The bottom line in stadium economics - team owners are the main beneficiaries

Seems no one wants to accept the facts plainly stated in Courtney Astolfi's Sept. 15 front-page , " Can stadiums carry the ball economically? " She reported that, "As West Virginia University economist Brad Humphreys put it during a June panel discussion at Cleveland Public Library, 'There's zero evidence, in 30 years of peer-reviewed academic research, that a professional sports team in a city generates any substantial new jobs, raises wages, raises income or raises property taxes.'"

When Dan Gilbert proposed his Cleveland casino, the promise was jobs and prosperity. Yet high staff turnover seems to have been no issue for Gilbert, who continues to reap the benefits of a "temporary" location which eventually became permanent and his successful campaign for overhead walkways, decreasing foot traffic in a downtown full of small businesses in need of patronage.

The only case that can be made and substantiated is that, when it comes to professional sports teams and/or casinos, the main people who benefit in terms of income are the owners. Until city leaders wake up to the fact they've become pawns to professional sports teams, casino owners and the like over the needs of the populace, they're throwing good money after bad.

Dennis Walsh,