0

San Jose says arena is money-maker

This is interesting because of the timing of it. San Jose commissioned a study that found that the HP Pavillion, home of the San Jose Sharks, has been a big help to the local economy – to the tune of $1.7 billion.

To read a news story about it, click here.

Matt Artz

  • Irvington

    It may be a money-maker for San Jose; it would not have been for us. Comparing San Jose and Fremont is like comparing apples and oranges, thank God. San Jose has apparently happily sold their souls to become a “big city”, which Fremont is not and, one would hope, will never be. With “big city” status come “big city” problems.

    As the kids say “mo’ money, mo’ problems”.

    Besides, one can commission a study that will show just about anything that the entity that is paying for the study wants it to show.

    I hope San Jose and the A’a are happy together for many years.

  • Andy

    Irvington

    I am sure a majority of the people who protested against had no clue on the economics of it. Warmsprings site protest was maybe justified, but I dont see the reasoning for pc site. Considering the economy the pc site is going to be the way it is for 10 years. And there is talk of NUMMI going down, now that GM is going to be dead. I see for lease signs pop up all along even the most desirable areas of fremont along fremont blvd. Fremont has a bright future :D

  • Coyote_Bill

    I would rather go to San Jose to see a A’s game then Oakland. V.T.A has express buses leaving BART every 30 minutes for the short ride to San Jose.
    Fremonts Amatuer Politicians screwed it up for Fremont residents.
    Do you think they have learned that we care and need to be involved in decisions affecting all of Fremont .. NO

  • Irvington

    Andy, it might be helpful for you to visit the Fremont Citizen’s Network site and look into the extensive research that was done by Network members concerning the economics of stadium financing all across the country.

    Fremont shares the economic difficulties that are occurring across the nation. Unfortunately, we do not now have leadership at the local level that allows us to mitigate these difficulties to the degree that we would wish.

    We do have several things working in our favor, however, and if this depression has anything like a silver lining, it may be that it gives us the time to really think about what we want to become, and to elect new representation that will be more receptive to the wishes of the residents.

  • Doug

    Andy, you may have missed this item in today’s news. It speaks volumes about what a stadium does for a city. Or maybe I should say what a stadium does TO a city?

    “Sanders Worried About Losing Chiefs, Royals”
    Jackson County Executive Says KC Budget Plan Would Break Lease

    KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders said he’s concerned the Chiefs and Royals could leave Kansas City because of the city’s budget proposal.

    Kansas City has an $85 million budget shortfall that has to be fixed by the end of the month.

    Thursday, Mayor Mark Funkhouser put forward his plan, which includes eliminating nearly $2 million the city gives each year to the Truman Sports Complex.

    “I don’t think it would jeopardize leases,” Funkhouser said. “We’re trying to focus on services that directly matter to Kansas Citians. For example, our city services, basic services like police. That is a core function. Operating a sports venue is not.”

    http://www.kmbc.com/money/18866748/detail.html

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    Doug, a $2 million subsidy to the Royals and Chiefs was in the business agreement with Jackson County/Kansas City. Was a similar arrangement under consideration in Fremont? And if it were, don’t you think it would’ve been subject to a referendum since it would’ve come out of general fund money?

    Not all stadium deals are made equal.

  • anon

    San Jose *has* to justify their stadium.

    THis is like Fremont writing the EIR for the A’s sttadium . . . . wut the heck do you think they’re gonna’ say ??? – that it LOSES money ????!!

    You’re gonna say whatever the heck you need to say to justify your position.

    Wut’s interesting is that those with no axe to grind – no vested interest – nothing on the line one way or the other – have consistantly come down on the side that STADIUMS DO NOT ADD TO LOCAL ECONOMICS.

    WHEN WILL PRO A’s FACTION GIVE UP ON THIS NONSENSE ?

    Oh – that’s right – they’ve got another city they want to sell – sorry.

  • Doug

    Marine Layer, it’s the Kansas City mayor’s closing line I thought profound. I realize not every stadium deal is the same; neither is every iceberg. But what they do have in common is you only are seeing a very small portion of the whole thing.

  • Smalls

    SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Fremont Resident 200001

    Taking a look at the report, one can see that it overstates the economic effects. I have not read it in its entirety, but the basis for the numbers are these three events:

    (1) Saturday Sharks game — estimates at each person spent $162 and stayed an average 1.3 days in SJ and was identified by Sharks as a representative game to which all others could be compared

    (2) CAHA (California Amatur Hockey Assoc.) Hockey weekend — event bringing in parents and family from across CA for a multi-day event. Gee, do you think this will inflate the economics and translate to standard events at the arena?

    (3) NCAA Basketball Tournament — Gee, like the CAHA but with even more out of state people attending. Really representative of arena events.

    Taking those events as “representative” and extrapolating “impact” from those numbers will overstate the actual impact of the arena.

    Again, you have to take these promoter-produced reports with a grain of salt.