2. His statistics were generalized and non-specific. Neither credibly supporting nor negating his personal views.

3. It appears Mr. hartley’s sports venue views may be influenced by Louisiana (recent) school football days. Not a bad thing, but it lends a potential perspective.

Urban (such as SF or Downtown L.A.) RE development is usually a huge PR con job before the onset of any specific project. Projects which only emphasize the positive aspects rather than being objective analyses. Bill Johnson touched on San Diego’s recent debacles on sports franchises. I can only base my views on the daily news radio I listened to from that area. Seems the people didn’t WANT a new taxpayer-funded stadium complex.

San Francisco is cited as an inferred healthy, beneficial community project yet it seems hard to reconcile that project with California’s oft-stated major concern over affordable housing. Among the highest cost areas to live in taking land available for housing and approving an alternate special use project seems hypocritical. Throwing a few token units in the mix along with retail just enhances developer profit – not affordability of housing. It also creates an inherently higher cost of obligatory city services in the area of the stadium that did not exist before.

How many affordable or less unaffordable condos could have been built there in the total land area occupied by the stadium project?

I’m familiar with the Los Angeles Staples Center Sports complex and Chavez Ravine (Dodgers Stadium) as well as Angele Stadium in Anaheim. I’m also familiar with the USC/Exposition Park area & Memorial Coliseum.

NOT ONE of these areas can credibly argue municipal benefit to housing values. Not one.

The Inglewood complex (former horse race track) resulted in a moderately large sfr tract of PUDs built to its immediate east side about 20+ years ago. As a stand-alone project, it benefitted the area and may have helped support sone increase in area values, though it was so unique that it could not compare to anything it was surrounded by. Nothing.

I’ve seen Yankee Stadium and The Home of the Atlanta Braves. I fail to see ANY benefit to housing values, or local immediate area community services. There is a considerable detriment. Residential housing does NOT benefit from rearing to giant commercial pay parking lots or industrial areas. Offsite retail uses that attempt to benefit from such complexes are not normally within walking distances. They can hardly be described as neighborhood-serving.

Extremely few giant commercial OR industrial character complexes immediately adjacent to residential uses ‘enhance’ property values. Not even commercial shopping centers. Neither Del Amo Mall in Torrance, CA has ever done so (I grew up in a walking distance of it – and sold RE around it for years). Nor to my knowledge did Tysons Corner ever increase surrounding residential property values in Virginia. RFK Field DC/MD? Someone would have to try very hard to make that case.

Frankly, large sports complexes would be best suited well out into rural areas – say about 25 miles or so from the nearest towns. THEN they may cause housing to be built around them.

There is no doubt such giant complexes benefit their developers and the major sport franchisors. I’ve yet to see credible data that they have net benefit to local taxpayers and residents in any measurable fashion.

Sports are a good thing. They teach youth many things. Done right, positive things. I support local youth, high school and college sports. Anything other than that is purely a business that needs to stand or fall on its own merit. Merit that has still not yet been shown to include benefit to anything other than commercial property values.

Excuse me while I look through some old garage sale VHS tapes (or were they Betamax) looking for some coaching relating to how big city appraisals are supposed to be soooo easy.

Seek the truth, be kind and rewind.