Just ran a search on him in Google News. In the past month he pops up
Here is his quote:
Economist and sports consultant Andrew Zimbalist said that the center seems like a good deal for the economic health of the city, but that other venues in the Bay Area may lose out.
“What you can expect is that most of the money that is spent at the arena will come at the expense of other entertainment venues in the Bay Area,” Zimbalist said. “People are not all of a sudden going to discover that they have an extra thousand dollars in their wallet and spend it.”
Funny compare this to the comment from Victor Matheson on this blog below. Both comments are basically the same. Do not remember Zimbalist saying this when discussing Polar Park?
Victor Matheson here. I am a Holy Cross economics professor and nationally known as a leading critic of stadium
subsidies. Just a couple of thoughts: First, I am fairly bullish on Worcester and think that it is reasonably likely that
the tax revenues generated in the neighborhood will be sufficient to cover the bond payments. That being said,
being able to cover your bills is not the same thing as being a sound investment. Kelley Sq. was rapidly gentrifying
before the stadium, and therefore there is no reason to believe that the stadium is causing economic development
in the area but is instead simply occurring at the same time. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the
stadium district will cannibalize business from other areas of the city. A person who goes to a new restaurant
in the ballpark district instead of a restaurant on Shrewbury St. or downtown, or an out-of-towner who stays in
one of the new hotels instead of another hotel in the city is down having their entire on Development \
|
Comments