Roof of No Roof?
This weekend's Minnesota Twins-Hennepin County stadium proposal contains no provision for a retractable roof. Personally, I think one is necessary in the unpredictable Minnesota climate. The question, though, is who should pay for it? I sense, and maybe our economists could help us out here, that the retractable roof may actually be an example of a good that would not be provided by the market -- but should be provided anyway. What do you think?
posted by ssc | 4/24/2005 11:35:00 PM
NO
Economist here:
Most goods which are not provided by the market aren't provided because they shouldn't be provided. Government should step in only in those exceptions where the market doesn't provide a good which should be. The canonical case of this is where the good has a positive spillover - that is, where there is no way of capturing through market prices all the benefits of the good. I think there is a spillover to professional sports. I like having the Twins here even though I've never gone to a game. I like the idea that I could. So I am willing to go along with a small tax to partially subsidize a stadium. A retractable roof? Given that a normal stadium appears to be enough to keep the Twins in Minneapolis, I don't see the spillover associated with a retractable roof, and thus I don't see the rationale for government involvement.
Post a Comment