Saints withdraw 2012 Superbowl bid
Wow, where are you getting your information from? I recall debating this topic pretty fiercely the past few years and I don't remember any of what you just typed.
1) Blanco didn't whine about giving the Saints any money. The complaint was that the shortfall was having to come out of the general state budget because the projected source of revenue for the payments was not accurate. The request was made to adjust the annual payments to an amount more in-line with what the hotel/motel tax actually generated.
2) Blanco tried to get a deal done. She even proposed the construction of a new stadium which many will quickly shoot down as her going through the motions, yet it was more than anyone else has come close to doing. Benson did not show a willingness to negotiate with her because she approached him with the request to reduce the amount of the payments. Both parties opted to slinging mud at each other instead of getting a deal done.
3) New Orleans was not about to get a Superbowl with the string of new stadiums already promised Superbowls. It's possible that the Saints might have been in the running for the 2007 Superbowl, but the rest were to newly built or renovated stadiums since the last New Orleans Superbowl. The teams with newer stadiums are going to get the nod over New Orleans since those cities decided to subsidize their respective NFL teams with new digs.
A quick search of "economic impact of a superbowl" reveals an article from january of 2007 that predicted a "record $195 million in direct spending for Miami-Dade" during Superbowl XLI. The huge $300 million dollar numbers you see (someplace that I have never seen) are probably inflated figures using economic multipliers which are highly debated. Regardless, the state budget doesn't see all of that money. The immediate area sees that money, which is why the annual payments are to come from .... the local hotel/motel tax.
Starting to make sense yet?
Let me see if I can clear it up a little for you.
1) You basicly rephrased exactly what I wrote. The income from the hotel tax was earmarked for the Saints.. the state did not pay a penny into it. Therefore, Blanco did not "give" that money to the Saints. The part the state had to make up was as you stated "the shortfall". This was the amount that Blanco wanted reduced to zero (as in "any"). Your summary line says just that.. that Blanco wanted only hotel tax money to go to the Saints. Where's the disagreement?
2) I must have been absent the day Blanco offered a new state-built stadium to Benson and him turning it down. It seems the whole internet was absent too because I couldn't find any instance of it. If it even came up in a conversation, it was probably a Benson/NFL financed stadium. In either case, that is off-topic to what I was discussing.
3) I might have been a little obtuse here. By 2 Superbowls, I was referring to 2010 and 2012. I'm pretty sure the 2007 Superbowl was awarded before Blanco entered office, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, you are perfectly correct about the string of new stadiums getting Superbowls. Arizona in 2008, Tampa (old stadium) 2009, New Giants Stadium 2010, New Dallas Stadium 2011. Well it turns out that the new Giants stadium won't be ready in 2010 so the NFL turned to who?... Miami just hosted the Superbowl in 2007. The obvious choice? New Orleans!! But New Orleans does not have a deal in place.. so Miami gets a second Superbowl in 3 years. The latest bid is the topic of this thread, 2012. Again.. no deal, no bid. 2 Superbowls.
4)
azcentral.com | Phoenix Arizona News - Arizona Local News
You can debate this one all you want.. I'm not an economics professor by any means. The "official" NFL claim is 300 to 400 million. Google "superbowl economic impact". All I know is that if a waiter makes a few extra bucks during the super bowl, he tends to spend it. If he spends it at a local store, that store owner spends the extra profit he just made. Each time the money is spent, the state gets a sales tax cut. All from money brought in from out of town. Which gets back to my original point.. doesn't an investment from the general fund of 6 or 7 million make sense to bring in the millions from not only the Superbowl but the priceless exposure the city and state get from hosting it?