If you’ve drive through downtown Sacramento lately, it’s
impossible to miss the area’s signature construction project, a downtown arena
to host the Sacramento Kings, called the Golden 1 Center and set to open in 2016. This ambitious $507 million arena
build is already changing the look of Sacramento’s skyline, but will it have
the same impact on the economic horizon? It’s hard not to welcome the arena to
a city that desperately needs it on several levels – a new home for the Kings
that ensures they won’t bolt to Seattle or Las Vegas, a chance to revitalize a
shabby and underutilized downtown, and a chance to shed a reputation as a
second city, despite being the capital.
But past all of the banner waving and encouraging rhetoric,
what are the cold, hard, facts that display how the Kings new arena will affect
the local economy?
Of course we can analyze the financials, but a better way to
predict the economic impact of the new arena is to look at how similar arena
projects across the nation have flourished – or floundered. .
First, the prognosis through rose colored glasses; despite a
Sacramento city $258 million subsidy left on the books, Mayor Kevin Johnson and
the Kings predict the new downtown arena – will spark the local economy to the
tune of a $11.5 billion windfall, revitalizing the downtown and bringing
renewed prosperity to the city’s business climate and citizens.
Critics of the arena deal, however, point to the imbalanced
and somewhat ambiguous financials of this particular deal, as well as numerous
studies that reveal that sports arenas help communities far less than thought. In
fact, they say writing a blank check for the arena like that can even
jeopardize the city’s budget and actually set the region back in the long run.
So who is right?
Only time will tell, but here are some key points to
consider:
The city isn’t shy about citing an $11.5 billion economic
impact, but it’s important to note that those numbers project over 35 years.
The fine print on the arena studies reveals that
approximately 50% of that projected economic benefits is expected to come from
bars, hotels, shops, real estate values, taxis, tourism, convention business,
and other commercial development. Together, all of these are called “ancillary
developments” and aren’t guaranteed.
Critics of the arena deal – not necessarily the arena – point
to the uncertainty of those ancillary developments, as the term sheet approved
by the City Council only guarantees the Kings will spend $189 million on the
arena – not a cent to develop the rest of the Downtown Plaza or surrounding
neighborhoods.
The city’s financing plan is largely based on borrowing
against future parking garage revenue below the arena.
The huge bill pushed to the city’s side of the table after
dinner will include $19 million a year in principal and interest payments.
However, City Treasurer Russ Fehr predicts that the city will receive $2.7
million in new tax revenue once the project is completed –a meager return on
investment that would have any first year economics student shaking their
heads.
Numerous studies have analyzed the economic impact of new
sports arenas and stadiums on their surrounding communities, including arenas
in Atlanta, Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, and Cleveland,
Milwaukee, San Francisco, and Oklahoma City.
Here is the short version of what they found: stadiums can
and often do benefit the cities they’re built in, but so much depends on
context.
For instance, NFL football stadiums, with only 8 regular
season home games per year, offer the least economic returns for cities.
However, a well-placed baseball stadium in a downtown or
industrial area in need of revitalization can provide a “major” benefit,
probably the most of any sport. With 81 home games and 40,000+-seat attendance,
baseball stadium builds provide the greatest immediate economic benefit.
However, basketball arenas sometimes provide the best
combined returns, as there are at least 41 home games played in cold weather
months when people usually otherwise stay indoors and don’t spend as much. Most
importantly, the facility can be used for other venues like concerts, shows,
events, and hockey and other sports.
Studies show that for a basketball arena to be a cash cow to
the community, annual attendance needs to be at full capacity. The Kings only
attracted 680, 049 people to their home games last year, one of the lowest in
the NBA, although that could be a symptom of a bad arena and a bad team, not an
indicator of a potential attendance cap. But the new Golden 1 Center is going to be one of the NBA's smallest arenas, with a capacity of 17,317 seats and only 30 luxury suites.
The Brookings Institution and Heartland Institute both
back up research that shows that new pro sports facilities have “little impact
or even a negative impact on net personal income of residents in the
surrounding area.”
That’s because most of jobs created are minimum or low-wage
jobs, the increase in real estate values prices many average people out of the
rental and housing market, and dollars spent on sports games takes away from
other events. In fact, some research
found that per capita income in cities with new arenas actually dropped by
about $2,430.
Huge gains are expected for already-wealthy restaurateurs
(Randy Paragary), hotel, commercial, and real estate developers – not the
average Sacramentan.
Notable sports economist Roger Noll at Stanford University,
thinks that a city the size of Sacramento can expect only $10 million to
$15 million a year in new revenue from the arena.
Other comprehensive studies, such as the one conducted by
Geoffrey Propheter of George Washington University and published in The Journal
of Urban Affairs, indicates a half empty, half full glass when it comes to the
question, “Do basketball arenas act as catalysts for economic development?”
According to Propheter, “The results suggest that basketball
arenas do not add economic value on their own but instead are highly dependent
on the local economic, social, and cultural context where they are located.”
Within that open door of “context” is where hopes for the
King’s arena can enter.
Considering that Sacramento is the capital of California yet
still just a big town compared to metropolitan areas like San Francisco, San
Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego, the city is sorely in need of a thriving professional
sports franchise, a revitalized downtown, and a signature project to rally
around.
The arena is expected to be a shot in the arm for the
struggling hotel industry in Sacramento, which declined to an all-time low of
50% vacancies six years ago, but already on the uptick to a normalized average
of 62%. Already, several luxury and big-money hotel projects are underway, and
analysts predict a 6% increase over the next few years as the arena is built.
Along with a huge boost to hotel business comes unlimited
potential to Sacramento’s convention and conference business and increased
revenues for the region’s Sacramento International Airport, which is already
planning expansion and a beautiful new hotel complex.
One independent study found that the Sacramento arena will
attract 1.6 million new visitors a year to downtown, spending $230 million
parking, eating, drinking, shopping, and yes – watching Kings games.
But more than just the arena, Mayor Kevin Johnson is most
excited about the four-block, one-billion-dollar real estate development that
will bring restaurants, new offices, hotels, and family entertainment downtown,
bolstering his city.
"We’re in a new era called Sacramento 3.0,” says
Johnson. “Where we do things differently and where we control our own destiny.
It’s bigger than basketball. We’re revitalizing our downtown. It’s about civic
pride."
So what’s the answer to the burning question, “Will the
arena really benefit the economy of Sacramento?”
We’d love to hear your thoughts, opinions, and concerns, so
email us or comment below: