The City of San Jose has received the results of a commission studying the economic impact of a new downtown stadium for the Athletics. Not surprisingly, the report says it would be a dandy idea:
The development of a 32,000-seat ballpark with 81 home games and three non-MLB events a year would lead to $130 million in annual spending throughout the local economy and $2.9 billion over a 30-year period.
The analysis also shows that a new stadium would create 2,100 full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs in San Jose, of which 980 would be new jobs. That number does not include players but does include team personnel.>
Of course every single pre-construction study like this ever devised has said that a new ballpark would cause cash and unicorns and stuff to fall from the sky and it doesn’t really ever turn out that way, so people shouldn’t get too excited.
My view is that the A’s need a new park, that San Jose seems like the best option, and that as long as taxpayers aren’t footing the bill, go ahead and build. The thing, though, is that city officials shouldn’t be selling it to citizens as an economic development tool, because that just never pans out the way people say it will. Rather, they should be honest and say it’s a civic pride thing, and that they’re willing to pay a bit of money around the edges for land and infrastructure improvements if it means that they’ll get a big league team. Mostly because it has the benefit of being true.
The most interesting thing in all of this comes late in the article: “San Jose must be included in the team’s name, the city insists.” I can’t figure that the A’s would have kept the “Oakland” appelation after moving so far anyway — and it’s not like they haven’t changed things up multiple times in the past — but it will be odd to say the “San Jose A’s.” Cool-sounding, but odd.