of the Greenjackets moving to North Augusta, nor have we heard of offers to the team that might induce them to stay. If the franchise is so financially beneficial to Augusta, wouldn’t that city try harder to convince them to stay? Wouldn’t that issue be publically discussed by the Augusta commissioners, who famously (if not dysfunctionally) drag each issue into the public eye ad nauseum? Their silence is deafening. Perhaps they know something that the developers do not want us to hear. Risk #3: Opportunity Cost. We do not pretend to understand the intricacies of TIF plans, but we do know that if you do one thing, you cannot do another. Proceeding with the construction of a baseball stadium will deter other projects that hold more promise for North Augusta. Legal Concerns. We see two sources of serious liability if the baseball project is approved. First, how will injuries and other acute medical conditions such as a heart attack be handled at a busy baseball game? It is certain that these will occur with some regularity. The traffic will prevent quick access to the nearest trauma center (MCG), and the delay caused by one of Augusta’s famous trains could even cost a life. The use of Aiken Regional Center is suboptimal, both because of its distance from North Augusta and because it is not a Level I trauma center. It would be easy for a good plaintiff’s attorney to use these considerations to suck millions of dollars from the city. Another legal issue may arise from the resistance to the baseball portion of the Jackson Project. As you know, this issue is contentious and emotions are running high. Those who oppose the Project would only have to mount a legal effort that would delay its execution for several years, motivating the investors to cut their losses and move on to the next project – time is money. I am not an attorney, but I suspect the issue of whether the riverfront is a ‘blighted area’ will be important. On the one hand, it needs to be ‘blighted’ if the TIF plan is to work; on the other hand, no judge or jury would ever see this affluent area as blighted. Human Concerns. Finally, we want to tell you what we saw last fall while walking our dog in the late afternoon along the Greeneway. We were on the path just where it runs along the river at the proposed site of the new stadium. The ground to our left cut sharply down to the water through the exposed tree roots, and the ground to our right was carpeted with a layer of grass leading to a grove of tall trees, slowly vanishing in the shadows as evening fell. The setting sun had painted streaks of red and gold across the clouds, perfectly mirrored by their reflections in the still water below. As the air took on that crisp and frigid stillness it often does at twilight, for some reason our dog suddenly sat down on her haunches and sniffed towards the forest. Then we saw them in the deepening shadows, not 50 feet away – three deer – a mother and her two babies. They eyed us suspiciously for a few long moments before going back to their grazing, ignoring us for the time and resisting their natural urge to bound away. It was magic for us, and I suspect also for our dog. What then came to my mind was a conversation I had with a passerby on the Greeneway a few days before, a passerby who had business interests in the new stadium and so supported it fervently. When I voiced my fear that the development would disrupt the local wildlife, he said, ‘Oh, the deer are very resilient, they’ll just move north.’ Is this what we want? Do we want to transform this idyllic area that is the envy of anyone who sees it, that other cities can only aspire to, that has been painstakingly and lovingly created by the city of North Augusta over many years, into a busy collection of parking lots and concrete buildings, replete with sound and light and the fury of nightly baseball games that will not only drive away the local wildlife but also ruin an irreplaceable place of beauty enjoyed by all of North Augusta? Do we want to cram a mountain’s worth of buildings into a small sliver of beautiful parklands, glibly confident the inevitable congestion and noise will not effect the rest of our small city and that ‘the deer will move north’, simply to satisfy the financial gain of a handful of investors? Is it credible that just because North Augusta created this marvelous area with inspired planning in the past, that this local treasure will be magically impervious to the effects of financial ambition and large developments? We are not privy to the political and financial discussions between the main players of this controversy, nor are we civic planners. But we value the published scientific data showing that it is folly to believe the developers when they assure us that ‘if we build it, you will profit’. We believe that although development of the riverfront is a good idea, that cramming a baseball stadium into that small, beautiful sliver of land will be harmful for all concerned except for a few wealthy developers. Please do not be seduced by this ill planned effort to produce profits for a few. Please do not approve Project Jackson as it stands. Sincerely yours,
Posted on: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:02:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015