Another Super Bowl?!? Don't Buy the Spin

To the surprise of exactly no one, word began to get around on Tuesday that Indianapolis would be submitting a bid to host another Super Bowl.  Most reports suggested that the bid would be for Super Bowl LII in 2018.

During and after the completion of the Super Bowl festivities this year, it was a common to hear visitors review the experience as one of the best jobs hosting a Super Bowl ever.  Maybe even the best.  Such reviews are especially important since so many people, especially sports writers across the nation, were critical of the decision to choose Indianapolis in the first place.

Immediately after the Super Bowl was over, everyone knew that Indy would be seeking Round Two.  It's almost a surprise that it took this long.  The visitors loved it and the citizens of Indianapolis and Central Indiana had a great time and have been begging for more.

This morning, the Star reports that mayor Ballard and Governor Daniels announced that direct spending as a result of the Super Bowl was $152 million.  Although some spending projections were as high as $200 million, the numbers released today were higher than the more common $150 million projections that seem to be the only ones currently remembered.

But today's numbers are suspect.  As Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana points out, hotel and sales tax revenue don't seem to match up with the $152 million dollar story.  But even if the revenue numbers are correct, that's only part of what went on.

Today's numbers fail to take into account the grand expenses involved.  There is no mention at all of the two reports coming out of the CIB that says that organization lost a million dollars from the hosting duties.  There's barely a mention of the multi-million dollar Georgia Street project; a project which was supposed to have long-term benefits as a pedestrian mall, but has recently left businesses complaining it is often barren.

And Welsh is the only person currently talking about the troubles that businesses not located in the central downtown area faced.  Based on the hype, many restaurants and bars spent tens of thousands of dollars to stock up on food and alcohol to prepare for an onslaught of business that never came. 

For corporate restaurants this may not have been an enormous problem.  For "Mom & Pop" establishments, though, tying up that kind of cash in unused stock, much of it perishable, can be crippling.  It forces them to change their business model for the rest of the year and can risk putting them out of business.

So, as Indianapolis starts building excitement about the possibility of hosting another Big Game, remember that things from the last one may not have turned out as great as it seems.  I'm not saying we shouldn't want to host another one.  The last one WAS a great time and WAS great for the morale of the City.  We should demand more transparency this time around, though.  And we should make sure that we don't give the farm away to the NFL for the chance to host.

Let's just make sure we know what's going on before we put our arms around the idea of another Super Bowl and hug tight.

First Detailed Numbers Released on Super Bowl Costs

Shortly after the Super Bowl, I wrote about the possibility for Indianapolis to get an ROI on their hosting of Super Bowl XVI.  The newest report on the cost associated with that event seem to make the possibility of an ROI more plausible.

According to a Sunday Star article by Jon Murray, the CIB now believes its loss from hosting the Super Bowl will be approximately $350,000.  Previous estimates had that number as high as $800,000.

From that article:

The Capital Improvement Board says it spent just over $3 million on items ranging from labor to service contracts to equipment for snow removal -- a precaution that, because of balmy weather, didn't end up being needed.

But reimbursements from the National Football League and its contractors, already mostly in, are expected to offset nearly $2.7 million of that.

That leaves about $350,000 that will be footed by the CIB's budget -- better than the $810,000 loss that was projected based on estimates compiled last summer.

Indianapolis did a spectacular job hosting the Super Bowl.  That $350,000 has the possibility to be easily made up through the extra revenue brought in over the next several years should Indy's convention business get a significant spike due to it.

I fear, though, that readers of the Star's article will reach the conclusion that the CIB was the only organization that spent significant money to host the Big Game.  Several other significant expenses, such as the Georgia Street project, would never have been incurred were we not hosting the Super Bowl.  Those expenses need to be included in the total profit/loss statement for the city.  As I stated in my previous article, we are unlikely to ever have the complete expense of hosting the Super Bowl revealed to us.

We Just May Get an ROI on This Super Bowl, After All

Thursday night at the Circle

Wow, Indianapolis.  Wow.

 

I have been a critic of the Indy Super Bowl from the beginning.  Sure, I was excited the city was getting a Super Bowl, but I hated the cost involved in them doing so.

 

Although the final deals have still never been brought fully to light, we do know a few things about the cost of the Super Bowl.  The CIB projected an $800,000 loss.  The Georgia Street project cost millions.  The NFL got waivers on hotel taxes and rental car taxes and others, as well as got several pieces of prime parking and other real estate turned over to them for the week at no cost.

 

Who knows what else.  More info will eventually come to light, but we're unlikely to ever be told just how much it cost us to get a Super Bowl. And with spending by visitors falling well short of the estimated $200 million, very few think that the event had any chance of being a fiscal positive for this city.

 

But I'm starting to think that it might squeak out a profit for us.  Not the event itself, not even close.  But the return the city may get in return visits and conventions and such.

 

Why think that?  Because, like you, I heard over, and over, and over again that Indianapolis did a SUPERB job hosting.  I never heard one negative report, and I heard several that said we just might've been the best Super Bowl host ever.  EVER.

 

Those are bold statements coming from a crowd of people that are often judgemental and often have say in where there companies will spend their money. 

 

Today we are a city that just had every single hotel room filled with people that mingled in our downtown for a week.  They were amazed by it.  They loved the atmosphere.  They loved the proximity of everything.  They, well...they fell in love with Indianapolis.  They are leaving thinking about how great of a place Indy is for hosting an event.

 

So don't be surprised if we start seeing our convention calenders filling up.  Don;t be surprised if we don't see a few more companies choose to put some offices here.  Don't be surprised if we don't see Indy begin to benefit form the cost of hosting a Super Bowl.

 

But the clock is ticking, too.  Our amazing job hosting a Super Bowl will almost certainly get us the ability to host at least one more.  Probably within a decade or so.  And that means that any added benefit will have to be achieved by then.  We set a precedent on what we'd give the NFL to allow us to host, and they'll expect at least that much next time. So if we can't make up our losses by then, it's still a loser.

 

So how do we begin?  As I saw someone else point out recently (and I'm sorry I cannot seem to find the article to give proper credit...) I think we begin by bidding for the 2016 political conventions.  Now that we've very successfully hosted a Super Bowl, there's not too many other big events that can consider ruling us out.

 

P.S. - If you never got a chance to go downtown and experience what the city put together, you really missed out. I just went down there and walked around for a few hours. No events. No parties. Just walked around. It was, nonetheless, an experience I will never forget. Completely amazing.

A view in Super Bowl Village Thursday night

Renaming Georgia Street...

There's been plenty of discussion on the renaming of Georgia Street.  It has been one of the heated topics currently circulating Indy politics that I have thus far been silent on.  Sunday the Indy Star's Matthew Tully and Erika Smith offered a unique "he said, she said" on the topic that I felt made it easier to address the issue.

Why?  Because both "sides" of the issue basically said the same thing. You see, neither seems to be a fan of any of the current suggestions to change the historic name of Indianapolis' "Georgia Street."

Tully immediately fills his role of "Keep it Georgia Street" supporter.  And many of his points feel valid.

First: Why bother changing the name?  Because of the Super Bowl? That's just silly.  Even if you are updating the street for the sake of the upcoming NFL Championship, that shouldn't mean you have to change the name.  As Tully points out, do you think another major city would change a major street name for a Super Bowl? Of course not.  This is just another case of Indianapolis bending over to seem super-cool and awesome for their upcoming seven days of NFL visitors.

Says Tully:

We need to stop sounding puzzled as we ask newcomers from the coasts: "And why did you move here?" We need to stop treating every major convention or event that lands in our city as some sort of miracle worthy of leading the 6 o'clock news. We need to stop playing small ball on issues such as mass transit and education. We need to stop thinking that marketing strategies -- and, in this case, goofy name changes -- are what make us special.


Some advocates of the change have said it's problematic that Georgia Street, which will soon become one of the city's premier spots, is named for another state. Can you imagine such skittishness coming from the residents of Chicago (Michigan Avenue) or Washington, D.C. (Pennsylvania Avenue)?

News flash: This is a damn good city. A uniquely livable city. Enough of the self-conscious knee-shaking.

Smith offers her own perspective.  She doesn't sound convinced, though, that name change is such a great idea.  She more offers the perspective that name change isn't horrible if the name chosen isn't horrible. Early in her writing, she says:

I'm not opposed, that is, with two important caveats.


No. 1: City leaders have to make a real effort to solicit and then vet suggestions from residents about potential names. And I'm talking about a lot more than putting a survey on the Web for less than a week, and counting on bloggers and media outlets to promote it. That's lazy, arrogant and shortsighted.

No. 2: Once a new name is selected, most residents can't think it's stupid. (And yes, the suggestions of "Hospitality Way" and "Peyton Way," or any variation on those themes, count as stupid. I'll speak for the community on this one.)

In theory, if caveat No. 1 is handled correctly, then caveat No. 2 shouldn't come to pass. But if for some reason it does, then I vote for letting the Georgia Street name stand.

As Smith is well aware, one of the "stupid" suggestions she mentions here seems to be leading the way for potential new names.  The chance of some new suggestion being offered at this point having the ability to become the new name is slim.  If Georgia Street gets renamed, it's probably going to be one of the "stupid" names that Smith point out.  She later suggests putting off the name recommendation to some later date, but with both the Super Bowl and the election looming, that seems unlikely.

So, I guess it's time where I finally submit my perspective on all this.  First, I wonder about the City's (read: Ballard administration's) point-of-view on renaming the street to begin with.  With all the other changes the City has been willing to make for the Super Bowl, many without local residents' support, I am forced to wonder if renaming the street wasn't part of some hush-hush promise made to the NFL in the bid to get the Super Bowl.

Even if that is not the case, I must admit I find the Ballard administration's commitment to name change curious.  Some issues are worth fighting for, even if they are political suicide.  A street's name change does not qualify.  For the current administration to be so adamant about proceeding, in the face of enormous amounts of public outrage and just before an election, is confusing.

If changing the name for the sake of the Super Bowl was so important was so necessary, then why not make a temporary change like they have for NCAA events in the past?  I clearly remember street signs downtown getting changed to things like "Final Four Blvd" for the duration of the city's events.  Why are such changes out of the question for Georgia Street in this case?

Mayor Ballard, there is no good reason to change the historic name of this downtown street.  The citizens of your city have made it clear that they vehemently oppose such a name change, even with the massive face lift that is underway and even with the upcoming Super Bowl.  Leave the name the way it is.  Georgia Street can be just as impressive a name as Championship Boulevard or Hospitality Way or whatever other stupid name you want to consider.  Please, Mr. Mayor....just leave it be.

Rivera's Proposal Attacks Indy's Poor, Neighborhoods, and Private Property Owners so the City Can Kiss a Little NFL Butt


  On June 27th, At-Large City-County Councillor Angel Rivera introduced what became Proposal #188.  According to the digest of the proposed ordinance, it "amends portions of the code pertaining to the permitting, licensing, and organization of activities related to special events licensed by the department of code enforcement, and adds a new chapter creating an annual license for ticket broker engaged in the sale or resale of tickets on public streets, sidewalks, and alleys."



Councillor Rivera



Oh, is that all?   Well that sounds innocent enough, I guess.  Like most digests and summaries these days, though, it's a nicely written paragraph that has very little to do with what the bill or ordinance contains.  In reality, they are written the way they are so folks like you and I with a little political interest look at the digest and move on, uninterested.

Let me tell you a little secret that Angel Rivera and any other supporters of Proposal 188 don't want you to know:  This ordinance is an all-out attack on property owners, neighborhoods, and the poor in our city, especially downtown and especially because of one week of festivities surrounding the 2012 Super Bowl.

Let's break 188 down...

First, Ticket Brokers.  188 repeals two other sections of code (specifically 407-107 through 407-109 and Chapter 431, Article II) regarding selling and reselling of tickets around NCAA events, NFL events and at Victory Field.  What it replaces these with is an attack on the poor who are trying to make a little income to support themselves by selling tickets on the sidewalk. It does this by saying no one can resell or repurchase a ticket within ONE MILE of: Lucas Oil Stadium, Conseco Fieldhouse, Victory Field, Hinkle Fieldhouse, MuratTheatre at Old National Centre, Indianapolis Convention Center, Indiana State Fairgrounds, and White River State Park...or any other place where more than 500 people can gather.  (Well, not quite no one....people with a license or with written permission from the event organizers are allowed....so no one.)

Is it really that bad to see some people trying to sell tix on the sidewalks?  Are they really that much of a bother?  I agree that there is some risk of counterfeit tickets, but it is a small one.  Besides, 188 does nothing to prevent counterfeit tickets other than saying you can't sell within a mile of the event and by saying the police have the right to inspect the tickets being resold or repurchased (the police probably won't know if it's counterfeit much better than you or I would).  This is just an attack on the poor, similar to the bills preventing panhandling, because the city refuses to let visitors know that the poor and homeless exist here in the Circle City. Ticket resellers present very little potential harm and this ordinance is not about fixing that.  The City doesn't want the resellers out there because the NFL doesn't want them there...it's as simple as that.

Next, 188 attacks the street vendors.  God forbid you try to buy a hot dog from someone other than the NFL or the NCAA, because that's basically what 188 prevents. The ordinance creates "Clean Zones" (their term, not mine....sounds like something established in the event of a plague).  These Clean Zones are a vague, undefined area (the clean zone for each event will be specifically designated at some unknown time before the event) where street vendors cannot make their living without the specific permission of the event organizer.  We all know what that means...no street vendors allowed unless they pay the NFL or the NCAA or whoever some outrageous fee that will make it unappealing and probably unprofitable for the vendors to be there.  I guess they'll probably go a mile away and try to sell their hot dogs to the ticket resellers.

The included events?  The 500 Festival, Indiana Black Expo, The St. Patrick's Day Parade, The Circle City Classic Parade, The Circle of Lights, The Indiana State Fair, all NCAA Championships or related events, Big Ten Championships or related events, NBA Finals or All-Star games and related events, NFL Super Bowl, Pro-Bowl, draft and related events, WNBA Finals or All-Star game or related events.  Yep, pretty much everything.

Finally, Proposal 188 attacks private property owners.  You know those ultra-convenient lawns that the owners will let you park on for a fee? These owners are responding to a market-based demand for close, convenient parking.  Well, don't get used to seeing them anymore.  If the property is within the aforementioned vague clean zone, you have to pay a fee for a license to allow for this parking. What damage was being done by the owners providing this service?  None at all.  This is just a way for the City to make a money-grab.  $75 for the right to let people park on your lawn or a big fine if you get caught doing it without a license.  And who are these property owners?  Again, they are almost exclusively the poor and the lower-middle class who are just trying to have a little extra to put bread on the table with.

The City won't have that, though.  You see, the NFL owns us now.  If the NFL wants to make the money, they get to make the money.  If the NFL says they don't want to see it, we'll pass an ordinance to make it illegal.  None of this is about doing anything that is better for the City in the long run, it's all about doing what the NFL wants for a one-day event and making it permanent.

Proposal 188 will probably be coming up for a vote on Monday 8/15.  That's not set in stone, yet, because the Council won't release their agenda until Friday 8/12 (they'd hate for us to have any real time to examine the proposals they'll be discussing).  I'll update on here if that proves to be the case.

***UPDATE***
Thanks to Had Enough Indy? for posting this update on 188. It points out the Rules and Public Policy Committee will have 188 at the top of their agenda tonight at 6:00 PM in room 260 of the City-County Building.  The blog also has some very good investigative reporting into the details of 188.  I recommend you check it out.