Foundation Briefs Advanced Level September/October Brief Resolved
Download 0.68 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- In Defense of Impact Analyses
- Substitution Effect rebuttal
Pro Counters
Urban SprawlIn Defense of Urban Sprawl AMS Holcombe, Randall. “In Defense of Urban Sprawl.” Property and Environment Resarch Center. 2014. http://perc.org/articles/urban-sprawl-pro-and-con The term "urban sprawl" has a bad ring to it. The name reinforces the view that metropolitan growth is ugly, inefficient, and the cause of traffic congestion and environmental harm. Before we decide we are against urban sprawl, however, we should be clear about what it is and why we do not like it. Once we look at its specific characteristics, we can recognize their causes and what, if anything, to do about them. My study of metropolitan growth indicates that three kinds of development are typical of what we call "urban sprawl." They include: leapfrog development, strip or ribbon development, and low-density, single-dimensional development. Let us look at each type in turn. Leapfrog development occurs when developers build new residences some distance from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located closer to the city. In other words, developers choose to build on less expensive land farther away from an urban area rather than on more costly land closer to the city.
Does this mean that a sports event with a negative net benefit for the country should not be organized, or should not be supported by the government? It depends on what is included in the analysis and what is not, such as some long-term or positive external effects. These can be long-term effects on foreign direct investment or on the sports participation rate, health or labor productivity. Because these benefits are hard to estimate or to quantify, or rather arbitrarily, they are often left out. Most impact analyses fail to quantify externalities because they are typically intangible. Many refutation of these analyses often attempt to quantify these intangibles, and often show a net negative result. This omission cannot be looked as a failure of the economic impact study, and cannot conclusively be used to refute its results. Substitution Effect rebuttalSubstitution effect does not take into account out of town visitors, Fj Johnson, Garrett. “The Economic Impact of New Stadiums and Arenas on Cities” University of Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. The Nashville Convention and Visitors Bureau believed that direct spending gave the most accurate way to determine new and outside dollars that enter the local economy. Between 1997 and 2005, approximately eighty-five groups or events with one thousand or more attendees have used the stadium or arena, with thirty-two of those events exceeding fifteen thousand in average daily attendance. All totaled, an estimated 1.3 million people attended major events at the two venues between 1997 and 2005 outside of Titans’ and Predators’ games. Major events include: the CMA Music Festival, the Music City Bowl, SEC Men’s and Women’s Conference Tournaments, and the U.S. Figure Skating Championships. The average out-of-town attendance at these events was well over fifty percent, with the average total attendance at the arena being 11,777 and average total attendance at the stadium being 25,723.205 The average total spending from out-of-town visitors was approximately $3.5 million. The study found that between 1997 and 2005, an estimated $301,818,000 was spent directly on the eighty-five major events held at these two venues. This study avoids some of the flaws that were previously pointed out in this paper concerning impact studies. It did not look at the substitution effect on spending, but did not need to because the focus of the study was on the amount of money spent by individuals from out-of-town. Presumably, they were only in town for the specific event and would not have been in town otherwise. Because of this, they would not have spent their money on something else in the city instead of the event they attended. Nashville Convention and Visitors Bureau study methodology, Fj Johnson, Garrett. “The Economic Impact of New Stadiums and Arenas on Cities” University of Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. The direct impact is calculated by two different methods: a meetings/convention formula and a leisure spending formula. The meeting /convention formula is calculated by the total number of out-of-town attendees times the average amount of nights they stayed in the city (3.6 nights) times the average daily spending ($238). The leisure spending formula is calculated by the total number of out-of-town attendees times main event days times the average each person spent on leisure. Directory: school -> jchs -> staff school -> April 7, 2016 Theatre school -> Census in Schools and the 2010 Census – What’s Next? school -> Ap u. S. History presidents list the Young Republic, 1788-1815 school -> Your Name Period Date Chapter 24 Earth Science Word Study Movements of the Ocean school -> Introduction school -> Cutting Greenhouse Gases Global warming school -> Vocabulary sc geography The Land school -> Evaluate key political, social & economic changes that occurred in Georgia between 1877 & 1918 staff -> A history Of us secret Human Experimentation staff -> Things To Have Down Cold For The ap test Download 0.68 Mb. Share with your friends:
|