Why is this news to anyone? Just another example of what happens when Dems control an area for what seems like an eternity. Why do people insist that governments can solve city problems. City governments can do one thing well, collect taxes. That’s it.

Obviously Mr. AJ has a political bias. The great cities of the East have undergone a tremendous renaissance during the 30 years I’ve lived in the DC area. And yes, even crime is down considerably. And for the most part, these cities have been run by Democratic governments.

Meanwhile, take a look at the rural bastions of Kentucky, Mississippi, out-state Missouri if you’d like. What I see is low high-school graduation rates, poverty, a meth epidemic, poor health care, lots of teenage marriages, et al.

The last two sentences of this article imply a causation (grandiosity/public involvement) and effect (failure more likely). I do not know whether I would even concede whether these are coincident or not. What is seldom accounted for in these statements is that government does involve itself in riskier enterprises because the market fails to undertake them. It is precisely because the government can undertake risk more readily than a lesser-capitalized private business that things like a military, roads, schools exist as government-funded entities.

The implication that a society should rely solely upon the market to determine risk relative to gain suggests that the society will be unable to optimize its development because its development is at the mercy of the degree of capitalization of its nongovernmental entities. Take a look at Africa, some South American counties, and perhaps Mr. AJ can grasp what having a non-functional government looks like.

Dont forget about the “triangle building development” the cubs promised the city of chicago they would build in exchange for being able to construct the larger bleachers. That was to be eating, shopping, bars, offices, and a big parking lot. They have not even moved a rock and its been several years.

I understand that the Mets have undergound parking under the infield and outfiled? is this true? Sounds like a great idea!

Promises, promises…

I would prefer a green space next to the ballpark. Not just a flat weedy lawn but some type of park that coordinates nicely with the stadium. I think its nice to be able to see into the new Busch Stadium from outside the facilities and it would make game days around the stadium more attractive for people to hang out. Now I know this idea isn’t the biggest money maker for the team so this is an unlikely scenario to really happen for the long term. Maybe the city and the ballteam owners could work out some vending deal in the park as well, plus game day entertainment like a band, 2 or 3 hours before the game where the revenue is shared in a very attractive way for the ballteam. In the offseason you would have a low cost maintenance situation and maybe the team could rent out the park for special events etc. Just a thought…

Same issues in KC with the Power and Light District planned next to the new Sprint Center. They did build and it is costing the Kansas City taxpayers millions because it isn’t producing the results the developers said it would.
Cities and states will continue to use tax dollars to fund stadiums as the owners of these teams are big political supporters=lots of campaign contributions. In 4 or 5 years some city and state will build a palace for the Rams and they will be gone. We never learn.
As far as Ballpark Village is concerned… dump the idea. Build a world class aquarium. An aquarium would actually draw people downtown 365. I would actually support making it a part of the zoo/museum district and be willing to pay a modest sum (say $60-$75) in my real estate taxes each year to support it. It could be treasure like the zoo, museums and the botanical gardens.

floodtime,

No bias. Past performance is a predictor of future results.

“What is seldom accounted for in these statements is that government does involve itself in riskier enterprises because the market fails to undertake them.”

That’s not the role of governments. If the private market shied away from it then there was apparently no money to make based upon the risk. Government is supposed to come in when there is “market failure”. The market worked perfectly in this case but yet government saw fit to get involved anyway. It’s not the role of govt to take on risk no one else wants to pursue. Building a baseball stadium and corresponding “entertainment district” is not what any city government needs to be doing.

Does that ever look raunchy!

How many entertainment districts does downtown need??? There’s already The Landing, Washington Street, and Union Station. Close by is Soulard, The Central West End, Grand Ave, The East Side, etc. There’s only 80 or so days a year the baseball stadium creates a crowd. Factor in week games/day games where locals don’t drink/eat/spend money as hard as they do on the weekends, and the baseball stadium alone isn’t going to support another entertainment district. Tourism isn’t the answer either. Maybe 20% of those Busch crowds are from outside the metro area. 5,000 tourists 80 days a year doesn’t pay rent in December and January. For all the tourism the Arch generates, the Landing has plenty of empty storefronts and they couldn’t even keep open a McDonald’s on a riverboat! We have downtown hotels (by the convention center no less) taking bankruptcy and Union Station looks like it’s one step away from being boarded up along with St Louis Centre. Downtown’s population is only 11,000 so relying on locals to support another entertainment district the 280 days a year baseball doesn’t just isn’t feasable. At some point in time city leaders need to figure out a way to bring NEW EMPLOYERS downtown. Employees mean people needing to eat lunch and shop on their lunch breaks Monday-Friday 52 weeks a year. That’s how you build the base support for a new entertainment district. Build it right now and all you do is hurt Union Station and the Landing until the “newness factor” wears off and the storefronts go empty.