Tax-funded parks don’t make sense

“The findings are particularly clear in suggesting that public funding of professional sports stadiums is not a sound civic economic investment.” So said economist Robert Baade in his presentation in 1995 at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s conference on Sports and Entertainment, Economic Development: Boon or Boondoggle.

This column has previously referred to this conference and years of independent studies that have shown that public tax money being used for professional sports teams’ stadiums doesn’t make economic sense. It may be time to revisit these studies as Bangor’s elected officials face the issue of voting public money for a stadium for the Blue Ox.

Why do it? The argument seems to be it will add to the economy of downtown. How? If such a stadium makes economic sense from a pure business standpoint, it will be built with private money. The request for public money means (1) it won’t stand on its own economic legs, or (2) those seeking the tax dollars just want to spend less of their own money. We’ll assume good faith here and go with the former.

If the concept is not viable on its own, then the argument is the project generates other positive results for the economy away from the stadium itself. Probably not. “The data suggests that stadium subsidies and other sports subsidies benefit not the community as a whole, but rather team owners and professional athletes,” quoting the same Baade presentation.

If that is true for major league teams, it is even more applicable to an independent league team. No businesses from outside are going to rush to Bangor because it builds a stadium. The league runs a short season. Other uses of such a stadium are speculative at best, especially since the owners will want a stadium built specifically for baseball.

Any ongoing jobs will be at the lowest end of the wage scale and will be part-time summer jobs. People from outside the Bangor market are not going to be coming to Bangor to see the Ox. The dollars spent at such a stadium are local entertainment dollars spent at a game rather than on a movie or meal or concert.

There are two types of costs associated with any such proposal. There are the real costs, building and operating the stadium and any tax breaks; and there are opportunity costs. If the riverfront land is used, it is not available for other projects. Would private development, with the tax dollars generated and year-round jobs provided, be a better use of the property?

Additionally, once the city commits to such a project, whether in actual dollars, tax relief, or a new tax on something to raise money, there is some other project that won’t get that benefit, such as schools and public works. Is a stadium worth that opportunity cost and just how much is it in dollars?

The Portland Sea Dogs’ crowds are used to push the stadium idea. A study of the Sea Dogs would probably bring no different results than those cited. Ownership makes the most money, the jobs provided are low-paying, and while some Portland businesses benefit, others lose, since the money spent for the games are local dollars going from one entertainment purpose to another.

A thousand people showing up some night to eat at your restaurant would look like a great economic boom, but if we checked out the rest of the restaurants and found out nobody was at any of them, from the public economic standpoint, it’s a wash. Would a stadium generate new dollars or just transfer dollars from one point to another?

Sports is a sexy tease in this country, but beware the public dollar used to finance it when the makeup may be more than the body.