Letter to the Editor

Stadium thoughts

Monday, May 6, 2002

I'd like to say that I'm totally in favor of a new stadium for the St. Louis Cardinals. As a big fan of the Cardinals, I would love to see them playing in a state-of-the-art stadium. However, I would like to play devil's advocate on the current Cardinals' stadium proposal that seems to be gaining public support.

Let me first say that I'm not in favor of public financing of professional sports stadiums under most circumstances. I'm particularly not in favor of financing a new stadium that is to be built within spitting distance of the old one.

I hear a lot of talk about economic gains that this stadium will bring. I have a hard time buying any of it, especially considering that the only numbers being used that show economic gains are coming from the Cardinals' organization.

First, on the issue of jobs, I'd like to hear how the new stadium will bring about these jobs, and what kind of jobs are they? Most of the jobs that stadiums create are low pay, part-time, or seasonal jobs: beer vendors, ticket sales persons, cab drivers, and hotel employees. And these jobs are really only created when a new team arrives in town. But the Cardinals already bring 3 million fans downtown almost every year; how many more of these jobs can be created?

Aside from the jobs, I'm also not convinced that the new ballpark will be an economic gain at all. Numerous professional studies have examined the economic impact that stadiums have on cities and states. Every study that I have found, other than those funded by team owners, has found little, zero or even a negative impact. That might sound hard to believe, but let me briefly explain.

Many proponents fail to consider what is called the substitution effect. It basically states that most people have a certain amount of money to spend on entertainment. If it's not spent at the ballpark, it will be spent elsewhere: at the movies or a restaurant or a ballet or symphony. Therefore, there is no net benefit. This is the problem with most impact studies. Most studies use a multiplier to determine how much spending will occur due to the new stadium. But the numbers examined are usually the gross benefits; not the net benefits. The net benefits, which are much lower, take into account the substitution effect.

Most proponents also fail to mention any opportunity costs. For example, if public money is used to help construct a new stadium, but little actual economic growth is generated to pay for it, then what gets cut? Education? Highways? Public health? Law enforcement? This is never addressed in advocacy studies, yet it is always an issue. The important thing to consider is how the return on investment in the stadium compares to the return on investment of any alternative public use, including tax reduction.

I realize that the Cardinals are also proposing a ballpark village. I'm also not convinced that this will create any real benefit. Look at the St. Louis Centre for an example of how well shopping goes over in downtown St. Louis.

A large amount of public funding isn't needed to build a new stadium. The San Francisco Giants built a new stadium with only a relatively small amount of public money - land subsidies totaling around $11 million. By selling naming rights, concession rights and PSLs the Cardinals could come very close to raising the amount they are asking from the public.

I'm not trying to embarrass anyone that has voiced support nor am I trying to convince people to be against the public financing of a new stadium. I'm simply asking people to view both sides of the issue. With the state budget in a mess, and with education (particularly higher education) taking a big hit, among many other things, I don't see how public money can be used for what I think is corporate welfare.

Name withheld upon request