Florida Weighs Corporate Welfare for New Sports Stadium

Tampa Bay taxpayers already funded one baseball stadium. Will they be forced to subsidize another?

Whether or not they’re fans of baseball, residents in Tampa and St. Petersburg have the opportunity of a lifetime to become investors in the future of America’s pastime.

They’ve been told to imagine a sprawling ballpark with a retractable roof, enviable seating capacity, and a prime location in Tampa that would make attract baseball teams and fans from all around.

The catch?

Taxpayers will be expected to shell out close to $400 million in order achieve such a dream, notwithstanding overrun costs to expand infrastructure and parking garages around the new stadium.

The pitch was unveiled in the Bay Area Baseball Stadium Finance Summary, a joint project of the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce intended to “educate” local citizens of the financial and social benefits of investing in such a venture.

Though the Tampa Bay Rays already enjoy a fully functional stadium, Tropicana Field, opened in 1990 in downtown St. Petersburg, complaints about less than ideal attendance and location have dogged the team’s fate and invited talks of moving the team across the bay.

The Major League Baseball team had its inaugural season in the stadium in 1998.

But such talk is muted, however, at least until 2027, when the Rays’ contract with the city of St. Petersburg expires, around the same time the large debt taken out to finance the original stadium will be paid off.

It cost nearly $233 million in construction in today’s dollars, and St. Petersburg has so far only been able to repay just over 25 percent.

For his part, St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster has kept the Rays in check about sticking around until 2027, threatening to sue any party attempting to break the contract and move the team out of the downtown structure.

“I put a lot in contracts, commitments and loyalty. All I’m asking is for them to abide by the contract,” Foster told The New York Times in June.

In the new proposal penned by the chambers of commerce, the Rays would pick up 20-40 percent of the estimated cost $621 million cost for construction of a new stadium, but the rest would fall on taxpayers, again.

The authors of the proposal were sure to address this skepticism, offering that any stadium deal could be accomplished “without imposing new taxes on local residents,” suggesting diverting old taxes in order to pay for it and renegotiating Tropicana Field debt payments for more favorable terms.

Instead of using the Community Investment Tax of Hillsborough County to build schools and basic infrastructure, the chambers of commerce wants that money redirected to finance the new stadium, according to the proposal. But the proposal also warns it could “face some political hurdles” if residents vote on the matter.

The one-cent sales tax in Pinellas County also could be retooled to pay for the stadium, the authors claim, as well as applying for millions in federal tax credits given to investors in low-income communities.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Screw that. I enjoy the Rays and would hate to see them go, but I totally oppose a dime of public money being used to subsidize the team.

    Incidentally, the location does suck, and the stadium isn't exactly amazing. Still, I'd rather have that than more taxes.

  • mr lizard||

    I love the trop. It's thoroughly air conditioned and they have full liquor bars, $8 tall boy bud lights, and not a bad seat in the house. Not to mention our metro area is brrrrrrrooooooooke. The tax deal ain't gonna happen

  • ||

    But but but Trolley Cars!

  • Pro Libertate||

    I fear the Tampa option. Not that I wouldn't prefer that, location-wise, but I don't want the tax burden.

    If I were a betting man, I'd say a new facility in the Gateway area is most likely. If we're lucky, it'll be privately funded, but I'll believe that when it happens.

  • WWNGD?||

    Hey, the Florida... I mean Miami Marlins stadium was paid for by tax payers and that isn't in a great location so why can't Tampa do it?

  • ||

    I enjoy the Rays and would hate to see them go

    You and three other people. Anyone who believes that a new park for the Rays will lead to more than a 10% jump in attendance, especially given the subsequent rise in ticket/concession prices, is seriously delusional.

  • Restoras||

    Especially since 10% of nothing is...

  • Pro Libertate||

    The location is a huge problem--it's about as far away from most of the attending population as it could be.

  • carol||

    I don't go to the Trop because it is just too big of a pain in the ass. That aside, why should tax payers be on the hook for a stadium? It seems like five years after a team gets its new stadium they start pitching for a new one. It is never ending extortion.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's exactly what it is, and cities not only shouldn't pay, they shouldn't have the legal authority to do so.

  • ||

    I feel that if a municipality is responsible for paying for a sports franchise, they should have the honor of renaming them. The Tampa Bay Debt-Raisers? The New York Spending Giants? The Santa Clara 540's?

  • Sevo||

    generic Brand| 11.26.12 @ 11:06AM |#
    ..."The Santa Clara 540's?"

    One of the very few 'good deals' SF taxpayers ever got was when the Santa Clara politicos outbid SF for the new stadium.

  • R C Dean||

    I feel that if a municipality is responsible for paying for a sports franchise, they should have the honor of renaming them get a piece of the ownership.

  • Boehm Houle||

    That's great if it's a profitable franchise, but an unhappy result if the municipality becomes an owner of one that is cash-flow negative....

  • ||

    What if each individual taxpayer could take their share of the loss on their income taxes?

  • hotsy totsy||

    If the taxpayers are investors, why don't they get in free? What's the actual return on this investment?

  • uythsb||

    Florida Weighs Corporate Welfare for New Sports Stadium
    hope they are well anytime.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement