The Baltimore Ravens renovation subsidy deal has followed a weird path, as these things go: First, last April, the Maryland state legislature approved $600 million in bonding capacity for future Ravens upgrades, along with $600 million for the Orioles, $400 million towards infrastructure around the existing Washington Commanders stadium, and $200 million for minor-league baseball stadiums, all without any specifics on what the money would be spent on. Then it turned out that the money was just a slush fund — a slush fund that wasn’t limited to $600 million per team, because as one round of bonds is paid off, the state can sell new ones to fund more renovations — and that the actual specifics would be negotiated once the team owners agreed to lease extensions.
Now the Maryland Board of Public Works, which consists of the governor and state treasurer and comptroller, is set to vote tomorrow on a 15-year Ravens lease extension with two five-year options:
The Board of Public Works agenda item noted that the new agreement was negotiated “in anticipation” of a request that the board issue bonds “for improvements and renovations to the football stadium in the near future.”…
Both [Ravens spokesperson Chad] Steele and the stadium authority declined to specify what improvements the Ravens have planned.
Um? So it seems that the Baltimore stadium slush funds really will be just unlimited, unspecified slush funds: In exchange for sticking around for another 15-25 years, the Ravens will get to spend at least $600 million in state money on (from the bond bill) “the preparation, relocation, demolition and removal, construction, renovation, and related expenses for construction management, professional fees, and contingencies” related to sports facilities at Camden Yards. Neither the Baltimore Sun nor the Baltimore Banner mentioned in their coverage how the state stadium authority would decide what to let the Ravens spend the money on, or if the state will be required in the lease to fund anything the Ravens ask for that falls into those broad categories.
For their part, the Ravens owners will continue to pay $0 a year rent while collecting all revenues from their state-built and -owned stadium, though they will keep paying for maintenance and operating expenses — something that raises red flags when you consider that they’ll potentially be able to get out of some maintenance costs by simply renovating away the item in question and billing the state for it. One hopes there would be something in the lease preventing this kind of loophole, but since the Board of Public Works’ posted meeting documents don’t include the actual lease, just a summary, there’s no way to know for sure yet.
The Orioles owners, meanwhile, are working on their own lease extension in exchange for their own renovation slush fund, but haven’t gotten there yet. Could the fact that the O’s current lease is different — the team pays rent, but not maintenance and operations, a holdover of it having been set up before the 1986 Tax Reform Act made it harder to sell federally subsidized stadium bonds that would in part be paid off by team rent — be making the Angelos family look for ways to find a comparable loophole to the Ravens? We’re deep into speculation here, but it’s worth asking, if anyone covering tomorrow’s vote has the time and energy to ask any questions. I know it’s a lot to expect, but it is kind of what journalism is all about.
A then-new stadium with no rent? And I thought keeping the marching band around after the Colts left was being in denial…
The long(er) version: When the Orioles got their new stadium, they paid rent but no maintenance and operations. Then when it was time for the Ravens to get their new stadium, the law had changed to where using rent money to pay off the state’s stadium bonds would have made them no longer tax-exempt, so the Ravens said “Oh, we’ll just take back our rent money and use it to cover your maintenance and operations expenses, no worries.” (Then the Orioles tried to sue to demand that they get free rent too, but that went nowhere.)
Both were bad deals for the state, but the free-rent one wasn’t actually any worse.