Moving days
Sorry about the lack of posts as of late , lotta drama has been occuring in my life lately . Nothing deadly but a few speed bumps nonetheless . As they say - thats life . . .
Now that Q & R are long forgotten , the topic im hearing most has to do with where the Kings will be moving to . Personally I think it could be any one of three most discussed ( K.C. , Anaheim , or Vegas ) . I really dont care to much to be honest . As I always say , this was a nice city before the Kings and it will be after . . .
But , thats not actually what I meant to blog about (sorry , rambling ) . . .
I think ( hope ) a trend is developing . Looks to me that the citizenry is finally getting tired of major sports franchises holding them ( and their municipalities) for ransom . We here in Sac are all to familiar with the concept . Whether it be a stated fact by owners or a rumor going around - major league franchises have been playing cities against each other for some time now , but recently ( the last 5 yrs ) the owners of these franchises seem to be running into some opposition .
Seattle recently passed Initiative 91 , The San Francisco 49ers are moving to Santa Clara after a failed agreement to build an arena to coincide with the 2016 games , the A's are off to Fremont and we all know what happened here on 11/7. It seems even franchises that are synonymous with the city they play in ( Cleveland Browns , SF 49ers ) are no longer immune as of late.
I would like nothing more than to see owners play fair and stop threatening cities with a move every time things dont go there way . It shames me to see cities bending over backwards to accomodate these rich owners ( usually @ the expense of needed city services ) and the teams that they think are so important to their civic identity and pride . Dont get me wrong , I understand the inportance of teams / cities , and the identity and benefits both bring to each other .
So I ask , does anyone see ( or hope ) a trend is developing ? Are people and cities finally either not willing or not able to pay exorbant fees for franchises that have questionable economic benefit for their respective cities ?
Im just hoping the day is nearing when the cities and the team owners can play fairly and together on the same team .
Posts
3 responses:
I'm curious to hear exactly what benefit a cities identity gains from a sports franchise. For example, has Detroit's image as rust belt city blighted by white flight and increasing crime rates been bolstered by the presence of the Tigers, Pistons and Lions? How about Cleveland. Do West Coast people think of Clevelend and differently just because the Cavaliers play there? I think the people in Sacramento hyping this "Civic Pride" argument when it comes to the Kings need to get a life. Pro Sports franchises already enjoy monopolies. There is no reason cities and counties should subsicize their billionaire owners.
I couldnt agree with you more . At some time in the past sports teams started passing themselves off as civic neccessities not civic amenities. The people / municipalities started buying into it . I think that is the root of the problem .
Appreciated the economic study link. I've posted a related link from ULI which presents some of the cheerleading but also notes another study that apparently showed similar findings.
I wonder how much of it has to do with the location of the city and culture of that region. Like colleges, I imagine some cities are "sports" cities; others are not. A universal template--"if it works here, it'll work everywhere"--isn't sound logic.
Personally, I haven't been in Sac. long enough to know whether or not we're a "sports" city. It doesn't help that I'm not a pro sportsfan, which makes me inclined to agree with your necessity/amenity distinction.
http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_Roundup&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=74026
Post a Comment