With the Board of Supervisors' Budget and Finance Committee today bracing for the cold wind of hours of contentious testimony on the fiscal feasibility of hosting the America's Cup, here comes just what everyone wanted: Yet another financial study!
The regatta has already lived up to its touted job-generating benefits just among those tasked with preparing feasibility studies. When the supes today ponder the economic possibilities, here's what they'll have in front of them:
- Tomorrow's brand-spanking-new study prepared by the controller's office;
- A rosy report penned by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute and Beacon Economics, and;
- Another report from Bay Area Economics.
That's a lot of material to navigate. You could forgive the supes for leaping overboard.Update, 12:30 p.m.:
The controller's report has arrived. Its money shot:
Under specific development scenarios, the Northern Waterfront Alternative generates a positive fiscal impact on the City, when long-term tax revenues, foregone port income, and post-lease asset value to the Port are considered together. The original Host City Agreement would generate a negative return under these scenarios.
In essence, a plan shifting the action north -- requiring less constructions, fewer evictions, etc. -- should generate some $50.5 million over the next 70-odd years, while the original agreement on the table would lose the city $23.3 million, according to the controller.
The big factors for the so-called Northern Waterfront Alternatives are saving $16 million in dredging costs and actually charging Larry Ellison's "Event Authorities" fair market rent for land along the waterfront rather than simply ceding it.
Read the report here: 101259_economic_impact_report_final_2.pdf
Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly