Last Thursday, city officials advanced two bills full of questionable spending. One bill proposes that the city’s already high sales tax rate (10.054% on average) be increased by 0.5% to help fund a section of a planned North–South MetroLink route. (Read about MetroLink’s poor track record here and here.) The other bill would raise the city’s use tax by 0.5% to help fund the construction of a Major League Soccer stadium downtown. The use tax increase is supposed to raise some $60 million.

The widespread economic consensus is that public spending on stadiums is a terrible use of taxpayer dollars. But even more troubling is the way in which the bill advanced out of an Aldermanic committee in the first place.

When it was first considered, the bill abated an amusement tax that would have been levied on ticket purchases, diverting revenue from the city. It also would have given tens of millions of dollars to developer Paul McKee, no stranger to subsidies. Why? Well, that’s the troubling part: no public officials knew why the bill abated the amusement tax or gave funds to a developer unrelated to the stadium project. As the Post-Dispatch’s Tony Messenger aptly notes, “This is the story of development in St. Louis. Assets are given away and nobody even knows why.”

But even after one alderman proclaimed that he wasn’t elected to “rubber stamp bad proposals for a City that is already on the financial brink,” the board arguably rubber stamped a bad proposal for a city that is on the financial brink. After closed-door discussions between the board and the ownership group behind the stadium proposal (SC STL), the bill emerged with amendments that abated half the amusement tax and still gave Paul McKee several million dollars in tax-increment financing subsidies.

After passing a vote of the committee, the amended bill was heralded as a win for the city and for taxpayers. Compared to the original bill (which abated all of the amusement tax), the amended bill is estimated to bring in $17 million to the city over 30 years. But does this really constitute a win for taxpayers? For one, although it is described as “new revenue,” this $17 million (and more) is what the city should have been slated to collect if not for the abatement in the original bill that no one could explain. Also, the city will contribute $60 million over that same 30-year period. That makes the stadium deal a loss for the city. Some claim (without providing any financial evidence) that the proposal was originally revenue-neutral for the city, and now will turn a $17 million profit for municipal coffers. Assume, for argument’s sake, that these rosy projections are true. That means the city will net $17 million on a $60 million, 30-year investment. Even if those figures are presented in what’s known as net-present value (which takes inflation into account), that hardly makes this a lucrative investment.

After the bill received approval, SC STL executive Dave Peacock said “The city drives a hard bargain, but they should.” It’s difficult to see how agreeing to this deal constitutes “driving a hard bargain.” But, Peacock is correct—that’s what the city should be doing, which is why recent developments with the stadium bill are so troubling.

The post No, the City Does Not “Drive a Hard Bargain” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After attending a hearing at the Saint Louis Board of Alderman regarding a plan to spend $152 million on a new NFL stadium, I don’t have to speculate anymore. Decades of objective research has shown that stadiums, and especially NFL stadiums, do not generate economic growth, spur revitalization, or greatly increase tax revenue. Saint Louis has direct experience of this with the Edward Jones Dome, which demonstrably did not bring in new tax revenues or revitalize any neighboring areas. What’s more, there are plenty of warning signs and gaps in the latest funding plan that should give residents pause.

And yet . . .

Stadium proponents pretended that a solid body of research and the city’s own experience do not exist. They argued, again and again, that the stadium will create jobs, redevelop the North side, and increase the city’s tax revenue. It’s like the last 20 years and all those studies on stadium projects never happened.

What about concerns over maintenance at the stadium or construction costs overrun? Don’t worry, say proponents, someone else will have to pay. Dave Peacock, head of the stadium task force, even suggested that the state government might handle cost overruns. With some members of legislature threatening to withhold bond payments to the stadium project without a vote of the legislature, asking the legislature to approve more funding for cost overruns is optimistic to say the least.

The bottom line for city aldermen on the current stadium plan is this:

1.       The city would pay around $152 million to construct a new stadium, and likely more down the road in maintenance and operating costs.

2.       Tax revenue from the project is exceedingly unlikely to approach the costs the stadium, which means that the money would be better spent elsewhere.

3.       The new stadium and the presence of the NFL will probably have little effect on downtown development (unless you count bulldozing the North riverfront as redevelopment).

In other words, if we are basing this stadium plan on tangible economic merits, this should be an open-and-shut case. The fact that the plan is likely headed for approval is troubling. If city leaders can convince themselves that, despite all the evidence to contrary, this deal makes economic sense, what can’t they be convinced of? At this point, I don’t think I’d be surprised if the city approved a Jurassic Park and stuck it in the middle of downtown. I’d only be surprised if they decided not to subsidize it. 

The post City Delusional Over Stadium Economic Benefits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Originally, the plan was for the state, the city, and the county to extend bonds meant for the Edward Jones Dome to raise about $350 million to fund a new stadium, with an additional $50 million in state tax credits making up the rest of the public support. This changed when Saint Louis County, which was threatening a public vote on the issue, was dropped from the funding plan. Peacock confirmed that with the county out it will be left to taxpayers statewide to pick up the $100 million bill—a bill unlikely to be offset by any economic activity generated by the team.

In a sense, the new funding plan is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; large public subsidies for sports stadiums do not make economic sense regardless of the city/state/county funding ratio. The growing list of contingencies—none of which local governments control—that Peacock’s plan relies on for everything from stadium funding to economic development is getting more preposterous. These include:

1. Getting a team owner and the NFL to cover $450 million in costs for a new stadium. No team owner, especially the Rams’ owner, has expressed any inclination to do this.
2. As things stand, a plan to fund a new stadium needs to go to a public vote in the city. Residents might vote no.
3. Getting an MLS soccer team in Saint Louis.
4. After getting an MLS soccer team, getting (and funding) a soccer hall of fame.
5. Funding an entertainment center at the Union Electric Light and Power Company building.
6. And finally, because Peacock thinks the Rams owner is committed to relocating to L.A., getting Kroenke to sell the Rams to another owner who will keep the team in Saint Louis.

You got all that? If city residents and the state government agree, against the advice of economists, to publicly fund a new stadium, and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) uses eminent domain to bulldoze the North Riverfront, we can then hope the NFL will force/convince Kroenke to sell the Rams to an owner who, along with the NFL, may decide to fund half the costs of a new stadium, which in turn might just convince an MLS team to move to Saint Louis, which then might prompt the MLS (no doubt with some tax dollars) to locate their hall of fame at a new entertainment complex (funded by…someone) at the old power building. That’s some plan.

The post If the Riverfront Stadium Plan Had Two Wheels, It’d Be a Bicycle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Plans are for a new stadium located on the riverfront, north of Lumiere Casino and northeast of the Edward Jones Dome.

• The stadium also would be available for professional soccer.
• It would be a public asset owned by a public entity and leased to the team. Also, the new stadium would come with a new lease, 30 years or more.
• Cost estimate: $860-$985 million, at least half of which would be privately financed (minimum $200 million from Stan Kroenke and another $200 million from the NFL).
• No new tax burden, although there would be public money involved.
• Estimated completion date: 2020.

After listening to the press conference and going over some of the points raised here, I have my misgivings about this project. First, I would like to know specifically where the money is coming from to pay for this new stadium. During the press conference, Peacock said that the sources of public financing would not be ascertained until there was a commitment from the NFL and from the Rams on moving forward with this project. Second, the $860-$985 million price tag would only be for the new stadium. Additional money (it wasn’t said how much) would be needed to upgrade the current Dome so it will be a full-time convention center. How are we going to pay for that as well?

My biggest misgiving is the fact that we will be publicly subsidizing this thing at all. Kroenke’s proposal in Los Angeles would be completely privately financed. Why should the public put up money when Kroenke can afford to pay for the costs himself? The most recent trend in stadium construction is toward private investment. That’s what happened in San Francisco and New York, so why should Saint Louis be different?

I know it is easy to be wowed by beautiful pictures of sparkling developments like the one above. Yet, nice pictures aside, these kinds of plans do not produce the economic benefits that would make these developments worthwhile. I want Saint Louis to remain an NFL town, but I don’t want to spend taxpayer dollars to do it.

The post Thoughts on the Latest Rams Press Conference appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Details on any proposal are light, but Gov. Nixon did say that Saint Louis will remain an NFL city and that “we’re going to be partners here” in regards to upgrading the stadium. He mentioned that current funding streams will be available once payments on the original dome expire. Presently, the city, county, and state spend a combined $24 million annually on paying off the debt accrued in building the Edward Jones Dome. Gov. Nixon also was quick to point out economic benefits that having a sports team would bring.

I agree with Gov. Nixon’s desire to keep the Rams in Saint Louis. I too hope they stay, but if taxpayers are going to approve further public subsidies to the Rams, they should do so with their eyes wide open. It’s one thing if people want to pay to keep the Rams in Saint Louis because of a desire for increased civic pride or prestige. It’s another thing to claim that subsidizing construction will lead to economic growth for the area. In fact, public financing of a new stadium will not lead to increased economic growth. A study conducted by Robert A. Baade and Victor A. Matheson found that “Researchers who have gone back and looked at economic data for localities that have hosted mega-events, attracted new franchises, or built new sports facilities have almost invariably found little or no economic benefits from spectator sports.”

Again, I want the Rams to stay in Saint Louis, but I don’t want my tax dollars to be used to keep them here. New stadiums in New York and San Francisco are both 100 percent privately financed. Why should the Rams be treated any better?

The post Thoughts on Gov. Nixon’s Rams Press Conference appeared first on Show-Me Institute.