America's Cup: Yet Another Study, Ahoy!
|Coming to San Francisco?|
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;
- Two studies crafted by the city's budget analyst, the last of which diverges $190 million from...
- The study prepared by the mayor's economic development office! But wait, there's also...
- Two different plans adopted by the Port of San Francisco. Also;
- 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: