I’d definitely say your concern was valid. Mr. Beilue cited the CEO of the development group who is trying to add a new ballpark and convention center to downtown Amarillo. The CEO suggests that part of OKC’s downtown transformation took part not only because of the Ballpark (ok, it played a part), but also because of the convention center that was built in the early 70′s! LOL
Even if he was referencing the upgrades, those are far down the list of the catalysts of renewal.

Like you have always said, it has been a mix of private and public rising from the dust together and everyone has benefitted.

Story in Amarillo newspaper about new ballpark:

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-08-03/plan-pegged-113m?page=3

Steve, I think your logic is right on. A perfect example of a ballpark not spurring development around it can be seen in Tulsa. While the ballpark has definitely been good for downtown, and has helped bring in thousands of new visitors, most of the development has occurred several blocks away. Like you said, several players must come together to make significant development happen.

I can assure you the Amarillo leaders have gone out with guns blazing about a new ballpark and they do not have support from residents of the city. They have no clue what it takes to make a significant redevelopment proposal and have tried to lure businesses downtown with strict codes and even stricter guidelines about how a business “should” look. Supposedly, many bars and restaurants are considering leaving Polk Street – the only real entertainment downtown – for other areas of freedom. There is hardly any police protection available at night, which is necessary when the main entertainment venues are located a block from the bus station (where prisoners are dropped off after parole). Just bad news all around.

Sounds similar to claims made here about the various MAPS overall, projects in particular, an NBA team etc etc.

I haven’t seen the data, but it would be interesting how much of the development (the Chamber keeps changing the number $2B, $3B $5B) is directly a result of MAPS? They included things like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial in their numbers (things that have absolutely nothing to do with MAPS). The data I was suggesting that would be interesting to see, what was the sales tax revenue growth rate in the decade before the ’93 MAPS vote? Seems to me that the only thing you can even begin to attribute to MAPS would be the remainder after you take out that base growth rate. No doubt sales tax revenues have increased over all since MAPS passed (in the original, it was bringing in $60M/year at the end). The average increased during MAPS 4 Kids. And the amount has increased again (to $100M/yr projected average with MAPS 3). But again, how much of that would have just happened anyway?

But back to the article, hard to really justify the argument that a Ballpark (that is very seasonal) would lead to year-around prosperity for all the surrounding restaurants bars etc. For those that are only open and operating within the Ballpark, ok, maybe. Entirely different matter to talk about businesses around a year-round facility such as a Convention Center or multi-purpose Arena.

To some degree, Larry, you’re correct. But I’ve done my own calculation in years past, and the private spin-off that can be legitimately linked to the original MAPS does far exceed $1 billion.

Working downtown on the canal, I see the impact of the ballpark every day, and it’s not what these city leaders might think. Look, here’s how it works on a game day. People get off of work. They round up their families and/or friends. They eat an early “dinner” (meaning it is too early for a big meal, and when it is time for a big meal they will be at the game, so they stop for something quick on the way, or grab something at home). They go to the game. The game ends. They go home. Oh, sure, some will get there early enough to acctually eat and walk around a bit, but that number isn’t any larger than the average nightly foot traffic.

Basically they aren’t going to go shopping before a game, and if these city leaders think that a ballpark is going to create a retail revolution, they are horribly mistaken. Yeah, a ballpark will bring traffic to the area, but let’s not overestimate it’s impact.

A ballpark (or any entertainment venue) should supplement downtown development, not create it.

It sounds like the requestor had alr3eady made up his/her mind as to what conclusions they wanted to draw and wanted you to supply the “facts” needed.

Steve: the $1B to $2B does sound more legit. And there is no question in my mind that it has lead to development (just not the inflated figures the Chamber spouts). $1 billion is nothing to sneeze at so why do they feel the need to stretch it and blow credibility?

Although my basic question still remains. How much of even the $1 to $2B figure would have happened anyway? Maybe not in DT but other parts of the City? That is a lot harder question to answer. And I have never seen anyone even attempt it.

Oh, and reading the comment sections of the linked articles was like reading the Oklahoman feedback or OKCTalk (deja vu all over again). LOL