You have to look at the big picture of lots of different cases, rather than just looking at one example, to avoid the correlation == causation trap.
The other thing to look at would be, "what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater economically beneficial impact.
>"what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater economically beneficial impact.
Not in Arlington. It's a driving city between Ft. Worth and Dallas. No one is going to go visit Arlington because of robust public transit. They'd at best drive through to get to the Cowboys or Rangers games.
Yes, they are transferring the economic activity that comes with Cowboys and Rangers games (which are going to be played, new stadium or no) to Arlington... Directly from Irving in the Cowboys case and indirectly from wherever the Rangers might move. Also they have a bunch of other events in Cowboys stadium... not sure about the Ballpark.
You have to look at the big picture of lots of different cases, rather than just looking at one example, to avoid the correlation == causation trap.
The other thing to look at would be, "what if we injected that money into the economy some other way, rather than into subsidizing a stadium?" It's possible that investing in, say, robust public transit would have an even greater economically beneficial impact.