As a Boston resident, I'm always proud to see great events happening around the city – and across the state. But shouldn't those events – especially those that bring in tourist dollars – benefit our cities?
In an Op-Ed in Wednesday's Globe, James Rooney, Director of Public Affairs at the Boston Foundation, and Elaine Dandurand Beattie, Vice President of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau explain how the “anachronistic relationship” between Massachusetts and its municipalities make Sail Boston more of a cost than an opportunity for the city.
Their report, “Home Field Disadvantage” found that:
…due to excessive state restrictions on its ability to maintain a balanced revenue stream, the City of Boston not only did not gain revenue from hosting the 2007 playoff games, it actually lost revenue due to limited receipts and incurring costs that were not fully reimbursed. In contrast, the City of Denver, which boasts a wide range of local options with which to generate revenue, gained revenue from hosting the games. These two cities had very different experiences when it comes to benefiting from a major event held in their city.
After calculating tax receipts, reimbursements and expenses, the City of Denver gained $940,365 from hosting the 2007 postseason while the City of Boston lost $649,084. As a percentage of total state and local tax revenue, the City of Denver received 63% of total tax revenues from games it hosted, while the City of Boston received only 12%, a ratio of nearly 6 to 1. Simply put, while the Red Sox may have won the World Series in 2007 over the Colorado Rockies, its host City of Boston was at a clear home field disadvantage compared with Denver.
How do you think locally-collected funding should be handled?
[Crossposted from ONEMassachusetts.org]