Monday, January 23, 2006

Zimbalist now sings a different tune. Why?

We are sure all of you have read Mr. Zimbalist's "endorsement" of the new Yankee Stadium project.

This is the same Mr. Zimbalist who:

* in a 1997 study conducted by he and Roger Noll of Stanford found "no recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return investment."

* on a PBS Newshour on December, 22, 2004 revealed: "Practically every stadium that's come on stream in the last 20 years in the United States has been accompanied by a consulting report - these are hired-out consulting companies- that are working for the promoters of the stadium. They engage in a very, very dubious methodology. They make unrealistic asumptions and they can produce whatever result they want to produce. But the notion that you're rejuvenating the waterfront because you put a baseball stadium there frankly is silly. Yes, there's a quality of life that you're gaining but the idea...look, a baseball stadium is going to be used eighty to ninety days a year. And it's used for four hours a day when it is used. And those four hours have tens of thousands of people inside the stadium. They're not milling around on the streets buying shirts and hot dogs. They're inside spending money on concessions that are managed by the owner of the baseball team, whoever that may be. That doesn't promote development in the area. The greatest icon of the stadium in the United States is Yankee Stadium in the Bronx in New York. Go up there. Take a look at the development that should have been spawned according to these studies."

These are Mr. Zimbalist's words; not ours. Click the title above to see for yourself!


Post a Comment

<< Home