No matter how bad inflation may seem at grocery stores and gas stations, the inflation in price tags at professional sports stadiums over the past few years means nothing.
Like gas tanks and grocery carts, voters are smart about the increasingly expensive deals state and local governments are making to subsidize sports stadiums, arenas, and “stadium district” real estate projects. They are responding by becoming shoppers.
It's time to ensure that voters in every community across America have the opportunity to approve or reject these agreements, not just when it's convenient for politicians and sports team owners.
Voters need to intervene because stadium subsidies have increased so fast and furiously in recent years that even MLB superstar Shohei Ohtani's treasurer has taken notice. The Buffalo Bills' planned new stadium will break the $1 billion barrier in 2022 and will soon cost about $2.1 billion in Nashville, $1 billion in Oklahoma City, $470 million in Milwaukee, and $470 million in Baltimore. Added to the price tag is a stadium subsidy of $1.2 billion, or $380 million in Las Vegas. Vegas and many more.
Even the Utah Legislature approved $900 million in grants for a hypothetical baseball stadium and $500 million for a hockey stadium, even though no teams have played games yet. The idea is to establish what amounts to pre-approval for government funding to help Salt Lake City garner interest from MLB and NHL teams.
Politicians make these deals because they seek support from sports fan voters and fear backlash. But eye-watering price tags have even the most avid sports fans questioning whether these deals are being made in the best interest of local communities.
Two recent agreements highlight the potential for different outcomes when voters have the final say.
In Washington, D.C., the mayor and team owners outlined a $515 million plan to renovate Capital One Arena, home of the NBA Wizards and NHL Capitals. Political infighting between Gov. Glenn Youngkin and members of the Virginia State Legislature has led to proposed $2 billion in arena grants being cut, despite a fiscal crisis in which Mayor Muriel Bowser is proposing tax increases and budget cuts. After it was canceled, district elected officials jumped at the chance to keep the team in town.
Less than a week later, voters in Jackson County, Missouri, rejected a proposal to extend a sales tax surcharge to subsidize Kansas City Chiefs and Royals stadiums. Despite the pro-stadium “yes” camp outspending the “no” camp by a 20-to-1 margin, 58% of the vote was against the plan.
These days, residents of Washington, D.C., Virginia, and other cities and states where the future of their beloved teams and their hard-earned tax dollars are being determined by political maneuvering and behind-the-scenes deals, are probably wondering why: You're probably wondering why you couldn't vote. The people of Kansas City did.
They are right to feel that way.
According to the database The study, maintained by Jeffrey Profetter, a professor at the University of Colorado Denver, found that in Kansas City, a referendum on stadium subsidies for the “big five” professional sports teams, meaning NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, or Major League Soccer, was held in 1987. It was rejected for the 29th time since 2010. .
In any case, a vote on stadium subsidies is not guaranteed to succeed. In fact, according to Prophet's database, his score since 1987 is 36 stadium deals approved and 29 rejected, giving him a 55.4 percent success rate for pro stadium campaigns.
In some areas, elected officials are actively blocking attempts to put stadium deals before voters. A League of Women Voters poll in St. Petersburg, Florida, found that 77 percent of local voters oppose a proposed $1.3 billion in baseball stadium grants. But for now, those voters have no say in the deal. A 5-3 majority of the St. Petersburg City Council wanted to put the proposal to a vote, but was unable to muster the supermajority needed to vote.
Why is it so important to give voters a voice? In part, because there are decades of real-world results in American cities that show stadiums are a terrible deal for taxpayers. be. Rather than being a catalyst for revitalization, these typically serve as a cover for land grabs in neighborhoods already trending toward new growth, giving developers the opportunity to take advantage of “neighborhoods” that they otherwise would not have had without the attraction of the stadium. ” to provide land blocks for.
Once built, stadiums remain dark and empty for almost their entire lives, only coming to life for a few hours on game day, then falling silent again. Moreover, its “economic impact” is largely determined by redirecting where local residents spend their existing recreational funds. Rather than serve as cash injectors into the economy, they absorb money spent on tickets, food, and beer rather than local bars, restaurants, and other competing local entertainment venues.
We may love sports, but American voters aren't always going to give billions of dollars to billionaire team owners so they can build stadiums that sell $9 beers. We have proven that. It's time to give voters in every city and state the power to veto stadium deals and hold elected officials accountable anywhere, anytime.
John Mozena is the president of the Center for Economic Accountability.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
