How many economists are there in this world? 30? 100? 1000? tens of thousands?

Well if it's the first two, then 26 is a big number that should be looked into. Other than that, it's a paltry sample size that should be listened to, then pretty much dismissed.

This is such a bad example. There's one shining example of the benefits of the stadium up above the Gallary Place/Chinatown Metro stop. That neighborhood was atrocious 15 years ago, now it's a vibrant place, drawing folks in, not only for big events, but for the places that have sprouted next to Verizon Center. The baseball stadium is also proving this true, as many similar additions are being proposed.

And Mr. Humphries says it'll be used 20-30 times per year. What kind of accountant is this? He can't count....or he can SELECTIVELY count.
Let's look at the sure deals.....25 United games (maybe more), 10-20 women's games (depending on how they set up that league).
Potential extras....pro lacrosse....Men's and Women's NCAA Final Four Soccer Tournaments (also bringing in A LOT of outside money to the district)...high school evenets...a handful of concerts...International Soccer games (men and women).

So by my count there's a minimum of 35 events, with maybe another 15-20 potentials.

Hey David,

Ever try to find someone with a positive stadium view?

DC United isnt the only team that will use it.
add in concerts, lacrosse local high school games, womens pro league, you have 50 or more events there, do the math again with 50 events, and thats economically viable

This letter was done using false facts. This letter should be completely disregarded as positionally biased and short-sightged.

So, admittedly, "the letter is similar to one signed by more than 100 economists during the debate over the city's $611 million baseball stadium." What are those idiots saying about the Navy Yard area now?

the posting also suggests that the stadium would be sittin gby itself in the middle of Anacostia without any other support or development which shows the amount of research they. Way to be objective "liberally think tank".

" 20-30 events? D.C. United alone would hold 20-30 events there. Throw in the new pro women's team, local college and high school games, national team matches, lacrosse, concerts and other non-sports dates and I would think the total would easily surpass 50 per year. " - Steven Goff

The stadium isn't going to be an island to spur development, but rather 'the last piece of the puzzle' in Anacostia. In case you can't remember there's a whole big Poplar Point mixed use development that the stadium will be a part of.

Brad Humphreys must be an idiot based on that quote.

While a stand-alone stadium that is used 20-30 times per year maybe a bad investment, the proposed stadium will be neither stand-alone nor used so infrequently.

Dr Humphreys et al. need to do better research on this situation. Such blatant bias and ignorance of the proposals makes their report worthless.

I guess Dr. Humphrey's wrote his report using the faulty logic of certain Washington Post staff writers and columnists.

I love how the quote from "The DC Fiscal Policy Institute" is from a Canadian. From Western Canada.

If the guy was from College Park, or Georgetown, he may be able to know something local.

I'm sorry --"Most studies find"....???

Let them weigh in when they've studied the dire circumstances in Anacostia, and have studied the particular case of a DC United stadium. Otherwise, their comments are little more than academic flatulence.

"The D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that studies social issues, is pushing for the city to invest in housing, libraries and parks, education, and the environment, according to director Ed Lazere. "

Are you serious? This has to be the biggest contradiction I have ever witnessed in a study from "economists". They talk about the lack of economic benefits from a Soccer Stadium but want to do things with clear negative impacts?

- What economist in the world is justifying public housing today in the US? I guess they haven't picked up a paper in the last 8 months and heard about our housing collapse. These guys want to build more units? In almost any economic principles book you will learn that city intervention in the housing market has a direct negative impact on the people it's supposed to benefit the most.

- The libraries that DC has already built are some of the least utilized in the country with the highest cost per user in the country and you want to make that ratio worse? How about getting people to use the resources we already have?

- In case they haven't noticed Anacostia already has more park land than almost any other urban area. The current parks are hardly ever used but what economist wouldn't support putting in more? Maybe in Georgetown parks are a good thing for property value, but in Anacostia its where drug use and prostitution are most prevalent and actually lowers housing values.

- They want to invest in education while the DC school district is struggling to maintain their current assets and has no need for further buildings. Not to mention we already have the MOST expensive educational system in the country and the WORST results. You want to throw more money at this?

- Environment? This has to be the biggest question mark. If the land is not used for a stadium it will be used for other development (parks, housing, etc...). As an economist are you saying that an empty plot of land will be more beneficial to the DC tax base than some sort of development?

- And finally, no matter what goes in at Poplar Point the DC gov't will be paying for the cleaning and redevelopment of the infrastructure at Poplar Point. A large chunk of that $150 million will be applicable to anything that happens with that land.

This report reeks of wrongdoing and corruption.

As far as the stadium situation goes:

"Thank you Kevin for this D.C. United jersey and congratulations on your terrific season," Fenty said. "It is great to see over 20,000 fans here at RFK supporting D.C. United. It is my hope that your fans will soon be coming to your brand new soccer stadium at Poplar Point in Anacostia. World class fans, and a world class team like D.C. United, deserve a world class stadium. And I am going to make it a priority to help you build that stadium. Thank you -- congratulations and good luck to the Black-and-Red!"

-Adrian Fenty on Oct 29 2006 (right before a mayoral elction mind you)

Those are Fenty's own HOLLOW words.

link to full article: http://www.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20061031&content_id=77524&vkey=news_dcu&fext=.jsp&team=t103

I have to agree with the above that no economist can justify the cost benefit to a park/school/housing over the cost of a new stadium without fully understanding the economic reality of the area which they are studying.

I think the people who did this review should be put under review by their respective institutions of "higher" education.

David,

While you're referencing stadium-related pieces, why not reference one that appeared in The Post's own Outlook Section, A Stadium Plan That Will Pay Off, written by the president of the African American Environmentalist Association?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603067.html

He had this refreshing view that folks who would never choose to live in Ward 8 should be careful with their opinions about what would be best for the Ward's residents.

University of Alberta??! Hmm, couldn't get into MedicineHat Tech? Tsk Tsk

Who's paying for this groups opinion? Or did the subject just come up at the weekly lunch meeting (like the Rotary Club), and they felt the urge to pontificate?

University of Alberta?? Now THERE is a guy that knows whats good and bad for big metropolitan areas, like say, Medicine Hat!!
Who asked him anyway?

JkR,

C'mon. What better thing is there to do out in Alberta than try and analyse soccer stadium issues in DC? Obviously it's the hot topic at the local Tim Horton's.

Funny that the FPI statement says that stadiums don't increase spending on entertainment, but tend to lead in a shifting of spending. In a situation like we have here with DC/MD/VA that shifting is exactly the concern. DC needs to keep the tax income from United (while allowing them to develop tangential revenue streams to tax) while also poaching concert business from Maryland and Virginia. In fact, the entire Poplar Point Development is a tax-revenue producing exercise.

From that pro-stadium piece there is this:

"...But these opponents should rethink their decision to block sustainable development in a section of the city where they absolutely will not live. Critics say that the soccer stadium will not stimulate economic development and that development will ruin the pristine nature of the area. Ward 8 is 91 percent African American..."

Guess it's time for the Albertan to do some rethinking.

I join with others in finding this analysis to be flawed. However, you people are not helping your cause by resorting to ad hominem cheap shots about Albertans or anyone else. The relevant data can be collected and analyzed, either expertly or inexpertly, by anyone sitting anywhere on the face of this planet. The signers of this statement are from all over, including Henry Aaron, who has been here in town at the Brookings Institution for decades. Please stay focused on the analysis, and not on where people choose to make their homes.

Yellow Knife A&M laughs at Alberta University

Henry Aaron's an old hack.

I join with others in finding this analysis to be flawed. However, you people are not helping your cause by resorting to ad hominem cheap shots about Albertans or anyone else. The relevant data can be collected and analyzed, either expertly or inexpertly, by anyone sitting anywhere on the face of this planet. The signers of this statement are from all over, including Henry Aaron, who has been here in town at the Brookings Institution for decades. Please stay focused on the analysis, and not on where people choose to make their homes.

Posted by: cica | June 10, 2008 2:13 PM

Since we are not paid economists and they are shouldn't the burdon of presenting data and facts fall on them? I find it strange that they have never presented either in any of their findings...DC United, African American Environmentalists, Clark and other pro-stadium groups have.

How can we argue against people who never give us any facts or numbers, just opinions? And why are economists only able to present their opinions and nothing to back them up? I think making fun of Canada is just as informative as the arguements these guys have come up with against the stadium...

Hey this is an internet blog, right? "Facts" vs. making fun of Canadian Economists?

I say hammer the 'Loonie Economists'....

:)

A real liberal economist would encourage this type of economic development. Unfortunately they are liberals posing as economists. Where these bozos really damn their own arguement is to suggest that parks, public housing, or the "environment" (whatever that really means) will be a better investment. Education can be, but only if not to prop up unions and no results teaching, but it appears they stumbled onto this by accident.

This is ludicrous! 20-30 events per year? Give me a break...It will be used many more times than that. The $150 million would go towards infrastructural improvements that are going to happen with or without a stadium. If we lose this team to the 'burbs, I'm moving out of the city for good.

"I love how the quote from "The DC Fiscal Policy Institute" is from a Canadian. From Western Canada.

If the guy was from College Park, or Georgetown, he may be able to know something local."

Posted by: Geography | June 10, 2008 12:16 PM

Geography: you're an idiot. Brad Humphreys IS from the area! He got his Masters and PhD from Johns Hopkins and taught at University of Maryland, Baltimore for 10 years! He's also a well respected sports economist. Geez some people are dense.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~bhumphre/

He is also a contributor to The Sports Economist.

http://thesportseconomist.com/

I am not sure about the economists but as a resident and tax payer of the District of Columbia I am totally opposed to funding another stadium at this time.

First of all we don't even own the land that it would be built on. Second, this is a 25,000 or so seat stadium that would be used less than 30 times a year. It would take up some beautiful park land as would all the parking needed around it.

If the City has an extra $150 million lying around there could be much better uses for it. Build a mix of housing and retail in that area if we can secure the rights to the land. Have parks and playgrounds and decent public transportation and people will flock to a site on the river.

We haven't yet seen whether the baseball stadium will pay off. I think it won't. The projections on attendance were off and again just think what $650 million could have done in that area of town to provide year round options not a stadium that will be used less than 100 days a year.

Very few stadiums across the nation have ever paid off to the public. They make money for the private owners who own the teams.

It is time to relook at what our priorities are in DC and I thought that is what we elected Adrian Fenty to do. This stadium is a boondoggle that Marion Barry is pushing. Someone should look at his connections to the people who will build it to see what they are. Jack Evans is another one who always likes these projects. Look at his connections to the developers and I am sure you will find that he or his law firm will make some money somehow.

Time for public projects to do public good not line the pockets of our politicians and their friends.

Asking a bunch of out of town economists to decide on an installation like this is like asking a pig how to get to the moon. It is likely none of them have ever been to an event such as would be found here. The best thing to do is disregard their cretinous opinions.

Peter's comments above are a very good example of the misinformation on offer out there regarding Poplar Point.

This was a form letter. Hardly a detail about the plan they supposedly oppose (without actually knowing what it is). They just filled in about three blanks from a letter used half a dozen times before for other sports stadiums, whose detail they did not inquire into either.

No publicly-funded stadium anywhere in the country in the past 30 years has been an effective generator of economic development activity. Period. If you think the DC Fiscal Policy Institute is biased, read the analysis by the Cato Institute that reaches the same conclusion.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa339.pdf

Let us agree that Anacostia needs economic development. How does this justify giving hundreds of millions to the millionaire owners of a professional sports franchise? That is sheer lunacy.

Don't like the economists who signed onto the Fiscal Policy Institute study? Pick out some economists you like -- there are plenty who agree with them:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/the-biggest-sport-in-town/

You prefer that the DC Gov gives it to the millionaire owner of a development company, rather than the owner of a sports franchise? What's the difference? Hell, MacFarlane is both.

Someone is going to be given the development rights to Poplar Point, and the city will be a cash participant in the redevelopment effort, whether it's housing, retail, hotels, parks, a stadium or all of the above.

There are few credible economists who will agree with the notion that government subsidies for stadiums creates economic growth. Any unbiased studies show that stadiums simply shift spending, not create new growth.

As far as the MCI Center goes, yes, that neighborhood has certainly improved. However, it is illogical to say it has improved because of the MCI Center. There is no proof for that. There are a number of DC neighborhoods that have improved and they don't have stadiums in them. Or perhaps I missed the stadium in Logan Circle.

Economists -- unlike those contributing to this thread -- have actually studied this issue and have found stadiums are a waste of taxpayer money. You can disagree with them if you want, but you don't have facts on your side if you do.

No publicly-funded stadium anywhere in the country in the past 30 years has been an effective generator of economic development activity. Period. If you think the DC Fiscal Policy Institute is biased, read the analysis by the Cato Institute that reaches the same conclusion.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa339.pdf

Let us agree that Anacostia needs economic development. How does this justify giving hundreds of millions to the millionaire owners of a professional sports franchise? That is sheer lunacy.

Don't like the economists who signed onto the Fiscal Policy Institute study? Pick out some economists you like -- there are plenty who agree with them:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/the-biggest-sport-in-town/

Posted by: Mike Licht | June 10, 2008 4:18 PM

Yeah the article also left out an important detail...this is not a publicly funded stadium!

From people at the Post who have actually published numbers, a large chunk of the $150 million will be allocated towards the cleanup of the site as well as infrastructure development, both of which would be incurred no matter what Poplar Point is used for. A large majority of this stadium (unlike the Nats) is being paid by the owners of DC United. As an added bonus the $150 million in this case is expected to be paid off within 3 years based on the tax/lease payback plan United and Clark would have with the city, after that tax revenue from the Poplar Point development would go towards financing cost overruns associated with the Nats stadium.

Other numbers the "economists" got wrong. Nobody has ever proposed that this stadium would only host 30 DC United games a year, every proposal has a minimum of two pro soccer teams (United and Freedom), US national matches, other international matches, numerous college events, high school events and concerts. At a minimum the stadium would host 60 events per year.

The sad part is this a "statement" by economists not a study and they didn't bother doing a seconds worth of research on the details of this project or even bother contacting Clark or DC United for actual numbers.

Only in academia can you come out with such fact less BS without having to worry about any repercussions.

Nice, Marc. Claim to be a facts guy, but offer none regarding MCI Center, just claim there is no proof.

Economists -- unlike those contributing to this thread -- have actually studied this issue and have found stadiums are a waste of taxpayer money. You can disagree with them if you want, but you don't have facts on your side if you do.
Posted by: Marc | June 10, 2008 4:37 PM

Umm I have yet to see these economists who have studied THIS issue come up with a single correct fact. First of all nobody (except for Marc Fischer at the Post) has said only 30 events will be held at this stadium. Nobody has ever said that the $150 million is being used to build the stadium (except again for Marc Fischer). So if they already got those two very crucial data points wrong why on earth should I agree with them? From people who are familiar with THIS issue we know that the stadium will have many more events than just DC United games, we know that the money is primarily going towards infrastructure, McFarlane is paying for the actual construction costs of the stadium and we know that had McFarlane not lobbied congress to have the rights to Poplar Point transferred to the city of DC, DC would be looking at 0 tax revenue from this land.

Should tax payers be supportive of publically financed stadiums? Probably not but this isn't a publically financed stadium.

Please show me any evidence that the MCI Center caused any economic growth (not merely the shifting of money from one area to another). If it has created growth then it would be the first stadium in the last thirty years to do so.

My point in bringing it up was to illustrate the flawed logic people are using. "Hey, look at Chinatown. It's doing great since they built the MCI Center." Sure, but so are many other areas of the city. Correlation is not causation. You have to show that the MCI Center caused the growth. Showing that growth happened after it was built proves nothing.

"Second, this is a 25,000 or so seat stadium that would be used less than 30 times a year"

FALSE

"Build a mix of housing and retail in that area if we can secure the rights to the land. Have parks and playgrounds and decent public transportation and people will flock to a site on the river."

Sorry, but without a stadium there no one will be flocking anywhere.

" We haven't yet seen whether the baseball stadium will pay off. I think it won't. The projections on attendance were off and again just think what $650 million could have done in that area of town to provide year round options not a stadium that will be used less than 100 days a year."

Oh really? Read the paper. the stadium is actually producing such a profit that the bonds will be paid of early. Further for the 1,000 time. Their was no 650 million dollars to go to anything else. The stadium was financed with bonds. Please go to economics class and urban planning class so this doesn't have to be explained over and over.

Ed Lazere made campaigning against the Nationals stadium pretty much a full time job. looks like he's found himself another gig, but I wonder what he does between stadium projects. no doubt he's hoping that the city decides to build a football stadium at the RFK site to keep the donations rolling in.

Take me as economist #27 if necessary to vouch for the lack of economic investment that comes from stadium investment. understand economic investment is ultimately tax returns to the city. If DC invested $225M, its yearly debt service/payment would be $19M for 30 years @ 5%. Ticket taxes of even 20% for 30K seats for even 20 games a year would be a mere $3.6M. the taxes from the concessions would not amount to much more, and the taxes that result from secondary spending at bars/restaurants/etc. is even more miniscule. Now reverse the analysis and apply the debt service to the team revenues and the scenario might work as it did for the verizon ctr and FedEx. the verizon Ctr comparison does not work as it is at the former edge of downtown/china town. With the real estate boom and whites returning to the city via condos it is well situated. but i think the 1st time homebuyer tax exemption for DC was as big a player in the areas development.

one more thing: Marc makes the tired old claim that stadiums and arenas don't foster development, that they merely shift personal spending from one location to another. I beg to differ. We bought a partial season ticket package for two to the Nationals games this year, first time we've ever done such a thing. This is money, a decent chunk I might add, that for the most part would have otherwise sat in our bank account. Sure, we might have gone out for dinner on some of the Sundays for which we have tickets, but you can rest assured that we'd be sitting in front of the tube at home on the Tuesdays and Thursdays that comprise the rest of our package. My experience may not be universal, but I suspect it's fairly common.

Marc,

There's an Irish Pub, a Chipotle, and a disturbing lack of actual Chinese things in Chinatown.

Those things don't come out of nowhere. Verizon Center was the catalyst.

Now would something else have potentially popped up? Sure, but you can't deal with the 'what ifs' you need to deal with the facts. In order. 1. That neighborhood was in need. 2. Verizon Center opened 3. Lot's of other things followed in the next ten years. 4. It's a happening place.

Go and look at the history, the District was desperate for the arena, but didn't have the money, but still came up with the 'infrastructure' money to help make it work.

Yes, it just displaced some money, but it took it from PG County, so while the District sees it as growth, there's a negative on the MD side.....add to that the ancillary ways to spend money, and Verizon Center means more money out of peoples' pockets and into the economy.

Though you'll just say "I don't believe so, so it's false", that's what's happened.

RobGreg the numbers in your example are completely made up, why would your analysis be correct?

Is it just me, or do most of these pro-stadium posts read like they were all written by the same person? Same tone, same snooty vocabulary, same arch attacks on the economists who signed the letter. I smell a rat...in the form of the developer who wants in on this deal filling the thread with pro-stadium posts.

Oh for God's sake...

Give it up.

Did they quantify the value of having something that will help change the reputation of Anacostia? Considering the current impression of Anacostia among everyone who doesn't live there the non-quantifiable issue of perception change would be the single greatest value of the project.

Is the $150m figure still primarily infrastructure costs? If so, isn't it extremely irresponsible to continue to call it a subsidy? What are the infrastructure costs associated with non-stadium development (so that we can compare the two and develop an actual informed opinion)? what are the costs associated with transforming the area into actual parkland?

I may not be an economist but I do do economic development work.

As far as the MCI Center goes, yes, that neighborhood has certainly improved. However, it is illogical to say it has improved because of the MCI Center. There is no proof for that. There are a number of DC neighborhoods that have improved and they don't have stadiums in them. Or perhaps I missed the stadium in Logan Circle.

posted by Marc
--------------------------------------

Dear Marc,

As a lifelong District resident I can without a doubt say that the transformation of Chinatown is due to Verizon ne MCI Center. Before that stadium the area was sketchy and the only reason anyone went there was to buy porn, throwing stars and the occasional peking duck. MCI Center changed the whole perception of the area which led to the other development that really led to the area taking off. Without the stadium the perception would never have changed and development would never have happened. Let's not forget our history or pretend that perception doesn't matter.

As for Logan Circle, that was due to the Freshfields. the West End is also doing very well now due to a Trader joe's.

What do each of these areas have in common with the proposed Poplar Point plan? They each have something that brings people to the neighborhood on a regular basis which helped change perceptions.

The sad part is that the "oppose THE STADIUM crowd" will get what they ask for not what they want. The city will subsidize Crystal City on the Anacostia instead with the money, sans stadium, and the opponents will whine "but we wanted it for parks (housing)." I oppose the stadium if the alternative is to keep the land open and spending the money elsewhere for things this city needs more or to use the land and the money to provide more affordable housing. But for most opponents this is just an ersatz battle, having lost on the convention center and the baseball stadium. Heck the Sierra Club, and all the council members who supported the baseball stadium will use this to get their cred back at the expense of Ward 8 and soccer, two things they figure they can write off. That said the AAEA is astroturf, they support a variety of industry proposals for the right price, if I supported the stadium I would not use Norris McDonald as my chief witness.

I bet the same economists said that using public funds to improve roadways around San Francisco AT&T park was a bad investment. A couple billion dollars of development deals later in that general vicinity (which as a dump before the stadium)...I hope they are eating crow. The problem is, the economists never own up to the fact when they are wrong and no one in the press calls them on it. Stadium investments in core urban areas do work if they are part of a redevelopment plan!

Although many comments above demonstrate the techniques used for ignoring and obscuring the fact that publicly-funded stadiums are poor economic development tools, a more complete list is at

http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/189

(download the free pdf)

The problem is, the economists never own up to the fact when they are wrong and no one in the press calls them on it.
=========================================

However, other economists have an incentive to call them on it, if it can in fact be shown that they are wrong, in a manner that warrants publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

It always seems to appear that Ed Lazere's formal sounding, one man institute creates a position, and then some analysis to support it that position as if it is a conclusion drawn from some objective analysis. They would appear to be more of a lobbying group than a think tank. I agree that their analysis is suspect at best.

Although many comments above demonstrate the techniques used for ignoring and obscuring the fact that publicly-funded stadiums are poor economic development tools, a more complete list is at

http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/189

(download the free pdf)

Posted by: Mike Licht | June 10, 2008 6:29 PM
===========================

Are we pretending that site is neutral?

Stumbling onto this thread reminds me of why I'm glad I left DC. It's filled with a bunch of smart people who, sadly, fail to realize when they don't know anything. Again, as the links put forward in this thread illustrate, there are very few credible economists who think government-subsidized stadiums produce the promised economic benefits. The failure of these projects to live up to their promises happens in city after city. It's foolish to ignore history and somehow think DC will be different. But, hey, I guess a few people who have never studied this issue are smarter than a bunch of experts who have spent years looking at the data.

I'm just glad that I no longer live in a city that will be using my tax dollars to enrich a few millionare sports team owners. But I guess that since DC's schools are the envy of the nation, its crime rate is practically nil, the roads are great, and there are few social problems in the city it doesn't matter if this money gets wasted, right?

One of the quotes refers to the transfer of the entertainment dollar from one place to another.

This is true, and in this case, as it is with Nationals Park, those dollars are being shifted generally from the suburbs to DC.

While this may not be true in places like Pittsburgh or San Francisco, where the fans are all coming from the same state, it does make a difference in DC, where the fans are generally coming from Virginia and Maryland.

That combined with the afore mentioned 60+ events per year, and this is a catalyst for a part of the city and region which needs it.

Make it so, Adrian.

I thought by helping put in Poplar Point and the Soccer stadium, we were helping address some social and economic problems of Anacostia.

Or should we continue to ignore this region?

Dear marc,

Though it's been obscured in the reporting (and we are not positive that it is still the case) all the original reports say that the District's contribution is for infrastructure and not a subsidy for the building costs. This might seem a minor point to some (cough Nakamura cough) but it's actually quite an important distinction. Some percentage of those costs will be spent regardless of whether the use is a stadium, other development or parkland. The choice isn't really whether or not to spend the money, it's really whether a soccer stadium or an office park will better serve the long term interests of Anacostia.

I personally think a stadium is a better choice because it would help transform the image of an area that suffers the worst perception in the entire region. Certainly the entire development needs an anchor that will bring new people into the area to succeed. Do you have any better ideas because you certainly haven't stated any that are realistic economically (and will serve the purpose of anchoring the site)?

The issue isn't how much revenue stadiums by themselves generate it's about whether stadiums can help create the right conditions (primarily perceptions) to spur real economic growth. economists tend to only focus on the quantifiable and measurable, unfortunately there's a lot more to why things happen then just numbers.

Marc, you wrote this: (not merely the shifting of money from one area to another). Yes that is a classical arguement. But look at the circumstances. Let's say this is a 100% DC taxpayer financed stadium. Is this a shift of DC residents deciding to go to a United game vs. dinner in Georgetown? I would think not. DC only has approx 600K or so taxpayers so playing the %s, those come from other locales. Would not that be good for DC taxpayers for fans to spend money at a game rather than dinner at Reston Town Center?

For once, I see this as an advantage of living in a city with a small taxpayer base. Oh, and I don't think the family going to the United game is giving up spending money in DC for the night, but perhaps they are....

The best solution is giving up DCU to Prince George county, where they'll be treated much better. Our stadium plans will not drag on only to dissapoint DCU.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2008/06/did_prgeos_soccer_stadium_pitc.html
The distric is already in debt due to the nats park and thats why it should not be pushed to build another stadium.