Impact on Local Economies

Really interesting survey of 46 academic economists just released by the University of Chicago. They were asked about the White House's rent control proposal. The results are fascinating: Only 1 of 46 said it would substantially help middle-income households long term. Only 3 of 46 said it would NOT substantially reduce supply of available apartments. (While the White House plan excludes new construction from rent caps, the majority of economists -- 62% -- said it would still reduce supply, while the remainder said they were uncertain.) And 0 of 46 said it would substantially reduce income inequality over the next decade. It's worth noting the respondents are 46 economists in academia. They work for schools like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. All 46 work for schools in "blue" states -- reminding us, once again, that opposition to rent control is not a partisan issue or an industry thing. It's just common sense, and yet for some reason we still sometimes read media reports saying things like "economists have mixed opinions on rent control" or ignoring academic research altogether. The University of Chicago survey allowed respondents to provide free-form commentary, and some were quite interesting: -- "Experience indicates that rent caps or controls typically backfire." -- "Rent control reduces investment in both existing and new housing. A very bad idea. Embarrassingly bad proposal." -- "Only owners of more than 50 units are affected. Many poor people would find this does not apply to their landlords. Rent controls have a bad track record of helping the poor." -- "Might increase [inequality] by benefiting existing renters and hurting new renters." -- "Some of the winners whose rents get capped will be wealthy people. This too blunt an instrument (i.e. not targeted to helped lower income people) to deliver this kind of payoff." -- "Current renters would be better off (perhaps not substantially) but it will be worse for potential movers and new renters." -- "It would help some, be irrelevant for most, and hurt others by reducing availability or quality. Poor choice for redistribution, and difficult to believe effective against inflation." Trust the science. If we really care about protecting low- and middle-income renters, the best thing we can do is build more housing. Build housing of all types and all price points, but especially more affordable and attainable housing. Income-restricted affordable housing is rent control targeted to those who need it most, without the side effects of traditional untargeted rent control. Cities and states have the tools to encourage a lot more of it, and they have a real window of opportunity right now as developers look to stay busy in a high-rate environment where most market-rate deals aren't penciling out. But it takes a mindset of "yes more housing, and let's remove the hurdles and the nonsense" to get there. #rentalhousing #rentcontrol #affordablehousing

$6 billion. 2,500 affordable homes. Zero taxpayer money for the stadium. Here's how one Queens project rewrote the playbook: Willets Point is building the affordable housing first. The stadium second. And the numbers tell a different story than every other stadium project: • 2,500 below-market apartments (100% affordable) • First privately-financed stadium in NYC in generations • $6+ billion economic impact over 30 years • 14,000 construction jobs + 1,500 permanent jobs • Stadium opens 2027, housing starts moving in 2026 This isn't just big. It's the largest all-affordable new construction housing project NYC has seen in 40+ years. But here's what makes this different from every other stadium deal: Most stadium projects work like this: • City pays for stadium • Developers build luxury around it • Ordinary families get pushed out • Original community sees zero benefit Willets Point works like this: • Soccer club pays for their own $780 million stadium • 2,500 affordable homes anchor the entire project • 15% of units reserved for formerly homeless New Yorkers • Local residents get hiring priority for 16,000 new jobs The timeline reveals the priorities: Phase 1 starts now: 880 affordable apartments by 2026 Phase 2 follows: Stadium + 1,400 more affordable units by 2027 They're building homes before entertainment. The location makes it work. You've got: • Mets at Citi Field next door • US Open tennis center walking distance • Subway and LIRR station right there • Three major sports venues in one transit hub Most cities build empty stadiums that sit unused 300+ days a year. NYC is building a neighborhood that works every single day. The soccer stadium just happens to be part of it. The real question: Will other cities follow this model? What do you think, is this the future of stadium development?

Why I'm bullish on Las Vegas growth: the city is rapidly becoming a global sports and entertainment hub that brands can’t ignore. In 2024, Las Vegas welcomed 41.7 million visitors, generating a record $87.7 billion for the local economy, up 7% in visitor spending from the previous year. This growth reflects the city’s shift into a multifaceted entertainment powerhouse. Major sporting events are key drivers. Super Bowl LVIII alone brought $1 billion in economic impact with 330,000 visitors. The 2024 Formula 1 Las Vegas Grand Prix attracted 306,000 attendees and added $934 million. Even the 2025 National Rugby League opener boosted the economy by $100 million with 45,000 fans. Tourism growth supports 252,000+ direct jobs, and nearly 385,000 jobs overall when including indirect impact. If anything, this also shows how critical this sector is to local employment. For brands, this means clear opportunities. Las Vegas’s rising global sports profile offers unmatched visibility and engagement. Strategic event partnerships connect brands to diverse, international audiences. Plus, expanding infrastructure, like new direct flights from Sydney via Qantas, makes access easier for visitors worldwide. Las Vegas’s booming economy, fueled by sports and tourism, is a prime market for brands ready to grow alongside it. #lasvegas #tourism #sportsbusiness #sportsmarketing

They bought 135 acres for $88M. And turned it into a $3.5B development. All because they knew what a stadium could really do. Here's the mixed-use play that's transforming San Diego: Most people saw an old stadium. Smart money saw a catalyst. And they were right. Here's how San Diego State turned dead space into the city's biggest bet: This isn't about sports. It's about raising the economic floor. Most people see: • One $310M stadium • 35,000 seats for games • Nice new venue Smart money sees: • Economic gravity center • Rising tide that lifts all boats • Productivity boost per square foot The secret? Think ecosystem. 24/7 activation vs. ghost town model. Traditional stadiums deliver: • Event-day revenue only • Empty parking lots between games • Dead zones 320+ days per year Their multipurpose approach creates: • Year-round programming • Multiple tenant anchors • Constant economic activity No more wasteland between events. Instead, they're stacking revenue streams. They're not building one business. They're building five: • College football (SDSU Aztecs) • Pro soccer (San Diego FC - MLS) • Women's soccer (San Diego Wave) • Major concerts and events • Training facilities and academy Plus the surrounding development: • Housing • Office and retail • Hotels • 80 acres of parks Look at the scale: • $88M land acquisition • $310M stadium investment • $150M training campus • $3.5B total development value That's a 40X multiple on the initial land buy. This heals urban divides. Connects previously disconnected neighborhoods. Creates a self-reinforcing economic ecosystem. The stadium doesn't just generate revenue. It elevates everything around it. When you buy land next to economic gravity centers like this, you're not just buying real estate. You're buying into the rising tide.

If business and government leaders continue to ignore the dangers of #COVID19, it will hurt the economy and jobs. A new research report predicts the impact on the U.K. economy of Long COVID: “Based on the assumption that there are no long-term healthcare funding commitments to manage Long Covid, the results estimate that Long Covid is likely to reduce GDP by around £1.5bn and 138,000 jobs each year. Were prevalence to increase to 4 million people per year by 2030, the negative impacts would increase to a reduction of around £2.7bn in GDP and 311,000 job losses each year.” We can ignore COVID all we want, but the virus is not ignoring us. It continues to circulate, evolve, and infect people, leaving a significant number with chronic health issues. As individuals, we should care more to protect ourselves. But the most important changes can only come from government intervention (mandating safe, filtered and monitored air in public spaces) and businesses (protecting the health of customers and employees and improving business outcomes with safer air and lower infections.) https://lnkd.in/gxVujczv

Hospitality leaders, you're sleeping on one of the biggest drivers of revenue in today’s market. Let’s talk about music. Let’s talk about travel. Now let’s combine them. Bad Bunny just proved in Puerto Rico that one artist can completely flip a destination’s economy. His residency generated more than $200 million. Hotels packaged tickets with stays and sold out instantly. More than 48,000 hotel nights booked, short term rentals surging, restaurants packed, flights full. What should have been a slow pre hurricane season turned into one of the hottest tourism booms the island has ever seen. One artist did that. Not a convention. Not a campaign. Culture did it. And if you think that is an isolated example, look at Taylor Swift. Her Eras Tour has been the single biggest tourism driver in the United States. Cities hosting her shows saw hotel occupancy outpacing major sporting events. Airlines scrambled to add capacity. Restaurants hit record sales. Local economies reported billions in direct spending. Fans booked multiple nights, extended stays, and turned her concerts into multi day tourism events. One artist did that. Here is the uncomfortable truth. Your traditional marketing plan will never outperform culture. Your billboard, your glossy ad, your generic campaign will never move people the way music does. Because music is emotional. Music creates community. Music creates urgency. And when music travels, it pulls hospitality with it. So what do you do with this information? 1. Stop waiting for someone else to move. Do not rely on tourism boards or city councils. Build relationships directly with promoters and artists. If you are not in those conversations early, you are already behind. 2. Stop selling just a bed. Fans are not booking your property for a mattress. They want an experience. Create packages with transportation, F&B, themed events, exclusive access, and local tours. Sell the story, not the stay. 3. Market like you are part of the fan base. Learn the hashtags, the memes, the language. If you want their money, speak their culture. Fans reward brands that actually get it. 4. Start measuring smarter. Occupancy is lazy math. Track length of stay, F&B spend, repeat bookings, social mentions, and long term lift in brand perception. Stop playing checkers when everyone else is playing chess. The lesson here is simple. A single artist can do more for your destination than years of advertising. Culture drives commerce. Music drives travel. And if you are not aligning your brand with cultural moments, you will get left behind while the bookings and revenue go elsewhere. Hospitality executives, the clock is ticking. Culture is not waiting for you. Fans are not waiting for you. The question is, are you going to adapt and capture it, or are you going to watch another Bad Bunny or Taylor Swift moment pass you by while your competitors cash in? --- If you like the way I look at the world of hospitality, let's chat: [email protected].

Urban planners are rethinking how stadiums fit into the fabric of a city. Instead of sitting as isolated venues, sports-anchored districts are becoming engines of revitalization—designed to blend seamlessly with neighborhoods and drive year-round activity. Examples include: Edmonton’s ICE District, reshaping downtown with housing, retail, and entertainment; Columbus’ Nationwide Arena District, turning a former industrial site into a walkable hub; Calgary’s Culture + Entertainment District, weaving together sports, arts, and housing; St. Louis’ CITYPARK MLS stadium, anchoring new mixed-use growth in the heart of downtown; and Detroit’s District Detroit, transforming vacant blocks into a vibrant destination. Each shows how sports-led planning can reignite economic growth and strengthen community identity. The impact goes beyond game day: - Walkability & Connectivity → Stadiums linked to transit, retail, and housing strengthen community ties. - Mixed-Use Activation → Restaurants, parks, and hotels keep districts vibrant long after the final whistle. - Inclusive Growth → Projects that combine housing (including affordable units), civic spaces, and entertainment help shape resilient, equitable cities. When done right, these developments aren’t just about sports—they’re about placemaking—creating destinations that celebrate local culture, attract investment, and foster sustainable growth. 📖 Full article from HOK here: 5 Ways Sports-Anchored Districts Are Revitalizing Cities - https://lnkd.in/gCuwrB6G #UrbanPlanning #CityRevitalization #SportsBusiness #StadiumDesign #Placemaking #EconomicDevelopment #FutureOfCities #HOK #HOKarchitects

our peer-reviewed study on Medicaid losses out today: https://lnkd.in/gsctAMfv Based on empirically derived parameters from prior studies of health outcomes, healthcare systems, and local economies, the estimated health and economic impacts (per 100,000 people losing Medicaid coverage) include: 13-14 excess deaths annually 810-924 preventable hospitalizations annually ~2,582 jobs lost annually ~$1.2 billion in reduced economic output annually Rural hospitals face heightened risk of closure, with impact disproportionate to coverage losses due to the high concentration of patients on Medicaid in rural areas. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) experience revenue reductions of 18.7-26.1%.

Rural healthcare is at a breaking point…and policy decisions in Washington may push many over the edge. The Senate’s proposal to cut the Medicaid provider tax cap from 6% to 3.5% for expansion states may seem like an accounting change. But for rural hospitals, it could be catastrophic. Rural hospitals are already operating on razor-thin margins, if profitable at all. Nearly half of all rural hospitals ran at a loss in 2023, and over 300 are at immediate risk of closure according to Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. Medicaid is the financial lifeline for these institutions and often the single largest source of coverage in rural communities where poverty rates and chronic illness are higher than average. Provider taxes allow states to draw down federal matching dollars to support care. Cutting this off puts essential funding in jeopardy. But this is bigger than Medicaid. Rural hospitals are more than just healthcare providers - they are #economic engines. In many rural areas, the hospital is the largest employer, providing hundreds of stable, skilled jobs. These hospitals support local economies, attract other businesses, and offer critical infrastructure in times of crisis. When a hospital shuts down, the ripple effect is devastating: jobs lost, ERs closed, patients forced to travel hours for care, or go without. I’ve written times before that we cannot balance the budget by sacrificing rural health and rural economies. I cannot stress enough the role healthcare plays in the economies of rural America. The consequences would be felt far beyond hospital walls: in lost lives, untreated illnesses, and communities pushed to the brink. Yes, Medicaid, and healthcare in general, need thoughtful oversight. But we must fix inefficiencies without cutting off access for the most vulnerable. Now is the time for policymakers to listen to rural hospital leaders, clinicians, and communities.

After my parents died, I went back out into the world. I traveled to conferences, shopped at stores and spent money at restaurants. I did what I stopped doing when my caregiving experience intensified four years ago. I stopped spending money. I did try to spend money. I planned a road trip in September 2021 to take some time to rest. But then my mom had another health care crisis — a heart attack — and then my brother died, which broke my mom’s heart in a more significant, permanent way. The crises continued — my dad suffered terrible wounds after an awful fall, my mom continued to decline. My breaks became time with Netflix. I know I’m not alone in this experience. When a caregiving experience begins, at least two individuals drop out of our communities — the caree and the family caregiver. My parents had been wonderful contributors to local, regional and national economies until their illnesses and declines kept them home. We often look to the cost to the health care system and, importantly, to the family caregiver when a family member needs our help and care. It’s also important to look at the impact on the economy of our local community. Let’s do a little math. Let’s say 15% of population within a community may be in a caregiving situation. To make the math easy, let’s look at a community of 100,000 residents. Let’s say a family caregiver once spent $20 a week visiting local restaurants and shops. When that spend stops, the monthly cost to the community is $1,200,000. (My math: 15,000 x $20 x 4 weeks = $1,200,000.) That’s a significant loss of revenue for both businesses and the local municipality. We could say that perhaps that spend pivots to a different type of service, like hiring help through a local home care agency. The cost of home care, though, is often out of a family’s means. I recently read a comment from a home care executive who said he knows he’s providing services that only 5% of families in the marketplace can afford. Our communities don’t offer enough help and support for family caregivers. We don’t have enough adult day services, educational programs, support groups, coaching services, financial assistance and respite programs. Because there isn’t enough, family caregivers go without enough, which keeps them disconnected from their communities. We’re in our houses, working 24/7. Our caregiving experiences can be detrimental to our well-being and financial security. Our caregiving experience also puts the financial well-being of our communities at risk as well. I first shared this insight at the 3rd National Caregiving Conference I hosted in 2018. Since then, I do my best to offer additional perspectives in a workshop I regularly lead called, “How Will We Care?” Join me on April 30 at 1 pm ET for an updated presentation of “How Will We Care?” and to add your thoughts to our conversation. How will we care? Let’s figure it out, beginning with our discussion on April 30. #caregiving #careeconomy