RENDERING COURTESY OF HOK
Here we go again. As if St. Louis needed it, local conversation is about to be dominated over whether city taxpayers should come up with tens of millions to subsidize a new soccer stadium. Or, as some in the local sports media will undoubtedly frame it, “How many tax dollars should go for this indispensable purpose?”
The goal: to help an elite group of wealthy would-be franchise owners lure a Major League Soccer (MLS) team to St. Louis. If that sounds familiar, well, it should. We’ve repeatedly had this discussion about American football and baseball for decades, so why not have it about futbol?
Fresh off the Rams Debacle, it’s hard to restrain one’s cynicism. The local group of business leaders calling itself SC STL is an impressive lot, and I don’t doubt its members' good intentions. But there’s the eternal paradox: If these titans are as powerful as they appear, why do they need assistance from a strapped city to execute a potentially lucrative business investment?
Also curious is this: On one hand, SC STL has received glowing praise from MLS officials for putting together a viable franchise plan. On the other, all the public has been told is that it will be expected to fork over $80 million, leaving folks to begin scuffling in the dark over whether to subsidize the project.
Courtesy of HOK
Trifling details are said to be forthcoming. But if SC STL has its act so well together, how could it not know the details of its public ask? And if those details are known, why leak the $80 million figure without revealing those details?
Although I’m generally opposed to corporate welfare—and argued against subsidies for both Busch Stadium and the phantom football stadium—it’s not my intent to wage war against a nonexistent proposition. There are principles to be considered thoughtfully on both sides. In the meantime, while we wait, here are 10 things to consider.
1) It would be nice for St. Louis to get a pro soccer team. There’s no question that the MLS is rapidly growing in popularity. Coming off the latest NFL humiliation (which I would argue reflects not at all on St. Louis), it’s understandable that St. Louis soccer fans are excited to see us named a frontrunner to become one of the cities chosen as MLS expands. St. Louis has a grand soccer heritage, and we could use a boost to our wounded civic psyche. What’s not to like about gaining another pro sports franchise?
2) Life will go on if St. Louis doesn’t get a team. If history’s any guide, supporters of public financing will argue there are priceless benefits of being on the MLS map. We’ll be told pro-sports teams are essential to major-league status and that they’re vital to attract new companies and tourists. They are not. Were that true, struggling “major league” cities—such as Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis—would be thriving. Growing sport-franchise-poor cities, such as Nashville, Austin, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, and Portland, would not. Look up the growth numbers. Being home to pro-sports teams is overrated.
3) Soccer teams do not create new wealth for soccer fans. This is an essential point of a public-funding stadium debate. Backers inevitably add up gross revenues attributed to a new sports team and claim that the figure represents an influx of that amount to the economy. But the majority of fans and companies who would support a team already live in St. Louis. Having a team here might make them happier, but it won't make them wealthier. And other businesses could suffer revenue losses as an offset of MLS spending.
4) Stadium construction is not the only (or best) way to create jobs. It’s almost inevitable—and understandable—that local unions and business groups will support public subsidies for stadium projects. Construction jobs are sorely needed here, and a large project represents bountiful short-term opportunity. But that same $80 million supporting a stadium project would also create construction jobs were it earmarked for new police buildings, youth centers, housing for the homeless, or the like. Again, it’s unsound analysis to focus only on the perceived direct benefits of a stadium project without considering potential alternatives.
5) Like it or not, corporate welfare is a fact of life. I hate the idea of corporate welfare. I’ve owned businesses in St. Louis for 39 years without taking a penny of it. But almost any new significant project in a city like St. Louis receives some sort of public largesse. That’s because the majority of cities, counties, and states conduct perpetual corporate-welfare war against one another, and only the most desirable few can afford to disarm unilaterally. The programs are never means-tested. Yes, the notion of taxpayers helping multimillionaires or billionaires make more money is disgusting, but a stadium project shouldn’t be viewed as better or worse than any other commercial real-estate project.
6) The stadium group shouldn’t be excluded from existing corporate-welfare programs. Businesses of all sizes can avail themselves of a spectrum of TIFs, tax credits, infrastructure support, and the like. Sometimes, there are taxes localized to users of the project itself, which are debatable on a case-by-case basis. All over the country, countless “public-private partnerships” are predicated upon such deals. I don’t like it, but it is what it is. One can’t reasonably expect St. Louis to single out a project like the proposed soccer stadium as a place to draw a line in the sand.
7) Absolutely no new general taxation should be levied for this deal. I don’t need to wait for the details. For example, any sort of sales tax (as has been rumored) should be a non-starter. Every penny of general revenue that might go to a project like an MLS stadium has an opportunity cost—police and fire services, parks, streets, homeless services… Come on. We’re talking 17 home dates for a stadium that would hold 20,000 people. Maybe there are cities that could afford such a luxury, but St. Louis isn’t one of them.
8) Question assumptions. The soccer group is expected to slap a price tag of $200 million or so on the stadium project, as if that figure were handed down on a tablet. That’s an assumption that deserves scrutiny, as is the notion that the project is only viable with public funding. In cities like Orlando and San Jose, MLS stadiums and franchises were privately financed 100 percent—it’s not impossible.
9) Don’t vilify the rival group that was rejected by the MLS (but did claim that it didn't need public help). Franchise hopeful Foundry St. Louis originally claimed that it could build a stadium at Saint Louis University with no taxpayer dollars. We’ll never know. After Foundry later offered to partner with SC STL by putting up $80 million in place of the public’s share, the MLS stated that SC STL was the only group with which it will work. Having met Foundry CEO Dan Cordes and president Nicholas Mahrt, I admire their passion. I didn’t count their money and don’t know what might have happened, but good for them for trying. There was great acrimony between the two groups, and I’m not taking a side. I love colleague Bill McClellan’s great line, “If you can’t kick a man when he’s down, when can you kick him?” But SC STL advocates and sportswriters need to stop beating up on the second-place team, especially since they may have been right on the public-financing issues.
10). Keep it civil. Every time St. Louis has a stadium debate, it gets very unpleasant, especially with social media. People opposed to spending taxpayer dollars on sports projects don’t deserve to be branded as civically disloyal or opposed to economic growth. Conversely, those who advocate for public-stadium support shouldn’t have their sense of morality and good intentions questioned. Can we all get along? I doubt it. But let the games begin.
SLM co-owner Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m. This Think Again column will appear in the January issue of St. Louis Magazine.
