Last week the Massachusetts House and Senate passed bills that would put $312 million of public funds towards a new home for the Boston Red Sox. The deal has the backing of Gov. Paul Celluci and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and, if you believe the politicians and the Red Sox, of the public as well.
The state's major politicians and the Sox can make this claim because they have hit on an argument that resonates with a public wary about governmental handouts to pro sports teams. Proponents of the new stadium deal happily explain that the government is only funding infrastructural improvements around the stadium such as roads and sewage.
"There is not a dime of taxpayer money that goes inside the stadium," explained Alison Franklin, an aide to state Senate President Thomas Birmingham, who shepherded the deal through the Senate last week. "None of it goes towards the team."
This reasoning seems to satisfy many who would otherwise denounce federal, state and local governments' subsidies for professional sports stadiums that approach $1 billion per year nationwide.
In fact, a poll conducted on behalf of the Red Sox found that 69 percent of Massachusetts residents favored the stadium deal once they learned where government money was spent. This contrasted with a Boston Globe poll that found only 34 percent of residents generally favored public funding for a new stadium.
"What the Senate President finds with constituents is that there is no appetite to see public money for the stadium itself," Franklin explained.
Nonetheless, assuming that the deal is passed by the Boston City Council and that the Red Sox are able to come up with their $352 million for the stadium itself, government would still be funding 47 percent of the overall project.
This includes a $72 million parking garage near the stadium that would be funded by the city with revenues shared between the city and the Red Sox.
Does this deal really differ from the "corporate welfare" given by other states to their home teams and that Massachusetts politicians have become fond of chiding?
Mayor Menino seems to think so. He has supported the deal with the Red Sox, but the logic of his actions argue against it.
According to his press secretary, Carole Brennan, the mayor's top priority in the deal is to ensure that the city is paid back in full for its investment.
So the city will levy a game-day parking tax in the Fenway area that is expected to bring in $3.6 million annually. A five-percent ticket surcharge should bring in $4.5 million more. A 15 percent tax on luxury boxes will raise $1.5 million yearly.
The city projects that it will make back its $140 million to buy and clear land in less than 20 years. (The garage is not mentioned in the projections, probably because it won't make as much as quickly).
Brennan said the mayor "feels supported [by the public because] no one is going to lose any money."
It will all be paid back like a loan, she said.
But if public aid is okay as long as the government is not paying for the stadium itself, as the state government and the Sox would have everyone believe, why must the mayor insist on making a "loan" instead of granting a subsidy?
According to Paul Walkowski, a legislative assistant for Boston City Council President James Kelly, it's because "taxpayers' money should be used for roads, bridges, firetrucks [and] ambulances," not baseball stadiums. The public is "not against the Red Sox, they're against public funding of" the project.
Kelly and a majority of his council colleagues stand as the largest impediment to a new Fenway deal. A majority of the council must approve the city's spending on the project, but seven of 13 members have publicly declared their opposition to any public funding for the stadium. Furthermore, nine of 13 are needed to legitimate the proposed land takings on the stadium site by eminent domain.
Walkowski said the eminent domain and "public funding of a private enterprise is not something that [Kelly] can support."
Some argue that the new business that springs up around a sports facility will create tax revenues sufficient to repay the government for its investment in a stadium. But economists have shown that stadiums have relatively small impacts even on local economies and that government funds might be spent more effectively on education or transportation or crime prevention.
The Boston debate is still unsettled. The new stadium will not open until 2004 at the earliest.
The national debate remains unsettled as well. Should government help a private enterprise like a Major League Baseball team while not helping a private enterprise like a local car wash? Should government spend money on a football team instead of on schools?
Can politicians really claim they aren't helping to build a stadium by the simple trick of not buying the materials or labor for that particular part of the project?
