The debates in Oklahoma City over the wisdom of coughing over arena money while other pressing issues exist is painfully familiar to longtime Seattle residents.
It’s not a ripoff every study is done after the fact of a franchise being in the community for years. Its effects can’t be measured on an economic basis because its business is limited to itself. Its value is based of a social and cultural aspect. When OKC was trying to get companies like Boeing, Amazon and other Tech companies in the medical field they were worried about coming there because they had nothing to attract youth and young people to move or come here. They were worried about Brain Drain( when Young college graduates leave an area). Since the Thunder have came in 2008 the amount of companies and population has increased to where OKC used to be in the top 40 in population to now where in the 20s. This study has been done by OKC Chamber of commerce and Oklahoma City their effect is a collateral effect and not a direct effect. There hasn’t been a study of a city that hasn’t had a franchise to getting one. One thing that is certain is that every place that has complained about paying for a new arena and lost a franchise always pays for a new one to get back another franchise facts.
The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce put out a study that promotes Oklahoma City? Okay. I can point to multiple studies by University of Michigan, Brookings Institute, and on and on that says the economic benefits are not realized. If you want to argue that it makes a city more appealing, maybe. However, when a team leaves people generally find something else to do. You are talking about a minuscule percentage of a population that fits into an arena. Just because people desire a sports franchise, like Baltimore bringing back football, doesn’t necessarily mean it equates to better economics. That can be tracked. And it has been shown to not economically benefit areas all that much.
It’s not a ripoff every study is done after the fact of a franchise being in the community for years. Its effects can’t be measured on an economic basis because its business is limited to itself. Its value is based of a social and cultural aspect. When OKC was trying to get companies like Boeing, Amazon and other Tech companies in the medical field they were worried about coming there because they had nothing to attract youth and young people to move or come here. They were worried about Brain Drain( when Young college graduates leave an area). Since the Thunder have came in 2008 the amount of companies and population has increased to where OKC used to be in the top 40 in population to now where in the 20s. This study has been done by OKC Chamber of commerce and Oklahoma City their effect is a collateral effect and not a direct effect. There hasn’t been a study of a city that hasn’t had a franchise to getting one. One thing that is certain is that every place that has complained about paying for a new arena and lost a franchise always pays for a new one to get back another franchise facts.
The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce put out a study that promotes Oklahoma City? Okay. I can point to multiple studies by University of Michigan, Brookings Institute, and on and on that says the economic benefits are not realized. If you want to argue that it makes a city more appealing, maybe. However, when a team leaves people generally find something else to do. You are talking about a minuscule percentage of a population that fits into an arena. Just because people desire a sports franchise, like Baltimore bringing back football, doesn’t necessarily mean it equates to better economics. That can be tracked. And it has been shown to not economically benefit areas all that much.