The history of sports stadiums, one, two, three
Recently I did an article on public funding for baseball parks, football stadiums and indoor basketball and hockey arenas. Whether it’s a basketball arena in Seattle, a new baseball park in New York or a new football stadium in Minneapolis, sports venues and who pays for them is a major issue around the country.
The history of sports venue funding can be broken down into three stages - In the early 1900’s, baseball stadiums were built and paid for by teams. By the late 1960’s, new parks were springing up in most major cities. These were usually located downtown, and were built on the public dime. Owners, politicians and media often trumpeted these new stadiums as part of a downtown renaissance. That perception was proven untrue. In recent years much has been written about sports owners and the public now working together in tandem in creating spanking new sports sites.
However, the thrust of the article was that the public’s paying the freight now more than ever. And the idea that sports teams and the public are somehow partnering is only so much smoke and mirrors. The Village Voice did a fine investigative piece a year ago about the New York Yankees and Mets and their ``partnering’’ with the public on their new ballparks. While the teams build the ballparks they’re no longer paying rent on their current homes and receive all kinds of tax deductions.
The Yankees and Mets had never made much headway in getting new stadiums until 2001. Before leaving office, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani made a deal with the teams, his parting gift for the city. When asked why he didn’t put the new stadiums up for a vote, Giuliani replied, ``because they’d get voted down.’’ According to the Voice when current mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to renegotiate the original deal he wound up giving the Yankees and Mets an EVEN BETTER deal than the original.
In Seattle, when the Safeco baseball field was built the public paid $372 million for the stadium and the owners threw in $145 mil. When neighboring Qwest Field was built for football the public share was $300 million and the owners share (aka billionaire Paul Allen) only $130. Not exactly an even split.
In September 1995, King County voters had rejected a proposal for a new baseball stadium. But within two months, the Mariners baseball club began talks with local politicians on how to fund a new stadium. Despite nine different lawsuits, the publicly subsidized Safeco Field opened in Seattle in 1999.
In retrospect, Seattleites should have only been surprised that the stadium reached the ballot stage in the first place. In San Diego for example, building a baseball, football or basketball stadium has NEVER reached the ballot. In Baltimore, attempts to put the proposal for Camden Yards on the ballot in 1991 were shot down by the courts even though a citizens’ group opposing the stadium appeared to have legal precedent on its side.
At this point the question has to be asked - do public subsidies benefit the cities that house sports teams? According to objective studies the answer’s a resounding NO. Local economic benefits are overrated. If people weren’t spending money at sporting events they’d be spending money on something else. Also most stadium jobs are seasonal, part-time, low wage. People don’t make living wages selling hot dogs and programs at baseball and basketball games.
According to Roger G. Noll co-author of Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, ``there’s never been a subsidized stadium anywhere in the United States that had the effect of increasing employment and economic growth in the city in which it was built.’’
Meanwhile back in Seattle, the Sonics’ basketball team has tried to threaten, cajole and beg local municipalities to build them a new arena. If anything, the success that the Mariners and Seahawks had in getting new facilities has worked against the Sonics who received a jarring lesson in how little people care about them.
New owner Clay Bennett recently had a Howard Beale-moment as he channeled the lead character from the 1970’s movie Network with a rant about how politicians, sports talk show hosts and newspaper columnists haven’t come up with any new ideas for a Sonics area. Bennett however failed to mention the Seattle media have written columns about some of his Oklahoma limited partners belonging to anti-gay groups. The Sonics ``sister’’ team, the Seattle Storm, has a strong lesbian base.
For anyone interested in keeping up-to-date on new stadiums and arenas (and who’s paying for them) check out www.fieldofschemes.com.