| Print Report | Donate |
Is Connecticut Ready For The Separation Of Sports And State?
This piece appeared in the New Haven Register on November 21, 2004.
It wasn't Bush versus Kerry, Shays versus Farrell, or Simmons versus Sullivan. But Tuesday's low-profile referendum on a publicly financed baseball stadium in Danbury deserves the attention of Connecticut's taxpayers.
For fans of fiscal responsibility, the result was a hopeful indication that enthusiasm for one of the most ineffective and dishonest "economic development" schemes -- the use of taxpayer dollars to build sports facilities for privately owned teams -- may be waning in the state.
The measure passed, 53 to 47 percent, but to his credit, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton quickly abandoned his aggressive push for the ballpark, citing the nonbinding referendum's victory as far from decisive.
In providing a less-than-ringing endorsement of the mayor's plan, Danbury's citizens demonstrated a fiscal sophistication most communities lack. The vote was particularly impressive when one considers that many members of the city's establishment -- including the school district's superintendent, the president of Western Connecticut State University, and Danbury's daily newspaper -- endorsed the plan. Predictably, a study was also proffered to convince residents of the economic viability of a new stadium. And in what must have been seen as a deal-closer for proponents, the owners of the parcel to be developed were willing to give the city $10 million toward the cost of construction.
No thanks, replied nearly half of Danbury's voters, in what some might see as a foolish decision to pass on a sure thing. But Danbury's not full of dummies. Evidently, many residents have learned the ugly lessons of Connecticut's familiarity with what former big-league pitcher Jim Bouton calls the "scenario where cities woo teams to come or stay with extensive new stadiums or upgrades, at taxpayer expense, only to have them leave if the city doesn’t do more."
The list of Connecticut's failed, and usually taxpayer-funded, efforts to establish and retain sports franchises and events is a long one. Inadequate fan support, disloyal owners, competition from other government-subsidized venues, and incompetent public officials have conspired again and again to lighten taxpayers' wallets, all for naught.
Let's skip Hartford, the obvious place to start -- Whalers memories are just too painful for some. In the Elm City, the New Haven Coliseum has been a graveyard for minor-league hockey teams and despite its relative youth (just over 30 years), is slated to be torn down. Minor-league baseball was also a bust in New Haven. And the taxpayer-financed folly that is the Connecticut Tennis Center sits unused 51 weeks a year.
Bridgeport is the state champ in sports pork. The Ballpark at Harbor Yard houses the Bluefish, a baseball team in the unaffiliated Atlantic League. The Arena at Harbor Yard is the home of the Sound Tigers, a minor-league affiliate of the New York Islanders. Attendance at Bluefish games is subpar, and the team is unprofitable. The Sound Tigers have experienced serious money woes as well, and have pursued the Bluefish's strategy of demanding financial concessions from the city.
In Norwich, the San Francisco Giants-affiliated Navigators play at the municipally owned Dodd Stadium, built with $23 million of state support. In 2004, the team missed the playoffs and had the worst average attendance in its league. What did this dismal performance produce? A weight room, new batting cages, a new scoreboard, and other stadium upgrades -- courtesy Norwich's taxpayers.
The story is much different in New Britain. That city's minor-league affiliate of the Minnesota Twins, the Rock Cats, has achieved stellar attendance in recent years. The team even turns a profit. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the stadium built for the Rock Cats (state funding: $12 million) doesn't. At a recent forum held to sell Danbury's prospective stadium, New Britain Mayor Tim Stewart admitted that his city loses about $150,00 a year running the facility.
New Britain is an excellent example of a ironclad rule sports economics: Even if a team is successful on the field and/or profitable, subsidizing it is a sucker’s bet for taxpayers. Impartial, outside studies of stadiums from coast to coast consistently conclude that public "investment" in sports facilities does not contribute to a region's economic vibrancy. As economists Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys recently wrote in a Cato Institute policy analysis, "the academic research overwhelmingly concludes that the presence of professional sports teams has no measurable positive impact on economic growth."
"The fiercest competition in sports these days," writes Bouton, "is not between teams or leagues but between governments and their own citizens." At least for now, that conflict won't occur in Danbury. Vigilant taxpayers and wise stewards of the public's purse should follow the Hat City's lead, and stop playing the sports-subsidy game altogether.
D. Dowd Muska is the Yankee Institute's Philip Gressel Fellow for Tax and Budget Policy.
| Print Report | Donate |
The Yankee Institute for Public Policy, Inc. is a nonpartisan educational and research organization founded more than two decades ago. Today, the Yankee Institute's mission is to "promote economic opportunity through lower taxes and new ideas for better government in Connecticut." The Yankee Institute for Public Policy, Inc. is classified by the IRS as a 501 (c) (3) public charity. Contributions are deductible to the extent allowed by law.
