An interesting story in the Free Press about the impact of Super Bowl is posted below.
Haven't you wondered why there has not been more beating of the drums from City Hall about our Super Bowl success story?
I told you that cross-border vehicle traffic was down sharply over that week-end when the Mayor/Chair of the Windsor Tunnel Commission was having trouble getting the numbers, completely contrary to the glowing estimates of what was expected to happen. [What is it in this City, we cannot get numbers for anything promptly!]
Over a month ago, the Mayor said "A preliminary study of the impact of Super Bowl XL on the local economy suggests Detroit's big game was a cash bonanza for Windsor and Essex County. While cautioning the final figures won't be known for about three weeks to a month..." Nothing has come out yet with real numbers, not even in the State of the City speech where one would have expected real facts and figures if there was a strong story to tell. [Hmmmm do I have to put up a calendar for this promise too? By the time I am done this BLOGsite might just be calendars!]
There is no doubt that Super Bowl was good for Windsor. Our downtown was busy (although the taxi strike made it harder for other spots to capitalize on the week-end) . Hotels probably sold more rooms than normal. Our "Sin City" name published all over North America won't really hurt and will probably help get us convention business.
However, the silence from City Hall suggests to me that it was not all that Eddie had hoped for!
Super Bowl's impact in Michigan scores low
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
Super Bowl items sell at the Super Bowl Shop in the Renaissance Center. The NFL thanked Detroit for "getting it absolutely perfect." (WILLIAM ARCHIE/Detroit Free Press)
Three months after Super Bowl XL lit up Detroit for a few high-voltage days and nights, tax-revenue figures indicate the event, while fun, had little overall economic impact on the state's economy.
New figures released by the Michigan Department of Treasury show that the state's sales tax receipts for February and March -- the two months when most Super Bowl-related sales would have been reported -- were up just 2% over the year before.
That 2% statewide gain -- representing about $20 million more in sales tax revenue on a base of almost $1 billion -- could be too negligible to draw any conclusions about its source, because it came from throughout the state.
Meanwhile, statewide use-tax revenues levied on hotels were up less than 0.5% for February and March.
A Detroit-area convention facility tax, which essentially is a hotel tax for the tri-county area, showed a 70% jump in February. But even that increase represented less than $1 million in net new tax revenue.
Terry Stanton, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said detecting Super Bowl impacts in the tax figures would be difficult. Tax receipts can be volatile from month to month and subject to timing issues regarding filing dates and times.
The National Football League and local tourism and economic development officials have reported a nearly $300-million local economic impact from hosting the game. That would include several types of spending, including hotels, meals and souvenir purchases.
But Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Inc., said Monday the latest tax revenue figures show that the huge media coverage surrounding Feb. 5's Super Bowl obscured what is really a modest economic event.
"My take all along with that, even if you take the upper range of estimates, $300 million is less than 1% of the state's gross state product," Johnson said. "And it probably wasn't that big.
"It's a big event in terms of media coverage, a wonderful event where Detroit showed itself to wonderful advantage, but something that in economic terms is a very small part of economic activity here in Michigan."
Johnson and other economists acknowledge that the Super Bowl probably added more to Detroit's economy than would happen in a typical Sun Belt host city, such as Miami or Phoenix, where tourism is strong most of the year.
"But even so, it was still a relatively small event in terms of the overall economy," Johnson said.
Haven't you wondered why there has not been more beating of the drums from City Hall about our Super Bowl success story?
I told you that cross-border vehicle traffic was down sharply over that week-end when the Mayor/Chair of the Windsor Tunnel Commission was having trouble getting the numbers, completely contrary to the glowing estimates of what was expected to happen. [What is it in this City, we cannot get numbers for anything promptly!]
Over a month ago, the Mayor said "A preliminary study of the impact of Super Bowl XL on the local economy suggests Detroit's big game was a cash bonanza for Windsor and Essex County. While cautioning the final figures won't be known for about three weeks to a month..." Nothing has come out yet with real numbers, not even in the State of the City speech where one would have expected real facts and figures if there was a strong story to tell. [Hmmmm do I have to put up a calendar for this promise too? By the time I am done this BLOGsite might just be calendars!]
There is no doubt that Super Bowl was good for Windsor. Our downtown was busy (although the taxi strike made it harder for other spots to capitalize on the week-end) . Hotels probably sold more rooms than normal. Our "Sin City" name published all over North America won't really hurt and will probably help get us convention business.
However, the silence from City Hall suggests to me that it was not all that Eddie had hoped for!
Super Bowl's impact in Michigan scores low
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
Super Bowl items sell at the Super Bowl Shop in the Renaissance Center. The NFL thanked Detroit for "getting it absolutely perfect." (WILLIAM ARCHIE/Detroit Free Press)
Three months after Super Bowl XL lit up Detroit for a few high-voltage days and nights, tax-revenue figures indicate the event, while fun, had little overall economic impact on the state's economy.
New figures released by the Michigan Department of Treasury show that the state's sales tax receipts for February and March -- the two months when most Super Bowl-related sales would have been reported -- were up just 2% over the year before.
That 2% statewide gain -- representing about $20 million more in sales tax revenue on a base of almost $1 billion -- could be too negligible to draw any conclusions about its source, because it came from throughout the state.
Meanwhile, statewide use-tax revenues levied on hotels were up less than 0.5% for February and March.
A Detroit-area convention facility tax, which essentially is a hotel tax for the tri-county area, showed a 70% jump in February. But even that increase represented less than $1 million in net new tax revenue.
Terry Stanton, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said detecting Super Bowl impacts in the tax figures would be difficult. Tax receipts can be volatile from month to month and subject to timing issues regarding filing dates and times.
The National Football League and local tourism and economic development officials have reported a nearly $300-million local economic impact from hosting the game. That would include several types of spending, including hotels, meals and souvenir purchases.
But Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Inc., said Monday the latest tax revenue figures show that the huge media coverage surrounding Feb. 5's Super Bowl obscured what is really a modest economic event.
"My take all along with that, even if you take the upper range of estimates, $300 million is less than 1% of the state's gross state product," Johnson said. "And it probably wasn't that big.
"It's a big event in terms of media coverage, a wonderful event where Detroit showed itself to wonderful advantage, but something that in economic terms is a very small part of economic activity here in Michigan."
Johnson and other economists acknowledge that the Super Bowl probably added more to Detroit's economy than would happen in a typical Sun Belt host city, such as Miami or Phoenix, where tourism is strong most of the year.
"But even so, it was still a relatively small event in terms of the overall economy," Johnson said.
No comments:
Post a Comment