SODO Arena EIS Economic Analysis
and Site Comparison Review 

JRC
Consulting 
September 24, 2013                             Randy Cerf, JRC Consulting                                               1

Economic Analysis & Site Comparisons
are unambiguously flawed 
Fails to provide any meaningful data to
compare site impacts 
Reaches absurd conclusions that
contradict the economic research 
Clear and incontrovertible bias 
Dozens of errors  understating costs and
exaggerating benefits of  SODO Arena 
Zero errors the other way 
September 24, 2013                             Randy Cerf, JRC Consulting                                               2

EIS Claims Arena Taxes as City Benefit 
Schools, Public
BLOCKED 
Arena                          Safety, Parks,
Taxes                                Administration 

Debt Service 
Ignoring diversion to debt
service 
Several other tax and city cost issues ignored as well 
Page 3

Five critical factors that differentiate SODO 
site not assessed in EIS 
1.     Will Arena lead to a loss of business and/or
jobs at Port or SODO or Ballard or lower
Queen Anne? 
In EIS, Extra time spent in traffic by a few
truckers is called, "the upper limit of the
2.     What mitigation investment would be                           potential impact on the Port" 
required to offset traffic impact? Would
infrastructure timetable be accelerated
displacing other City spending? 
Assess amplified marginal effects.                                                   3.     Would economic viability of Key Arena be
Don't just say, "it is already a mess                                                             threatened? 
so don't look at us." 
4.     Weigh number and nature of jobs that are
created vs. lost?  (Other than partial and
100 more
cars does not                100 more cars                       incorrect analysis under substitution) 
matter                     does matter 
5.     Does Arena traffic discourage others from
patronizing Pioneer Square or
Downtown? 
September 24, 2013                             Randy Cerf, JRC Consulting                                               4





Research Consensus Ignored or Disparaged 
"Few fields of empirical economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings. 
(Research has) uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports
facility construction and economic development" 
(Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1992; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll and Zimbalist, 1997; Waldon,1997; Coates and Humphreys, 1999) 
.Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 14, Number 3Summer 2000Pages 95114 
"There are also an overwhelming number of academic studies that show little or no economic benefits of sport
facility subsidization." 
"The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities" 
Why do sports arenas generally fail to boost the regional economies? 
About 60% of NBA franchise revenue goes to about 16 people. 
Very little of that money is spent in Seattle 
Except for $$$ spent by out-of-towners visiting for sports, most revenue displaces spending at other businesses 
Displaced revenue recirculates more effectively than Arena/Franchise revenue. Substitution therefore has an
amplified negative impact 
Instead EIS concludes $230-$260 million of 
incremental annual economic activity earning an 
incredible $103 million for Seattle alone! 
The most profitable collection of 
businesses in US History! 
. 

September 24, 2013                            Randy Cerf, JRC Consulting                                                5

No independent study of alternatives 
EIS is flawed 
The only intelligent 
comment on EIS: 
EIS is thick so it 
has to be valid                      Begin again. 
Give the Port and the public a
reasonable starting point to
comment on. 

The Port has the responsibility
to demand clean analysis. Until
the City provides it: 
Ignore EIS conclusions 
Seek out alternative
data 
6 
September 24, 2013                             Randy Cerf, JRC Consulting