J.C. Bradbury
@jcbradbury.com
1.5K followers 210 following 2K posts
Economist, Georgian, Gadfly Stadium Subsidies, Film Incentives, Local Economic Development, Sports Economics Tariffs bad. Vaccines good. #ATLUTD jcbradbury.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
After 2 years of writing, I sent this out for review today.
In, my forthcoming book, I've got an entire chapter devoted to media coverage of stadium deals. My advice to editorial boards.
I have to believe that nepo-baby PJ wrote that all by himself (and thinks it's really good), because any competent executive would fire a PR rep who crafted such a poorly written statement.
This gets a sympathy B- in 7th grade English.
People often warn about not giving a coach enough time, but I think the bias is in the other direction It was clear that Deila wasn't going to work by May. Pineda stayed a year too long. If it's not working, move on ASAP. Applies to all sports.
Atlanta United fires head coach Ronny Deila after one win in 18
"Our standard of play was not met this season," Atlanta CEO and president Garth Lagerwey said in a release Sunday.
buff.ly
And while I admire the mayor for standing tall against the local "leadership" in-crowd seeking taxpayer-subsidized seat upgrades, you can't meet these jock-sniffing sycophants in the middle. There is no reasonable policy case for the Spurs arena plan. None. www.expressnews.com/opinion/comm...
Mayor Jones: We can negotiate a better deal for a new Spurs arena
"I believe our city needs a revitalized downtown, but one that we can afford."
www.expressnews.com
Aside from the totally incorrect economic claims being pushed by arena boosters, the Spurs already have a perfectly fine public arena, which received $150 million in taxpayer money 25 years ago, and got another $150 million upgrade in 2015. It's absurd that this is even being discussed.
I hope that the headline wasn't purposely selected to blunt the argument (which is much clearer in the commentary) by the editorial board that has been totally in the tank for this indefensible plan.
This is a pretty well-written article, but I wish it had a more blunt title like, "Spurs Arena Plan Is a Bad Deal for San Antonio, Vote No." In stadium debates, you can't soft-pedal the facts, you have to smack voters in the face with them. Tie goes to the team. www.expressnews.com/opinion/comm...
San Antonio needs a fair arena deal and a fair election. It's getting neither.
You can love the San Antonio Spurs and hate this proposed arena deal. Voting against the proposed Spurs arena is the only way to drive a better public-private partnership.
www.expressnews.com
Yeah, not the ideal guy for the assignment. Regardless, an editor should have spiked it. I don't know if they do that anymore.
I don't think there's a financial motive here. The AP has published many good critical stories of stadium projects, along with some losers. In this case, it's unintentional, but it's a product of laziness, and it shouldn't have happened.
There's no legitimate public policy case for this proposal, none. But a naive reader wouldn't know that, because it's not something the reporter considered.
Here's an example of accidentally biased bad reporting on a public stadium proposal. It includes some "facts" with most of the commentary from stadium proponents, and it doesn't discuss the economic consensus against such projects at all.
The San Antonio Spurs want to spend at least $500M on a new arena. Now they need help from voters
Voters in Bexar County, Texas, are set to decide on November 4 whether to allow $311 million in venue taxes to go toward helping build a new arena for the San Antonio Spurs.
buff.ly
And if you consider yourself a fiscal conservative and you support using tax dollars to subsidize a private business, then you're not really a fiscal conservative.