Former city arena negotiators working for Ilitches

[downtownguy]

He's baaaack!!!

"A consulting firm started by a former Detroit economic development chief who was part of the lead negotiating team for the city on the new arena deal now has a contract with the developers to vet housing and other projects around the $627-million project, raising concerns in some quarters of a "revolving door" between the public and private sectors.

George Jackson, former president and CEO of the nonprofit Detroit Economic Growth Corp., left that post nearly two years ago after new Mayor Mike Duggan took a different approach to economic development that de-emphasized farming out negotiations to the nonprofit DEGC."

Full Freep article here:
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...ches/79062186/

[401don]

This was in Crain's back in December. Freep should get a subscription.

[bust]

This was in Crain's back in December. Freep should get a subscription.

Yes, let's take this opportunity to give kudos to Crain's. They do a very good job.

I forgot who it was who said it, but I agree: If you want to know what's really going on read the business news.

I'll add to that: not exclusively. Money is [[only) one of the things that makes the world go round. People too.

[Hypestyles]

screw all these people. jobs are not trickling down to "regular" Detroiters at all.

[SyGolden48236]

screw all these people. jobs are not trickling down to "regular" Detroiters at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "regular" Detroiters. There are many residents of Detroit employed in the construction of the arena. That was one of the conditions of the tax breaks offered by the city.

[Bham1982]

screw all these people. jobs are not trickling down to "regular" Detroiters at all.

There are no net new jobs being created. A new arena is replacing an existing arena. Net benefit will be zero.

There aren't going to be more jobs just because you relocate an events venue a few blocks north. If anything, it can be argued that jobs are being lost, because of the opportunity cost of squandering hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars that could have otherwise been used for job creation [[in theory, at least).

You will not find an economist who thinks that publicly financed sports arenas provide a positive economic impact to cities or will increase employment. It's about as much of a consensus as one can find among economists, because leisure spending is unrelated to arena construction, and drives the job numbers. You can build a new arena every year for 100 years, and you're just spinning wheels.

The only way to create jobs through "entertainment" is to grow regional salaries, since this is what drives leisure spending. So if you really wanted to increase downtown employment in bars/restaurants/leisure, the most logical way to go about it is to increase the region's buying power [[so probably investments in R&D and other high wage ventures).

The Ford/GM bonuses this year will be 1,000x more important to regional leisure spending than a replacement hockey venue. Downtown's fate is much more tied into economic cycles and growth industries than subsidization of billionaires.

[gumby]

Guess all those construction jobs don't exist then.

There are no net new jobs being created. A new arena is replacing an existing arena. Net benefit will be zero.

There aren't going to be more jobs just because you relocate an events venue a few blocks north. If anything, it can be argued that jobs are being lost, because of the opportunity cost of squandering hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars that could have otherwise been used for job creation [[in theory, at least).

You will not find an economist who thinks that publicly financed sports arenas provide a positive economic impact to cities or will increase employment. It's about as much of a consensus as one can find among economists, because leisure spending is unrelated to arena construction, and drives the job numbers. You can build a new arena every year for 100 years, and you're just spinning wheels.

The only way to create jobs through "entertainment" is to grow regional salaries, since this is what drives leisure spending. So if you really wanted to increase downtown employment in bars/restaurants/leisure, the most logical way to go about it is to increase the region's buying power [[so probably investments in R&D and other high wage ventures).

The Ford/GM bonuses this year will be 1,000x more important to regional leisure spending than a replacement hockey venue. Downtown's fate is much more tied into economic cycles and growth industries than subsidization of billionaires.

[Hypestyles]

temporary construction jobs mean nothing in the long term. The case has yet to be made for how local folks not already intimately connected to the DEGC/Olympia/City Government will benefit from these endeavors.

[SyGolden48236]

temporary construction jobs mean nothing in the long term. The case has yet to be made for how local folks not already intimately connected to the DEGC/Olympia/City Government will benefit from these endeavors.

"Local folks" can make the case for long term "endeavors" by showing that they have the skills necessary for the long term jobs. They can show the comittment to show up on time and every day to work. They can show a dedication to the job rather than an entitlement mentality.

Until then it is just whining on the internet.

[detroitbob]

Guess all those construction jobs don't exist then.

Apparently not in the eyes or mind of a 34 year old from Bham..

[Bham1982]

Apparently not in the eyes or mind of a 34 year old from Bham..

Very true.

I'm happy to say that I follow the lead of economists, who actually know what they're talking about, and not brain-dead regional cheerleaders/insider cronies like George Jackson, who got us in this mess in the first place as they got rich off the people's ignorance.

But you don't have to be an economist to know that an arena construction job isn't a permanent job. If all you care about is creating temporary make-work jobs that add no permanent net economic value, you should just continually demolish and then reconstruct buildings to your heart's content.

There is no net economic benefit to relocating an arena a few blocks. It's the same economic multiplier as before. 100% of economists can't be wrong. Regional cheerleaders, who have barely made a rational urban planning decision since the 1920's, are about the last people you should consult for economic development advice. They gave us Trappers Alley, the People Mover, the Woodward/Washington "transit malls", the Millender Center, the freeways, the Corktown industrial park, the casinos, the Poletown plant, the incinerator, and other questionable taxpayer boondoggles.

[313rd]

Problems regarding the Construction Jobs;

1.) Many see this as a 'Job' instead of a 'Career' and will milk the system to a certain extent for the duration of the project. With the "you need me" instead of I want to learn and work.

2.) Once these new hires earn their Journeyman status and start making enough money, they pack up their things and move out of the city, it may only be to Eastpointe or Southfield or Lincoln park, but once they have some money they are gone. This has been happening for the last 20 years.

3.) Unfortunately, the City of Detroit does not have enough "qualified" residents to fill these roles.

[drjeff]

Very true.

I'm happy to say that I follow the lead of economists, who actually know what they're talking about, and not brain-dead regional cheerleaders/insider cronies like George Jackson, who got us in this mess in the first place as they got rich off the people's ignorance.

But you don't have to be an economist to know that an arena construction job isn't a permanent job. If all you care about is creating temporary make-work jobs that add no permanent net economic value, you should just continually demolish and then reconstruct buildings to your heart's content.

There is no net economic benefit to relocating an arena a few blocks. It's the same economic multiplier as before. 100% of economists can't be wrong. Regional cheerleaders, who have barely made a rational urban planning decision since the 1920's, are about the last people you should consult for economic development advice. They gave us Trappers Alley, the People Mover, the Woodward/Washington "transit malls", the Millender Center, the freeways, the Corktown industrial park, the casinos, the Poletown plant, the incinerator, and other questionable taxpayer boondoggles.

No construction job is permanent, by definition. Jobs are completed and workers move to another. But increasing total construction in the city, which is happening now, would have to lead to more construction jobs, which would, in fact, positively impact the economy. It's not the one stadium job that matters, it's the combination of that plus the other construction projects underway.

[emu steve]

No construction job is permanent, by definition. Jobs are completed and workers move to another. But increasing total construction in the city, which is happening now, would have to lead to more construction jobs, which would, in fact, positively impact the economy. It's not the one stadium job that matters, it's the combination of that plus the other construction projects underway.

Excellent point. "Permanent constructions jobs" is an oxymoron.

Big difference between some trade workers who work on difference projects than say an electrician who might have worked decades at a Ford plant in Dearborn.

Did I not read that there are 'labor shortages' among skilled construction workers in Detroit?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

temporary construction jobs mean nothing in the long term.

Tell that to the architects and planners working on the project, and all of the suppliers. Every "temporary" construction project has a lot of spin-off benefits to many companies and their employees.

[1953]

Great list of boondoggles, Bham!

"They gave us Trappers Alley, the People Mover, the Woodward/Washington "transit malls", the Millender Center, the freeways, the Corktown industrial park, the casinos, the Poletown plant, the incinerator, and other questionable taxpayer boondoggles."

[Honky Tonk]

Tell that to the architects and planners working on the project, and all of the suppliers. Every "temporary" construction project has a lot of spin-off benefits to many companies and their employees.

Sure, the architects, planners, suppliers, and employees will have jobs. They just move on to another project. NP there. The neighborhood, other than getting some kind of new structure, gets no long term job solution.

[erikd]

Very true.

I'm happy to say that I follow the lead of economists, who actually know what they're talking about, and not brain-dead regional cheerleaders/insider cronies like George Jackson, who got us in this mess in the first place as they got rich off the people's ignorance.

But you don't have to be an economist to know that an arena construction job isn't a permanent job. If all you care about is creating temporary make-work jobs that add no permanent net economic value, you should just continually demolish and then reconstruct buildings to your heart's content.

There is no net economic benefit to relocating an arena a few blocks. It's the same economic multiplier as before. 100% of economists can't be wrong. Regional cheerleaders, who have barely made a rational urban planning decision since the 1920's, are about the last people you should consult for economic development advice. They gave us Trappers Alley, the People Mover, the Woodward/Washington "transit malls", the Millender Center, the freeways, the Corktown industrial park, the casinos, the Poletown plant, the incinerator, and other questionable taxpayer boondoggles.

I agree with a good portion of this, and especially about the new hockey arena. However, I wouldn't lump the casinos into this argument, as they didn't receive tax breaks or tax funding for their construction and/or operation, unlike most of the other examples given.

[erikd]

There are no net new jobs being created. A new arena is replacing an existing arena. Net benefit will be zero.

There aren't going to be more jobs just because you relocate an events venue a few blocks north. If anything, it can be argued that jobs are being lost, because of the opportunity cost of squandering hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars that could have otherwise been used for job creation [[in theory, at least).

You will not find an economist who thinks that publicly financed sports arenas provide a positive economic impact to cities or will increase employment. It's about as much of a consensus as one can find among economists, because leisure spending is unrelated to arena construction, and drives the job numbers. You can build a new arena every year for 100 years, and you're just spinning wheels.

The only way to create jobs through "entertainment" is to grow regional salaries, since this is what drives leisure spending. So if you really wanted to increase downtown employment in bars/restaurants/leisure, the most logical way to go about it is to increase the region's buying power [[so probably investments in R&D and other high wage ventures).

The Ford/GM bonuses this year will be 1,000x more important to regional leisure spending than a replacement hockey venue. Downtown's fate is much more tied into economic cycles and growth industries than subsidization of billionaires.

I also agree with most of this, especially on the points of the new hockey arena, and the ineffectiveness of sports arenas on REGIONAL economic growth.

Not to nitpick, but downtown specifically does economically benefit from the relocation of arenas coming back into the city from the suburbs, even though there is no economic gain for the region as a whole. This doesn't validate the tax subsidies spent on these projects, but if the region and state are determined to give away hundreds of millions to billionaire sports owners, it is better to have the money spent in an existing area with an excess of vacant property and underutilized infrastructure, than have the money spent in a greenfield site that requires an expansion of expensive infrastructure systems.