Friday roundup: Arizona senate votes to give $500m to D-backs owner for stadium upgrades

At 10 pm last night, the Arizona state senate voted 19-11 to approve spending $500 million in state money on stadium upgrades for the Arizona Diamondbacks. The bill had been passed by the state house in February but had stalled in the senate as Gov. Katie Hobbs and other bill proponents tried to round up enough votes for passage.

What did Hobbs agree to change in order to win over reluctant senators? Not a whole hell of a lot, at first reading:

  • The city of Phoenix’s contribution will be capped at $3.5 million a year in sales tax money, a little over half what Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego had estimated her city would be on the hook for under the original bill.
  • An increase in Maricopa County contributions to match the city’s cost.
  • No use of state income taxes from team employees, as was proposed in the original bill.
  • A provision by which if the Diamondbacks owners don’t spend $250 million of their own money on renovations, the state legislature can repeal the stadium subsidy and leave the team responsible for paying the full debt.
  • Probably other stuff, I’m still reading the bill.

It’s a weird laundry list, especially all the rejiggering of which level of government will contribute what — Gallego apparently demanded a city cost cap before she would sign off on the bill and thus flip some Democratic senate votes to yes, but the contribution amounts needed to still be tied to sales tax receipts to maintain the Casino Night Fallacy, so instead we get this odd mishmash of set dollar figures and dedicated tax revenues.

In any event, the overall thrust of the legislation is the same: A half-billion dollars will be pulled from city, county, and state sales tax revenues that would otherwise go to the general fund, and will now instead be siphoned off and sent back to D-backs owner Ken Kendrick to use for renovations to Chase Field. In exchange, Kendrick will agree to a new lease to keep the team in Phoenix through … oh, sorry, that hasn’t been determined yet, he insisted on the state approving public funding first before agreeing to what he would provide in return, because that’s totally how reasonable negotiations work.

The bill still needs to go back to the state house for a re-vote on its amended form, and then on to Hobbs for her signature, but those look like mere formalities at this point. Add Ken Kendrick to the list of billionaires who got commitments for several-hundred-million-dollar taxpayer checks this year because local officials were either too afraid of the possibility the team would move, too besotted with the alleged economic benefits of a team, or too beholden to lobbyists and campaign contributors to say no. Representative democracy: It’s not going great!

Lots of other stuff happened this week before last night’s vote in Arizona, let’s get to that:

  • Oklahoma City Thunder owner Clay Bennett has finally agreed to lease provisions in exchange for the $850 million in arena money he got from the city a year and a half ago, and they’re pretty skimpy: The team will pay about $2.4 million a year in rent, rising with inflation, and agree to a $1 ticket surcharge to go toward a capital improvement fund; anything above that for maintenance and operations will be on the city to provide. Also, Bennett will keep all the proceeds from sale of the new arena’s naming rights, plus will get exclusive rights to buy and develop the arena site, with the sale price going back to him to pay for his arena. “Worst arena deal in history” is a high bar to clear, but Oklahoma City seems determined to be in the running for it.
  • The mayors of both St. Petersburg and Tampa say they’re happy the Tampa Bay Rays are up for sale, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor calling it “a very positive step” and saying her city’s “bid is dusted off and we’ve sharpened our pencils,” while St. Pete Mayor Ken Welch said he’s “excited about the possibility of new ownership” and focused on ” the fulfillment of the economic promises made to the historic Gas Plant District community.” The preferred Tampa site is also being targeted by the owner of the Tampa Bay Sun women’s USL team for a possible soccer stadium, but as nobody has the slightest idea how any of this would be paid for, it’s a little early to start worrying about competing stadium requests.
  • Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne and some county councilmembers are shouting at each other about whether a Brook Park Cleveland Browns stadium would be an affront to Cleveland or a windfall that’s too good for the county to pass up. Not that Cuyahoga County’s position matters all that much, but with the Ohio state legislature still in its staredown, somebody’s gotta provide the juicy quotes that drive the click machine.
  • The New York Times’ Athletic sports site is excited that sports stadium subsidies are now also for the ladies, if you needed any more reasons to stop reading the Times. (They offer games-only subscriptions, you don’t have to give up Spelling Bee!) The Kansas City Star editorial board, meanwhile, is worried that Missouri’s recently proferred (but not yet accepted) stadium subsidies for the Chiefs and Royals has too many unknowns and that spending public dollars on sports teams is “deeply regrettable” if also “sadly, the world in which we live,” if any of that makes you more interested in reading the Kansas City Star.
  • MLB commissioner Rob Manfred will be at the Athletics‘ stadium site groundbreaking in Las Vegas on Monday, this is gonna be the best Potemkin village ever!
Share this post:

Here is your “questions the DC media should be asking about the Commanders deal” bingo card

I hinted at it on Tuesday, and now it’s a reality. Behold, your unanswered Washington Commanders stadium questions bingo card!

(Thanks to Ed Lazere, director of legislative advocacy for the United Planning Organization and founding director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, for help coming up with the entries.)

How to play: Watch the news coverage of the proposed Washington Commanders stadium deal, and check off a box every time you see reporters asking either elected officials or Commanders owner Josh Harris one of these questions. (You get to check it off whether or not the question is answered — we don’t want to make this too impossible.) Once you’ve scored five in a row, announce somewhere — in comments on this item, on social media, in a press conference on the U.S. Capitol steps — that you’re a winner, and you’ll be a winner!

And in case you’re wondering: Yes, journalists themselves are eligible, so if you’re a D.C.-area reporter who wants to ask these questions yourself and claim the prize, be my guest! What exactly you’ll win has yet to be determined, but it will at least include living in a country where journalism is still alive, and who can put a price on that?

Share this post:

Behold, the future of soccer stadiums, Chicago Fire vaportecture edition

It’s been a long, dismal spring of record-breaking stadium subsidies making their way through state legislatures (not to mention other even more dismal stuff), so let’s have some fresh vaportecture as a respite from all the horror! And it’s for the proposed Chicago Fire stadium, which will allegedly be built entirely with the team owner’s own money. (The overall development itself will get a ton of tax kickbacks, but we won’t think about that right now.) Roll it!

Okay, sure, that’s fine enough. The stadium looks like a stadium, the sun is actually setting in the west at game time, nobody spelled the city’s name wrong. I do have some questions about what appears to be a practice (or youth?) field next to the stadium and whether all those tents and people walking on it before the game won’t destroy the turf and make it unplayable, but as these things go, that’s a minor quibble.

Likewise, let’s look at everything the interior image got right: There are 11 players on each team, and no one is reacting to the exciting play on the pitch by standing up and holding a scarf to face the back rows. And what exciting play it is: A Fire player looks to have just dribbled an opposing defender so ferociously that the defender just straight-up face-planted on the pitch, leaving the Fire player open for a likely goal. Too bad so many of the photographers lining the field seem to be looking in the wrong direction to get any good photos of the play, but you can’t have everything.

Okay, now you’re talking! What on earth kind of act is this that involves one guitar player and one dancer (?) while a sparsely arranged crowd generally pays no attention to the stage, despite it being lit by multiple spotlights? Is this what future stadium shows will look like now that currently popular artists are all canceling stadium gigs because they can’t sell enough tickets?

Anything else? Overblown quotes from team officials, perhaps?

Fire president Dave Baldwin told the Sun-Times the team wanted the design to harken back to “the City of Broad Shoulders” and its “rich industrial manufacturing heritage.”

“It has that Chicago warehouse feel, but also has a little bit of an enduring elegance to it — the brick facade, the steel, the glass, those are all things that were really important to Joe as we designed this,” Baldwin said. “Whether it’s opening day in 2028, or you fast forward 50 years and you come back to the stadium, it should still feel relevant to Chicago.”

Sure, brick, glass, steel, all things that scream “Chicago.” Or, you know, Baltimore. It probably would be too much to expect a stadium incorporating deep-dish pizza or sausages made of dead rats into its façade, but we’ll have to take what we can get.

As Baldwin noted, the projected opening date is 2028. That’s pretty aggressive given that it’s already halfway through 2025 and Chicago isn’t exactly known for its balmy winters and all-year construction schedules, but we can’t entirely rule it out.

Share this post:

Oregon okays $800m in stadium bonds for MLB team, to be paid for with player income taxes that may not exist

The votes are starting to come fast and furious now, as state legislative sessions wind down and lawmakers finalize work on stadium and arena bills. The latest yesterday was Oregon, where the state house voted 46-6 to approve using tax money to fund a new MLB baseball stadium, should Portland be awarded a team:

The bill authorizes $800 million in bonds to help fund the construction of a professional baseball stadium on Portland’s South Waterfront.

Instead of pulling from current state revenue, the bill calls for paying off the bonds through income taxes on players and staff. Proponents say it would be on the team to figure out how to fund the rest of the stadium, expected to cost $2 billion.

That $800 million figure is a little uncertain: While the bill authorizes the state to sell $800 million worth of bonds toward a stadium, it proposes paying it off with state income taxes paid by players, team staff, and their families. (A lot of the reporting is calling this a “jock tax,” as if it’s a special surcharge, but it’s not: While Oregon does charge income tax on visiting players, everyone on both teams in games played in Portland would still pay the usual maximum 9.9% Oregon income tax rate.) If baseball salaries keep soaring — and if a Portland team has close to an average MLB payroll, which is questionable given the behavior of some other expansion teams in low-revenue markets — then this could amount to enough money to pay off $800 million. If they stay flat as they have in recent years, though, the stadium fund could end $600 million short — even the bill’s own projections of a 3% annual rise in salaries would seem to leave the state about $200 million in the red.

So what happens if Portland gets a team, Oregon sells $800 million in bonds, and then there isn’t enough income tax revenue to pay it off? Advocates for the stadium subsidy say the owners of the as-yet-imaginary team would have to cover the difference — but that’s not at all how bonds work. It’s conceivable that Oregon could try to get team owners to agree to cover any shortfall in tax revenue in their lease, but that would be a really tough negotiating point, especially since MLB could easily just step in and say “cover the full $800 million or else we don’t give you an expansion team,” at which point Oregon would have to roll the dice on future salaries soaring or give up on its MLB dreams.

Not that the exact amount of future player income tax revenue matters that much: Even if it enough does come in to pay off the state’s share of stadium bonds, 1) it’s not all new money to Oregon, since a large chunk of it comes from local residents spending money on baseball in place of other things, and 2) it’s not a great idea to kick back taxes to local businesses because soon everyone will want one. But with pay-your-taxes-and-eat-them-too plans all the rage, it is still somewhat worthwhile to look at whether the tax money being promised will actually exist, and in Oregon’s case the answer seems to be “let’s all pretend and hope for the best.”

But anyway, Portland baseball boosters finally have an $800 million IOU from the state that they can wave in MLB’s face to try to get an expansion team if and when MLB actually expands, so it should be smooth sailing from

Organizers floated several possible locations before settling on the former Zidell Yards shipbuilding site on a narrow strip of land between the Ross Island Bridge and the Tilikum Crossing.

The property offers terrific views of the Willamette River and great access to public transit, but few routes to the ballpark for private vehicles. Beyond that, backers have acknowledged the soil may be toxic on the former industrial property. And the site is in a liquefaction zone, meaning the ballpark would need expensive supports to ensure it could survive a major earthquake.

Toxic soil! Could fall down in an earthquake! Questionable finances! Just go ahead, Oregon, and plan your stadium on a haunted burial ground, might as well go for the clean sweep.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: DC hires same clown consultants for Commanders deal who screwed up DC United math

Before we get to the weekly news roundup, a commenter asked me a question yesterday — I mean, I think they may actually have been trying to troll me, but it was in the form of a question — about how it could be better for Missouri to risk the Kansas City Chiefs moving to Kansas and losing all the tax revenue that comes with games. After initially going the “because economists say so” route, I tried to write up an actual detailed answer, and I want to include it here, because I, at least, found it instructive to see how quickly these kind of “sports stadium pay for themselves through economic activity” arguments fall apart once you subject them to actual math:

I found where your numbers are from, and they’re not from any economic impact study by the sports authority or an independent auditor or anyone else. They’re from a consultant hired by the Chiefs, who declared that the team and the stadium “generate $28.8 million in direct, indirect and induced tax revenue for the State of Missouri annually.” (The supposed $572 million is just “economic activity,” and the $28.8 million is the presumed taxes on that; if you include both, you’re double-counting.)

So, we already have Missouri spending $500 million in order to save $28.8 million a year, which would be a negative return on investment right there. But where does that $28.8 million figure come from? The Chiefs consultants, Econsult Solutions, only released a one-pager with no footnotes or other methodology, so we have no idea.

Most importantly, we have no idea if Econsult included money that would otherwise be spent elsewhere in Missouri if the Chiefs left. Is that all of it? No, of course not. Is it enough that it would reduce the $28.8 million a year in new taxes to a level where Missouri would be better off if the Chiefs left? Given that Missouri would be better off even if the real number were $28.8 million a year, yeah, that’s a near certainty.

But there’s an easier way to figure this out than guesstimating where people would be spending their money in some hypothetical situation: Look at cities that have gained or lost teams, and see what happens to local tax revenues. Innumerable economists have now done this, and found that the resulting losses are somewhere between 1) nothing and 2) next to nothing. (It’s actually worse than that: Some cities brought in *more* tax revenue without a team.) And that’s cities — the numbers are going to look even worse for states, since you can’t even make it up by stealing tax revenues from the suburbs.

No matter how you slice it, the numbers show that at the price points we’re talking about, $500 million and up, there is no way on earth for local governments to do better with the teams than without. You can wish it were otherwise — and team owners will certainly hire people to claim that it’s so — but good luck finding any data to support your case.

And now, on to the news:

  • Speaking of economic impact reports, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser just released one for her proposed Commanders stadium that would cost the city upwards of $7 billion, and you’ll never guess who wrote it: That’s right, Convention, Sports & Leisure, everyone’s favorite Dallas Cowboys–and–New York Yankees–owned clown consultants! I have no plans to go over it in detail (though the page with the large heading spelled “MULTPLIERS” does stand out), but I am obligated to point out that the last time D.C. hired CSL to do a stadium study, it was immediately revealed that about two-thirds of the projected city benefits weren’t benefits at all, forcing the consultants to put out a letter “clarifying” that its 400-page report didn’t actually say what it said it said. That CSL they got hired again by D.C. to do their next big stadium study is either a sign that Bowser wasn’t paying attention in 2014 (when she was a city council member) or that stadium consultants aren’t getting hired for the quality of their work, but rather for how reliably they report what team owners and elected officials want to hear, yeah, that’s undoubtedly the one.
  • Sports economist Geoffrey Propheter read far enough into the CSL report to find this knee-slapper: “Suppose I attend a conference in Denver, get a hotel room, and eat a Subway. According to CSL, the Subway gets to count my conference fees, room fees/taxes as economic impact. And so can the conference and the hotel. So now all my spending gets counted x3. Please stop being terrible at thinking.”
  • The Chiefs and Royals owners may now have blank checks from the state for up to 50% of their stadium costs (or will once the Missouri state house passes the bill and Gov. Mike Kehoe signs it, which should happen soon), but they still want even more city and county money to pay for their stadium dreams, and that could require more public referendums. The Kansas City Star reports that the two teams are likely looking at separate ballot measures after a combined one failed spectacularly last April; no word yet on when these would happen, but the teams are clearly going to have to ask the state of Kansas to renew its offer of state money for stadium there beyond its June 30 expiration date, or else “We must outbid the evil barbarians from beyond the western realm!” is going to have somewhat less impact on election day.
  • The plan by Ohio state senators who accepted tons of campaign donations from Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam to raid the state’s unclaimed funds account to borrow money for a Browns stadium may be stoking outrage from residents about what one called “legal theft,” but it’s doing wonders for publicizing the existence of the unclaimed funds and getting Ohioans to start claiming them.
  • Also, the Browns’ stadium hasn’t even been approved yet, and it’s already racking up cost overruns: The city of Brook Park just asked for $71 million in state road improvements for the planned stadium site, on top of the $1.2 billion in public money that’s already been proposed.
  • Want to read an article about how a min0r-league baseball stadium has “revived a struggling downtown” in a South Carolina city, while quoting only the mayor, the team owner, and the stadium developer? Sorry, I’m going to link to it anyway.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: How real is the threat of a Royals or Chiefs move to Kansas, and other pressing questions

Happy zeroth anniversary of that time we decided to all die of bird flu! It’s a fitting way to go out, honestly.

While we’re still here, though, there’s plenty of other stuff to keep getting wrong in the meantime:

  • A company affiliated with the Kansas City Royals has bought the mortgage to a potential stadium site in Kansas’s Johnson County, and … guys, you know that buying the mortgage isn’t anything like buying the land, it just means the property owner makes their payments to you instead of to the original mortgage issuer, right? Sure, if the property owner defaults, you get the land, but that’s a slim thread on which to hang a potential stadium plan — unless of course you’re just looking for easy ways to get “Royals” and “Kansas” into a headline to throw a scare into Missouri, in which case, nice outside-the-box thinking there.
  • Speaking of moving to Kansas, two economists have looked at that state’s STAR tax diversion deal and determined that there’s no way the state can build even one stadium, let alone two, without cannibalizing existing revenue. “A majority of Kansas lawmakers disagree,” reports the Kansas City Beacon, meaning “whether STAR bonds can support one or two teams depends on who you ask” — if you ask people who know what they’re talking about, you get one answer, if you ask people just grandstanding on behalf of the edifice complex you get another, whoda thunk it!
  • Over in Missouri, meanwhile, a group of Republican senators are refusing to consider Chiefs and Royals stadium funding unless the state approves new tax cuts, while Democrats are objecting to spending billions on stadiums when the state is only providing $25 million to tornado relief. “It’s not coming together just swimmingly as of right now,” summed up state Sen. Lincoln Hough.
  • At least one Missouri legislator is still on board: Republican Sen. Mike Cierpiot said spending on stadiums is worth it because “we’re not giving this money to billionaires. We’re giving it to the stadiums, which is owned by the county.” That’s not how stadium ownership works, unfortunately — owning stadiums just costs you property taxes, what’s important is to own the revenue streams from them, and here those would be controlled by the team owners — and isn’t how number agreement works either, this really isn’t going swimmingly.
  • Over on the other side of Missouri, meanwhile, a state audit has found that the Dome at America’s Center — that’s the former home of the St. Louis Rams, not a missile shield program — needs $155 million in maintenance over the next decade, and while that’s not all that much all things considered, the dome is losing money just hosting St. Louis Battlehawks UFL games and the occasional concert, so, you guessed it, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority is considering asking for state money. If they can find a way to increase that maintenance price to $500 million, they could qualify for funding under Gov. Mike Kehoe’s everybody-gets-a-stadium plan, I bet diamond-encrusted cupholders would go a long way toward meeting that requirement.
  • And to answer your question, yes, there was some news this week that was not in Missouri or Kansas! Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vowed not to provide any state money for a Tampa Bay Rays stadium — except for “roads and exits,” of course, gotta have roads and exits. And stairs and ramps are really exits of a kind, right? Not that any local governments are really proposing a new stadium for the Rays at this time, so DeSantis is unlikely to get called on his promise, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens if he’s in office long enough that he does.
  • This New York Times op-ed is getting a lot of likes for its headline (“Sports Stadiums Are Monuments to the Poverty of Our Ambitions”), but fewer seem to be reading down to the part that argues that “cities build stadiums in part because it’s so hard to build almost anything else,” which is presented without evidence and isn’t really historically true, but it’s of the moment because something something Ezra Klein.
  • Does everyone who plays at the don’t-call-us-Sacramento Athletics‘ ad hoc stadium still hate it? You betcha! Sports Illustrated speculates that John Fisher could consider relocating the team again, perhaps to Salt Lake City, but notes that then he wouldn’t be able to get sweet Northern California TV money, and … remind me what size TV market his intended destination of Las Vegas is again? Hmm.
  • And finally, this week in one-sentence media criticism:

Why investigate the public financing of a billion-dollar stadium when you can post pictures of Trisha and Garth with hardhats and shovels?

J.C. Bradbury (@jcbradbury.bsky.social) 2025-05-30T12:31:50.461Z

Share this post:

How Denver’s $70m expense for an NWSL stadium could turn into $200m+ in tax money

The Denver city council voted 11-1 yesterday to approve spending $70 million on land for a stadium for an NWSL women’s soccer team … sort of. The land purchase will move forward, but the stadium itself will face several additional votes in the fall after the council gets more details about the plans and about whether the economy has gone in the crapper by then:

“It’s a dicey time,” said Councilman Paul Kashmann, who voted yes. “We may find things ease up over the next six months, or it may be doom and gloom — and we will have to make some very dire decisions.”…

“We’d be investing in a large parcel that we wouldn’t otherwise be buying just to assist a private ownership group to have a place to build a private stadium,” said Councilwoman Sarah Parady, who voted no.

But this is really — stop me if you’ve heard this one before — a significantly pricier subsidy once you get into hidden tax breaks: a full property tax exemption on the stadium land, a TIF that would potentially kick back property taxes on the stadium itself to pay for the team’s costs, plus whatever tax money the TIF would divert from any surrounding development. University of Colorado Denver sports economist Geoffrey Propheter estimates the total public cost as “definitely less than $300 million but definitely more than $175 million,” which could end up covering the entirety of the as-yet-unnamed team owners’ $200 million cost of building the stadium, if you want to look at it that way. (The team is unnamed, that is, not the owners; the owners are very much named, as is the billionaire husband of one of them.)

So this is definitely something that Denver councilmembers might want more details on, yes. In the meantime, we’re left with just the vague shape of a stadium plan, plus vaportecture featuring a weirdly asymmetrical roof canopy and what appears to be a game underway between two seven-player teams wearing the same color kits. It’s a dicey time for everyone, renderers included.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Ohio senate leader says damn the analysts’ warnings, full speed ahead on Browns’ $1.2B subsidy

Nothing like a week that starts out with a plan for a $1.147 billion stadium subsidy deal and ends with it somewhere well north of $2 billion. But the Washington Commanders horror show wasn’t the only news of the week, so let’s dive in and see what else has been going down:

  • How are Ohio state legislative leaders taking the news that two different state budget analysts have said that the numbers on a proposed $1.2 billion Cleveland Browns stadium subsidy look terrible? “When the Browns put forward those numbers, they’re not putting forward numbers that they grabbed out of a hat. They’ve hired professionals on their side, too,” retorted state senate president Rob McColley. Professional economists on one side, professional clowns on the other, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle! McColley added that senators are “going to make sure that those numbers add up” and will include a “fail-safe” to ensure the state gets its money back, can’t wait to see how that goes.
  • Meanwhile, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne has asked the state legislature for $350 million to renovate the Browns’ current stadium instead, calling it a “better, and less expensive option,” which is both true and a perfect example of the anchoring cognitive bias. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb has already offered $240 million in city money toward renovations; this now makes three different official plans for giving upwards of half a billion dollars to Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and none for not giving him any.
  • Here’s a handy chart of where D.C. councilmembers stand on the proposed Commanders stadium deal, with the current tally being four yes, four no, three undecided, and one did not answer. There’s also a special election to fill the Ward 8 seat left vacant by the expulsion of councilmember Trayon White for bribery charges, which is expected to be won by none other than Trayon White, but that’s not till July 15 and the stadium deal has to be voted on by then (quelle coincidence!) so it won’t count, meaning Commanders owner Josh Harris and Mayor Muriel Bowser need to collect three more yes votes from the four remaining swing votes; staffers in those offices might want to take their phones off the hook for the next 11 weeks, because the full-court press lobbying campaign is doubtless going to be brutal.
  • Concessionaire Aramark is reportedly in “talks” with (Your City Name Here) Athletics owner John Fisher about investing $100 million in a Las Vegas stadium project and another $100 million in the team, if by invest you mean pre-paying concession fees that Fisher would get anyway.
  • New soccer stadiums may sound like a great idea to boost team revenues and revitalize cities, writes Aaron Timms in the Guardian, but they often don’t work out that way, leaving fans unhappy at sterile new buildings and teams struggling to repay construction costs. Unless you’re in the U.S., where it’s cities that are on the hook for much of the costs and struggling to repay them: “Stadium-led revitalization is the myth that will survive the apocalypse. New stadiums, as a vast body of academic literature shows, bring few of the economic benefits that developers, team owners, and local politicians promise. Whatever stimulus they offer to economic activity in their immediate vicinity is invariably offset by a corresponding depression in spending and investment in other areas of the same city.”
  • The people who want to bring an MLB team to Orlando say they have close to $1.5 billion lined up to buy a team, which sounds impressive until you realize MLB wants $2 billion for expansion franchises and somebody would have to build a new stadium in Orlando too, but “Orlando rich people happy to pay $1.5 billion toward a team and stadium worth double that” didn’t look as good atop the press release.
  • How’s the economic boom in Green Bay from hosting the NFL draft going? “Sales were down maybe 50%,” Cold Stone Creamery Green Bay owner Amin Elhalw said. “Gradually the closer we got to the draft, the sales were decreasing, the percentage.” Local businesses blamed draft traffic and road closures for keeping away regular customers, funny how that happens.
  • The developer of the Ybor City site in Tampa where Rays owner Stu Sternberg was at one point considering building a stadium (until it turned out nobody wanted to pay to build it for him) now says there’s no room for one, “unless the Rays can build a very tiny stadium.” Turns out building apartments and shopping pencils out better, funny how that happens.
Share this post:

Taxpayer subsidy for Commanders stadium hits $1.5B, for public return of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There’s a bit more information now about the details of Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s plan to help build a new Washington Commanders stadium at the former site of RFK Stadium — not nearly enough information, mind you, not when the only official documents are a cursory press release, a hype video, and a PR slideshow. But at least we can start to get a general sense of what we know and what we don’t know:

Stuff D.C. taxpayers would be on the hook for:

  • $500 million for “horizontal construction, meaning roads, sidewalks, etc. around the stadium.” Some or all of that money would be raised by extending the business tax surcharge that was used to pay to build the Nationals stadium, and which was supposed to sunset next year once those bonds were paid off, and putting the money toward Commanders stadium costs.
  • $181 million for a parking garage, to be paid for by EventsDC, the city’s convention and sports authority.
  • $175 million to “purchase other parking facilities from the Commanders in 2032.”
  • $202 million for “utilities infrastructure, roadways, and a WMATA transit study” so the rest of the site can be built out.
  • $89 million for an indoor “sportsplex” for youth track and gymnastics.
  • An estimated $429 million in foregone property taxes on the value of the stadium alone.
  • The lost value of whatever the development rights to the RFK site would be worth if opened up to bidders, assuming Commanders owner Josh Harris won’t be paying full market value for the “multiple parcels of land” he would be “activating and developing” with “restaurants, entertainment venues, hotels, housing, green space, and more.”
  • Any costs of developing the Kingman Park District, a parcel of the land that D.C. would remain in control of.
  • Any costs of building a new Metro transit station, depending on what that WMATA transit study finds the site needs.
  • Any costs of providing police and fire services  to the stadium, plus schools and other services to the surrounding mixed-use community.

Stuff D.C. taxpayers would get in return:

  • New tax revenues amounting to … well, that’a a good question. Bowser’s office has asserted that the project would create “approximately $4 billion in total tax revenue” over the next 30 years, a number that has found its way into innumerable media reports. (The Washingtonian, getting extra-excited and not bothering to read too closely, called it “$4 billion in annual new tax revenue,” which even Bowser isn’t claiming.) I initially assumed that was from the report by consultants Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc. and the Robert Bobb Group that the district released last June — but even that report, with its no sourcing or methodology beyond citing the software package IMPLAN, only projects (see table 6.7) $26 million in annual tax revenue, which would be worth about $400 million in present value.
  • Rent or a cut of stadium revenues, maybe? Neither Bowser nor Harris has breathed a word of what a proposed lease would look like, so we have no idea here, beyond reports that the plan to have Harris build garages and sell them to D.C. for $175 million would be paid for out of “in-stadium activity once the stadium is operating,” which could mean either actual in-stadium revenue or things like kicked-back sales taxes on hot dog sales, so really we have no idea here.
  • A guarantee that the Commanders would play at the D.C. site for … again, no lease yet, so no clue.
  • A guarantee that at least 30% of the housing built would be affordable, which is required by city law so would be the case with any development of the RFK site.

Those seem to be the major line items. There are, clearly, a lot of questions — starting with “How the hell would it cost D.C. half a billion dollars just for roads and sidewalks” but also including how many as-yet-unreported costs are hiding in the fine print and whether Harris would give up even a sliver of the money he takes in at his new stadium to help defray the public’s share. It seems reasonable, though, to say that Bowser’s proposed stadium deal would involve at least $1.5 billion in subsidies to Commanders owner Harris, in exchange for benefits that are still almost entirely undefined.

Unlike most other media reports on this deal, I just went back and changed all instances of “will” to “would,” because we’re still talking about a hypothetical here: Mayor Bowser may have signed off on all this, but D.C. hasn’t approved nothing until its council weighs in on it. The mayor will need seven out of 12 votes on the council — how’s that going so far?

  • Council chair Phil Mendelsonprobably not: “The cost to the District will be nearly $1 billion – and that does not include investments in Metro and the surrounding park land site – and I continue to be concerned with investing any public money into a stadium while we have constrained budgets and revenues, and unmet needs.”
  • Ward 1 councilmember Brianne Nadeau, no: “It’s a ‘no’ for me. The District cannot afford to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on a sports stadium for a privately held team, a stadium that will sit dark most days.”
  • Ward 2 councilmember Brooke Pinto, yes: “Welcoming the Washington Commanders back to DC is not only good for the team, it’s an investment in our city’s spirit, in economic development, and in a future for our city that makes us all proud.”
  • Ward 6 councilmember Charles Allen, no: “In stark financial terms, at a time when the District is facing a recession and tens of thousands of workers are losing their jobs, this proposal is asking DC residents to pay more than $4 million for each and every home game for the next 30 years, a proposal that doesn’t even include funding for a sorely needed Metro station expansion to give people alternatives to driving.”
  • Ward 7 councilmember Wendell Felder, probably: “As the councilmember I plan to conduct a robust community engagement plan to go directly to neighbors especially around the neighboring communities and figure out what we can do to make sure their quality of life is not disrupted.”
  • At-large member Kenyan McDuffie, yes: “We want to make sure we are that we are working together as a council, working with the executive to do what’s in the best interest of the District of Columbia residents, taxpayers, and families. This deal is going to fit within those priorities.”
  • At-large councilmember Anita Bonds, yes: “For me it’s about or community, and every community is looking to ways to revitalize, and we are lucky. We have the Commanders that want to be here.”
  • Ward 4 councilmember Janeese Lewis George and at-large members Robert White and Christina Henderson, probably not, having signed on to a 2022 letter stating that “we will not support a football stadium” at the RFK site.
  • Ward 3 councilmember Matthew Frumin, Ward 5 councilmember Zachary Parker, no data.

That’s going to be a tough vote, though as always, close decisions in city councils usually end up meaning haggling, and swing votes can often be had pretty cheap. Bowser wants this approved by June, so the next few weeks are going to see the pressure turned up on D.C. elected officials — watch the tea leaves closely, and if you’re a D.C. resident who has feels about this plan, share them with your representatives ASAP.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bengals reno plan called “PR stunt,” plus the return of the Rays two-stadium plan

Thanks to everyone who generously donated (and in some cases more than generously, you know who you are) to the Field of Schemes spring supporter drive — I have a whole lot of fridge magnets to send out! But first, there’s a weekly news roundup to get to:

  • That Hamilton County agreement to spend $80.5 million on Cincinnati Bengals stadium upgrades and repairs in exchange for no lease agreement at all turns out to be not so popular with the Hamilton County Commission, where commissioner Alicia “hugging the zero down” Reece called it “a PR stunt” because there’s no new lease while commission president Denise Driehaus countered (?) that “No one at that meeting ever said this was related to the final lease.” The county commission only has three members and the third, Stephanie Summerow Dumas, didn’t show up to yesterday’s meeting, so it’s hard to say what this means for the stadium proposal’s ultimate fate.
  • Hey, what if the Tampa Bay Rays built two stadiums, asks Tampa Bay Times opinion editor Graham Brink, one outdoors and one a refurbished Tropicana Field? Would that be cheaper or better? Probably not? Too bad, I already wrote the op-ed, and anyway this is just “back of the napkin” stuff. (Or envelope, which actually has two distinct sides. NAPKINS GOT BACKS!)
  • WAMU-FM reports that “a source familiar with [Washington Commanders stadium] talks” says funding “will likely involve the city borrowing against new tax revenues expected to be generated by any new development,” i.e., tax increment financing. The station cites a 2020 study claiming that D.C. has turned a profit on average on TIF districts — on first look it appears that the study’s authors guesstimated that development would still happen in the districts without the TIF but would take longer, which is probably a reasonable assumption but could create huge swings in the revenue numbers depending on what you mean by “longer.” I have emails out to a couple of TIF experts, I’ll update here if they have anything instructive to add.*
  • Former Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial director Brent Larkin says the Cleveland Browns stadium plans should be submitted to a public referendum, arguing that Ohio voters usually approve sports subsidy referendums anyway, so where’s the harm? Oh, and also it would be “a wildly generous gift to billionaire professional sports team owners at the same time those same elected officials are cutting aid to schools, food banks, libraries and programs for poor kids.” But anyway, it’ll probably win, so let the voters feel like they’re having a say, that’s democracy!
  • St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch has issued a proposal for redeveloping the waterfront that would include demolishing Al Lang Stadium, the old spring training ballpark that is currently home to the Tampa Bay Rowdies USL team. City councilmembers don’t sound too enthused about this, but also Welch’s managing director of city development said the Rowdies owners are “involved and they’re aware” of the plan, so maybe there’s a new soccer stadium proposal in the works? Worth keeping an eye on, if nothing else.
  • A group of downtown Kansas City businesses put up a giant sign with a giant QR code asking that a Royals stadium be built downtown. Chair of the Downtown Council of Kansas City: Gibb Kerr, managing director of the K.C. office of Cushman and Wakefield, a major developer, who surely would not be in position to profit from a downtown stadium, the Kansas City Star would certainly tell us if it were.
  • Work has begun at the proposed Las Vegas A’s stadium site on making it even flatter, this is what passes for progress these days.
  • Los Angeles Dodgers ticket prices are going up, and so is their payroll, and Forbes “contributor” Dan Schlossberg (author of “41 books and more than 25,000 articles about baseball”) concludes that the payroll must be driving up the ticket prices — sorry, Dan, that’s not how it works, there’s a book you might want to read if you have time between writing them.
  • Economist Joe Cortright has done his own analysis of the Portland baseball stadium income tax diversion proposal that I estimated could leave Oregon taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole and determined that the total hole would be more than $600 million.
  • I was on WOSU’s “All Sides with Amy Juravich” on Wednesday to discuss the Browns and Bengals situations, and you can listen to it here. For those who are wondering: Yes, Andy Zimbalist and I did run into each other on the Zoom call as my segment ended and his began, and no, there were no punches thrown.
  • You can buy a piece of the shredded Tropicana Field roof at Tampa Bay Rays games for $15, with the money going to a Rays charity, and doesn’t the city own the roof remnants, shouldn’t the money be going to the general fund? Anyway, if anyone in the Tampa area has been looking for a National Hairball Awareness Day present for me, hint, hint!

*UPDATE: Eight minutes after I hit publish on this post, sports economist and tax expert Geoffrey Propheter replied to my question about the D.C. TIF study. Propheter said it “falls short of academic standards for economic policy analysis” because it doesn’t try to analyze how tax revenue from TIF developments compares to comparable plots of land, but rather just compares actual developments to hypothetical ones that would (according to the study’s assumptions) see different kinds of development take place. He concludes: “I don’t understand how anyone would use this study to justify a TIF for a Commanders stadium.”

And while I was writing the above, Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs First (disclosure: I’m doing some paid work for them, not on the subject of stadiums or TIFs) chimed in to note that D.C. TIF districts like the one for Gallery Place have had to be expanded to siphon off sales taxes from other nearby neighborhoods in order to break even.

Share this post: