I have been reading the NSS report trying to find some consistancies on the figures they use and there are some statistics that should tell our city leaders why this isn't such a good idea:
From pg 19:
Relative to 48 other full‐season Class A markets, the Wilmington market ranks in the bottom half in terms of population (42nd), median age (39th), median income (35th) and corporate base (42nd).
Notice how they phrased it? We rank in the bottom half? While technically correct we do rank in the bottom 15% when it comes to population.
They use a 30 mile radius when talking demographics but they use 35 miles when doing the comparison to other Class A teams in one of this lists.
They then say the area has s strong military presence that should help attendance when those areas are 70 plus miles away. My question on this is why not go 120 miles and include the Raleigh metro area as well?
Heres the statistic that should be useful to Council from pg 18
The average pop. within a 30 mi radius averages out to be 1,211,336 for all 49 teams
The MEAN is 675,839
Wilmington is at 348,000 (I rounded it off)
There is no way the economic impact of the stadium here could be compared to others within the league when in fact our population is half of the mean.
But our small size will impact other areas of the report to include non tenant use of the stadium. Most other stadiums referenced in the report have fairly extensive HS/Youth/College baseball usage, yet the report indicates in another section that Wilmington has far less potential for that, and for THOSE events I would suspect, based upon our population that our attendance would be far less (like half) for non tenant use.
We cannot support an investment of this size - 33% of our annual budget, when our population is half that of the mean average for all teams. This is why Mandalantas 18% is based on minimal financial outlay of their own, upfront.
Now consider this.
If the employees are city/county do we wish to be on the hook for pensions and healthcare for these public servants? They would pay us $75K annually for maintenance so I assume the employees performing this maintenance to be government employees.
This requires a large outlay for taxpayers. IF these are in fact government employees then the city's outlay stretches out far beyond 30 years when you look at pensions.
I thought we were trying to shrink government and reduce debt.
More information about formatting options