All the pro-sports stadium people are missing the point. Of course they generate some
economic activity, not zero. The point is that they generate less
economic return over their entire lives than they cost to put in. If you want to stimulate the local economy, you should find a more efficient way to do it. Instead of getting less money than you're putting in, try something that at least breaks even.
See, e.g.: http://american.com/archive/2008/april- ... -subsidies
. Mind you, this is not just one study. It's not even in question, where one study finds one thing, and another study finds another. As the article states, "the results are fairly constant from one analysis to another
. There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums." Not that any of this matters -- nobody wants to listen to know-it-all economists. Gas tax holiday anyone?
Back to the topic of putting people near stations -- I've always wondered why the area around those train stations wasn't gentrifying. After all, portions of Brooklyn are now really hot real estate for Wall Street bankers who want more bang for the buck than in Manhattan. The subway network made that possible.
Real estate crunch or no, Manhattan is still an expensive place to live.