2019 Power-Points & Presentations
The power points that were uploaded to the City server a few minutes before the start of the Plan Commission, on August 28, 2019 were never presented at that meeting because the Chairman postponed the NU issue to September 11. The residents felt they had to modify their power points for the later meeting.
See the September 11 presentations and accompanying power points:
Below is the Economic Impact power-point presented by economist John Nader on September 11, 2019 to the Plan Commission.
EEG analysis.pdfBelow are attorney Laurie McFarlane's two power-points.
1. A Brief History of Conflict & Litigation over For-Profit Events & Pro Sports in the U2 District
2. Standards for Zoning Amendments
NU - Timeline.pdflaurie, Five Standards.pdfBelow is Ken Proskie's power point , which was printed "sideways" in the October 28 and May 24, 2021 City packets. One additional slide was presented in the same power point at the September 11 Plan Commission meeting.
powerpoint ken NU sept 11 2019.pdfBelow are Yvi Russell's text and accompanying power-point re. NU Proposal's Uses and their impact on the neighborhood
Yvi Russell sept 11, 2019 powerpoint.pdfUSES PC powerpoint.docxSeveral days before the October 28 Planning & Development meeting, the residents opposing NU's text amendment proposal asked Chairman Robin Simmons that their expert witnesses be granted time to present data at the meeting. The petitioners explained that according to the Illinois Supreme Court an expert witness cannot be denied or restricted as to the time needed to present data in full at a deciding municipal body.
At the October 28 P &D meeting, Simmons allowed NU to present their power-point for 10 minutes, a power-point which was also published by the City. The resident's expert witnesses, however, were only granted half that time, 5 minutes split among the two experts. It was not possible for them to present their entire data under those time constrictions.
Mr. Guimond's economic findings and references are published below. On November 11, 2019 he pleads to the Council, again, to read and heed his economic reports. The email follows after the testimony.
Guimond 2019 oct 28 P&D Testimony.docxReferences provided by Mr. Guimond for his presentation
REFERENCES
Baade, Robert A., Stadiums, Professional Sports, and Economic Development: Assessing the Reality,” Heartland Institute Policy Study, April 4, 1994.Baade, Robert A., “The Impact of Sports Teams and Facilities on Neighborhood Economies: What is the Score,” in The Economics of Sport, William S. Kern, ed., Upjohn Press, January 2000.Baade, Robert A., Robert Baumann & Victor A. Matheson, “Selling the Game: Estimating the Economic Impact of Professional Sports through Taxable Sales,” Southern Economic Journal, vol. 74(3), p. 794-810, January 2008. Baade, Robert A. & Richard F. Dye, “Sports Stadiums and Area Development: A Critical Review,” Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 3, August 1988 265-275.Baade, Robert A. & Richard F. Dye, “The Impact of Stadiums and Professional Sports on Metropolitan Area Development,” Growth & Change, Journal of Urban and Regional Policy, Spring 1990.Baade, Robert A. & Allen R. Sanderson, “The Employment Effects of Teams and Sports Facilities,” in Sports, Jobs and Taxes. Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist, eds. Washington: Brookings Institution.Crompton, John L., “Economic Impact Analysis of Sports facilities and Events: Eleven Sources of Misapplication,” Journal of Sports Management, 1995, 9, 14-35.Humphreys, Brad R. & Adam Nowak, “Professional Sports Facilities, Teams and Property Values: Evidence from Seattle’s Key Arena,” Working Paper No. 15-06, West Virginia University, May 2015.Matheson, Victor A., “Mega-Events: The Effect of the World’s Biggest Sporting Events on Local, Regional and National Economies,” in The Business of Sports, Vol. 1, Dennis Howard & Brad Humphreys, eds. (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2008), p. 81-99.Noll, Roger, Stanford University, https://news.stanford.edu/pr/97/971218stadiums.html.Rosentraub, Mark S. & David Swindell, “’Just Say No?’ The Economic and Political Realities of a Small City’s Investment in Minor League Baseball,” Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 2, May 1991 152-167.Sanderson, Allen R., “Government and Football, the Illegal Use of Taxpayers’ Wallets,” Chicago Tribune, Sec. 1, p.11, February 5, 1996.Sanderson, Allen, Email to Scott A. Barnett, February 27, 1996.Supreme Court of Illinois, Northwestern University, Appellee v. The City of Evanston, Appellant, No. 50383, 74 Ill. 2d 80; 383 N.E.2d 964; 23 Ill. Dec. 93, December 4, 1978.On November 10, 2019 he pleads in an email to the Council, again, to read and heed his economic reports.
November 10, 2019
To:shagerty@cityofevanston.org,jfiske@cityofevanston.org,pcbraithwaite@cityofevanston.org,mwynne@cityofevanston.org,dwilson@cityofevanston.org,rsimmons@cityofevanston.org,tsuffredin@cityofevanston.org,Eleanor Revelle,arainey@cityofevanston.org,cfleming@cityofevanston.org,cityclerk@cityofevanston.orgCc:info@northwesternneighbors.org,spotlight.evanston@gmail.comDear Mayor and Council Members,
My name is Tim Guimond, I'm an economist and have lived near U-2 for over 30 years. I testified as an economic expert in 1996 (see the attached paper for more details). I was hoping to testify Oct. 28 at the P&D Committee Hearing but was not given sufficient time to do so: we were only given a couple minutes, far less than Northwestern, and inexplicably were called to speak BEFORE petitioner Northwestern, rather than AFTER. This was hardly fair since we were unable to rebut what they said.
I would welcome the opportunity to speak on Monday, Nov. 11. Obviously, Northwestern has the burden of proof that its proposal doesn't negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, and the Council has a duty to hold NU to this requirement. There are serious concerns about their proposal that have barely been addressed:
1. There's a vast economic literature on the impacts of commercial & professional events that has been ignored by NU, Chamber of Commerce and the Council. Please read the attached document which summarizes the consensus of economists: this is a loser for Evanston.
2. Most "new" spending during these events simply replaces or substitutes for spending that occurs without these events.
3. Other existing spending is "crowded out" because of added congestion during the events. The Chamber of Commerce doesn't acknowledge this effect but it's clear this is why several business owners testified against the 1996 proposal and against the current one.
4. The negative impact on property values is well documented: in 1996 proponent's own study found a 13% decline in property values near U-2; this will only worsen if you vote for this proposal. There's also evidence of actual home appraisals lowered because of proximity to the stadium area.
5. Northwestern contributes very little to Evanston: they don't pay ticket taxes or entertainment taxes, event attendees do; they don't pay property taxes, residents and businesses do. Northwestern listed all the utility and other taxes they pay to the city but this is nonsense: it's simply their cost of doing business, and would be paid anyway by hundreds of homeowners if NU wasn't located in Evanston.
I implore you to read my attached report and consider whether Northwestern has met its burden and whether their proposal would help or harm this city.
Respectfully Yours,
Timothy Guimond