On Dave Ribar’s Coliseum Parking Discount Analysis
February 6, 2010 – 2:41 pmDave Ribar posts an in depth look at my recently rejected proposal to discount parking for city residents at coliseum events.
Highlights of Dave’s post:
“The first problem is that lower parking fees are likely to lead to a loss in revenue to the Coliseum.
The second problem is that checking an attendee’s “local” status complicates the process of collecting a parking fee.
A third issue is that the scheme is likely to shift the incidence of paying for Coliseum events away from those who actually use the facility and toward other local residents.
To sum up, Tony’s proposal would likely reduce parking revenues; add to congestion, waiting times, and traffic problems…”
Dave’s response to a Keith Brown comment should be noted:
“For a concrete example with completely made up numbers, suppose that a given event currently draws 1,000 local cars at $20 per car; that is, that it generates $20,000 in parking revenue. Suppose now that the Coliseum cuts the parking fee for locals in half for such an event. The Coliseum will lose $10,000 on all of the local cars that would parked in its lots at the original $20 price, so we start down $10,000. However, as you and Tony have pointed out, there will be a demand response. The question is how big will this have to be?”
Thanks Dave for raising some legitimate concerns which I had already considered before making the proposal.
Let me backtrack and approach the same end result with a different process.
This idea stems from the fact that a family of four in Greensboro contributes around $2.40 per month to the Greensboro Coliseum via their city taxes. $0.60 per person. There are approximately 250K to 500K people in the surrounding area who get the identical benefits of having a coliseum…but contribute nothing toward the upkeep of the facility.
How about a simpler solution Dave? Since we know there are practically no additional costs involved in mailing a notice in your water bill how about we offer city residents a discount on refreshments. A coupon in your water bill for a free drink, popcorn, etc. Something in or around a $5 price range. (I was thinking more in line of a $2-$5 discount on parking instead of your mentioned $10 discount.)
Or we could just ask the County to pony up about $900K a year so the entire county splits the cost. Speaker from the floor that idea and see how many straight faces you see.
Dave, do we agree on principal? That it would be appropriate to give investors some type of return on their investment versus non investors receiving the same benefits as investors?
5 Responses to “On Dave Ribar’s Coliseum Parking Discount Analysis”
Tony:
Discounts at a facility that’s already losing money and that requires subsidies are a bad idea. Applying the discounts to popcorn is only a little better than applying them to parking.
Presumably, the Coliseum is already charging what the market will bear for concessions and parking. If lower prices for these things would increase revenues, those lower prices would and should be charged to all event attendees.
If we decrease the revenues going to the Coliseum, local taxpayers will have to pony up more in subsidies. The subsidies are charged to all taxpayers, not just those who attend events. The “discounts” that you are proposing would force local taxpayers who don’t attend events to subsidize other taxpayers who do.
I’m surprised that you would support this type of socialism.
By Dave Ribar on Feb 7, 2010
Dave, you are only assuming this would decrease revenue.
What if a $5 box of popcorn was $4 profit. Unlike the parking scenario a small increase in attendance would be more likely to increase overall income. In fact, if a $5 box of popcorn was $4 profit what the heck am I doing in the furniture business? I’m not sure how many people would say “I wasn’t going to go but I decided to go to the circus because I’m getting free popcorn”.
Makes you understand why no one in fifty years has come up with a plan to make the coliseum self sustaining.
DR: “I’m surprised that you would support this type of socialism.”
Talk about sticking the knife in and twisting it. I’m sure you had a big smile on your face when you typed that.
A good weekend to you Dave.
By Tony Wilkins on Feb 7, 2010
I know it isnt legitimate accounting but we must all remember that the CVM generates money that doesnt come through the front door. This moola isnt credited to the facility but does go to the owners of the facility. Which is in part why such facilities are often municipally owned.
% of sales taxes and hotel taxes.
But obviously I would like the CVM to perform better financially. However, I must note that we dont eat at the CVM unless we have to. Just too too high. Same with movie theater debate.
By mick on Feb 7, 2010
Tony:
I’m making the assumption that the Coliseum, like a local furniture business owner, has set its prices to maximize profits. The concession prices at the Coliseum seem to be in line with what related businesses, like movie theaters, charge.
With respect to the socialism charge, think about it for a minute. You’ve got a government developed, owned and subsidized facility (i.e., the government owns and operates the means of production). On top of that, you are proposing policies that could lead to the facility needing even more taxpayer subsidies, that is, becoming even more dependent on taxpayers. If it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck…
By Dave Ribar on Feb 7, 2010
I would like to see the city sell this White Elephant, but since it is a White Elephant it isn’t likely any one will buy it. One way to cut the costs would be to pay Brown just exactly what he is worth which certainly isn’t the case now. In fact, IMO he is being overpaid about $300,000. BB
By Brenda Bowers on Feb 9, 2010