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.
Bookmarks