August 20–27, 1998

city beat

Going West: Developer Dan Keating's vision for a ballpark at 30th and Walnut

Public financing of sports stadiums is all wrong, says political journalist Neil deMause, co-author of a new book critical of such dealings.

No doubt you've read about the proposals for new Phillies and Eagles stadiums. Finally get the teams out of the Vet, an eyesore of a reminder of all that was wrong with the '70s. The city could build new digs by 30th Street, an old-style ballpark like Baltimore's Camden Yards maybe; a centrally located site at Broad and Spring Garden; or a neighbor for the CoreStates Center. A new stadium would generate a ton of new tourism for the city, proponents for public financing argue. And think of all the jobs a new stadium would create.

Hogwash, says Neil deMause, co-author of the new book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit. The subtitle tells deMause's story: he's peeved at owners of sports teams who, he says, through ploys ranging from exaggerating the economic benefits of building a stadium to threatening to relocate if one isn't built, convince local governments to build them shining new sports palaces. Why, he wonders, can governments dig up boatloads of money to keep the owners and their teams in town, while the coffers are empty when school boards come knocking?

DeMause—a political journalist who has written regularly for In These Times, Z Magazine and Guardian Newsweekly, and co-founded the political zine Brooklyn Metro Times—has some interesting answers to these questions. He'll have the opportunity to convince, dissuade—or just further confuse—Philadelphians this Wednesday at the Center City Barnes and Noble, when he debates Bala Cynwyd developer Dan Keating, one of the forces behind the 30th Street stadium proposal.

Philadelphia's stadium debate is no doubt complicated. The question that has dominated is that of where to build. One camp says Philly needs a stadium west of the Schuylkill; another says right in town at Broad and Spring Garden; and yet others say the south end of Broad. The 30th Street proposal is the most ambitious.

The plan is the result of a study completed in January by HOK Sport and Urban Engineers, Inc., the stadium design firm that crafted Baltimore's Camden Yards (which is being touted as the public financing success story), among others, and was funded by Keating.

A 1997 Arthur Andersen study, which examined the potential economic impact of a stadium built in Center City versus one built in South Philadelphia, recommended Center City as the most viable location. That study was conducted as a supplement to a study currently being conducted by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, the city's economic development arm. PIDC spokesperson Noreen Shanfelter could not comment on its status.

But before the where can be determined, the how must be figured out: Who's going to foot the bill for such a multimillion dollar venture?

Though some have argued that we have reached the era of privately financed stadiums (see CoreStates Center, Spectrum, San Francisco's new stadium), others still see the need for public funding.

Not surprisingly, Phillies owner Bill Giles, who stands to benefit greatly from public financing of a new stadium, believes the government should partially pay for stadiums. He says they yield positive results for the city and the state.

"You don't have a major league city unless you have a major league sports team," Giles says. "Just look at the cities that have lost their major league teams and the negative impact that has had on them.

"If you study the economic figures of sales tax and income tax and other taxes created by [a new stadium], it's a win-win situation—economically, as well as making the city a better place to live."

Proponents of public financing cite Baltimore's Camden Yards as the success story.

Keating and Giles disagree on location. Giles maintains the complex at 30th Street does not provide enough parking. According to the proposal, the site would include 4,500 spaces. The estimated number of required spots is 15,000. But they do agree that a site in Center City, rather than at Broad and Pattison, would best benefit Philadelphia. "The economic impact would be overwhelming," says Keating.

According to the Arthur Andersen study, "93 percent of Phillies fans arrive at Veterans Stadium by car and 40 percent spend no money on their way to and from the game. Only 14 percent of Phillies fans spend money before or after the game in adjacent South Philadelphia bars and restaurants."

The researchers concluded that "a new ballpark in Center City can increase the overall economic impact of the Phillies from the current level at the Veterans Stadium of $229 million per year to $417 million per year, an increase of 82 percent."

Last month a regional board approved an $803 million package for construction in Pittsburgh of new Pirates and Steelers stadiums and an expanded convention center. The Republican-controlled state general assembly will officially decide later in the year whether the Pittsburgh project will receive state funding, but the Ridge administration has made it clear that the state will come up with one-third of the funds if the other two-thirds come from the city and private sources.

And if Pittsburgh gets state funding, it's very likely Philly will get it as well. A new stadium in Philly would cost upwards of $300 million.

According to Tim Reeves, Gov. Tom Ridge's spokesperson, if Philadelphia can come up with two-thirds of the required cash (a third from private sources, such as the teams, and another third from public funds), then that will demonstrate to the state that the city is committed to a project.

Mayor Ed Rendell has said in the past that stadium owners would have to find private funding. Last month, he told the Inquirer that if the city is to come up with a plan, it should not come from the general-revenue budget. Rendell suggested a sports lottery like Maryland's as a possibility.

Calls to Rendell's spokesman Kevin Feeley were not returned before press time.

City Council President John Street, who commissioned a study on the matter in 1996, says he doesn't oppose public financing of a new stadium. Public financing at the city level, Street says, must be looked at on a "case-by-case basis."

The 1996 report, which was completed by Council's technical staff and never released, condemns public financing of sports stadiums.

"In reality," the report states, "the only 'economic development' that takes place when a publicly funded stadium is built is the revenue that flows from the stadium to its tenants, the owners and the millionaire players."

Street declined to comment on the 1996 study because it had been so long since he had read it.

Another tactic sports team owners use to secure public funds for stadiums, according to deMause, is threatening to skip town. Philadelphia has essentially been wrangling over the stadium issue for the better part of this century. In the '60s, when the debate that would spawn Veterans Stadium was raging, then-Mayor Richardson Dilworth warned Philadelphia that it would be "creepy" if the city lost its major league teams over a stadium issue.

But Philadelphia is not in danger of becoming "creepy" anytime soon (at least not over the stadium issue).

"Our teams are tied up [in lease agreements] for the next 10 to 12 years," Street says.

Which is likely how long squabbling over the stadium will continue.

DeMause hopes to advance "an informed public debate" this Wednesday, rather than the blitz of television advertising that has characterized the debates over stadium referenda in Miami and other cities. Whatever the outcome, he surmises that Philadelphia is "at the very, very, very early stages of… a many-year-long battle."

Additional reporting by James Bickford.