The Edifice ComplexA case analysis of the Charlotte City Council.

Presented by:

Rebekah Canales

Michael Daniels

Anissa Jackson

Lisa Ortega

Tamela Loos

Michael Ekey

The Case

In 2001 the Charlotte

City Council proposed

building a new sports

arena for their NBA

franchise.

Analysis showed the

city would need to set

aside at least $2

million.

The Case

• The City Council, which was split on the project to begin

with, had two options:

1. Vote their support directly for the project and

allocate the $200 million.

2. Create a referendum to allow the public to vote

on the issue.

Some Context

• The current arena was 13 years old.

• The City Council itself was split on whether to use public funding for a sports arena.

• The NBA Franchise, which was privately owned, had threatened to leave Charlotte if a new arena was not built.

• Council members were concerned that this could mean a significant loss in revenue.

Some Context

• Not only was the city council split on the issues, members also were concerned about possible backlash for supporting it.

• If they put it to a vote of the public, it could take time for the measure to appear on the ballot and the team could decide to leave before the vote.

• Previous ballot measures failed at the polls due to the proposed arena being built within the city.

Decision Makers

This case focused on

the 11 City Council

members and the New

Arena Committee.

City Council and Mayor of Charlotte, NC.

The Options

• Vote on the measure to allocate $200 million to a new arena.

• Broker a partnership with the NBA Franchise to share costs of the new arena.

• Develop a special tax district around the proposed arena to help off-set costs.

• Allow the public to vote on allocating $200 million to build a new arena.

• Do nothing.

Ethical Framework

• “Get the facts”

• This case hinged on how the community/stakeholders would accept a new arena and how it is funded.

• Much of the cases focuses on how the New Arena Committee gathered information and how the city attempted to identify who would be impacted.

Velasquez, et al. 2009

Who is Impacted

Charlotte Hornets/ Hornets Owner, George Shinn

• The team needs a new/larger arena that includes suites and club seats

• Additional revenue through increased ticket sales

• Naming rights for the new coliseum

• Responsible for 70% of the costs to build the new arena

• Museum/hall of fame

City of Charlotte and Council

• Responsible for 30% of the cost to build the new arena

• Use of the new area for other events Increased revenue from uptown sales taxes

Who is Impacted

City/county taxpayers

• Possibility of increased

taxes to pay for the new

coliseum

• Higher sales taxes for

uptown businesses

Local/Uptown businesses

• Increased income generated

because of larger crowds

attending events/games at

the new coliseum

• Increase in sales tax for

businesses in the immediate

area

• Investment in public/private

partnerships to build the

arena

Who is Impacted

Pros

• Additional revenue to

surrounding businesses

• Increase sales tax revenue

for city

• Increased property tax

revenue for county

• Keep NBA Team

• Expanded entertainment

offerings

Cons

• Cost of tax revenue to off-set construction

• Political backlash for supporting the arena publicly

• Team still has option to leave

• Loss of business around current arena

Public Administration

“Events, circumstances, and times change, but the core

values of public administrators are constant”

-Frederickson 2005, 89

“American cities modify and adapt their structures as a

surprisingly rapid rate”

-Frederickson 2005, 162

Relevance to our Class

• We will face these decisions regularly. It is important to

understand how others navigated these situations.

• Importance of seeking input from stakeholders and public

cannot be understated.

• Solid ethical framework and decision-making process

must be in place and made public as well.

Relevance to our Class

• Important to understand how public-private partnerships are becoming the norm in government and not-for-profit work.

• Highlights the necessity of relevant and current data (financial, public opinion, etc.)

• Decision-makers must also have the analytical skills to understand the options and their impact on the community.

Questions Remain

If we had been asked to consult for the city, these are questions we would deem a priority:

• Were opinion polls among the public on-going to represent the mood of the citizens of Charlotte and their desires?

• Why was more consideration not placed into renovation of the stadium as opposed to completely building a new complex?

• Have they discussed all available options open to them with the NBA?

Final Thoughts

• The council seemed more interested in satisfying the NBA Franchise

Owner than their own residents.

• The city council seemed to forget in their deliberations was the

concept of the common good.

“The promotion of what is good for the polity as a whole and not the

interests of a portion of the polity at the expense of the rest of society” -

-Center for Civic Education 2006, 34

Thank You

References

• Center for Civic Education. 2006. “Res Publica: An International Framework for Education in Democracy.” Center for Civic Education. http://online.park.edu

• Frederickson, George H. 2005. Public Administration with an Attitude. Washington DC: American Society for Public Administration.

• Rhodes, Terrel L. and Linda E. Swayne. "The Edifice Complex: A New Coliseum for Charlotte?" The Public Manager Case Book, by Terrel L. Rhodes, 103-156. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Michael J. Meyer. 2009. A Framework for Thinking. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html.