Price Is in the Ballpark, but Doubts Persist

As the City Council prepares to debate its best ballpark deal yet Monday, experts across the country warn that publicly-funded stadiums rarely make economic sense and typically benefit only the team owners.

The latest proposal to build a $10.5-million minor league stadium near the Ventura Auto Mall slashes millions of dollars in stadium construction costs, reduces financial risk to the city and ensures that the public has input through a ballot measure on pursuing the ambitious project.

But what the council, and possibly the voters, must decide is whether spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to build a stadium is really a good idea.

Sports specialists nationwide caution that stadium subsidies from financially strapped cities can be costly boondoggles.

“The cold reality is, we have people who do not have the means to pay for it, enhancing the means of those who are extremely privileged--the players and team owners,” said Robert Baade, an economist who coaches athletics at Lake Forest College in Chicago.

But local proponents counter that the city cannot put a price tag on the civic pride, wholesome entertainment and community enhancement a stadium brings.

“When I was in Lancaster, I saw teenagers selling tickets and parking cars [at the stadium]. I saw families on blankets. I saw kids getting autographs,” Ventura resident Steve Askay said at a recent public hearing. “I’m always looking for good entertainment for young people, and I saw it.”

What’s more, some council members say the stadium issue is about more than baseball: It is a political issue that will set up the playing field for Ventura’s next election.

“This is not about the stadium, this is about political preparation for 1997,” Councilman Ray Di Guilio said. “This has become a bellwether for the possibilities for people who want to make a statement for the November 1997 election.”

Ventura is hardly alone in deciding whether to spend millions to bring a professional sports team to town.

A developer in Camarillo is saying he is ready to build a privately funded, 6,500-seat minor league stadium. Unlike Ventura developer John Hofer, he is not asking the city of Camarillo to pay for the stadium, or the special improvements needed to build on the site.

Bob Pearson, who owns the property, says he and his investors plan to take the deal to the city of Camarillo in the next 10 days.

But offers like that are rare. Across the country, local governments are turning over money to build sports palaces and woo professional teams to their communities.

So what’s right for Ventura?

*

Analysts warn that municipally-funded stadiums, whatever the cost, are not good ideas.

Baade did an analysis of stadiums and city economics in 48 major U.S. cities. He found no correlation between stadiums and higher economic growth.

“Professional sports complexes don’t pay off,” Baade said. “They force painful civic trade-offs. Schools, streets and sewers have to be sacrificed for sports palaces.”

John Berthoud, president of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute in Virginia, who studies city budgets and finance, is more blunt in his criticism of the minor league teams.

“They keep asking for more assistance, like welfare mothers,” said Berthoud. “But these players, unlike welfare mothers, have much more at their disposal.”

What’s more, after persuading cities to build new stadiums, some teams arrive with no long-term commitment to the community and move on when a better deal arises.

Ventura’s latest proposal seeks to prevent such a scenario by requiring that Hofer own a controlling interest in whatever team comes to the city.

“By doing that, he has a vested interest in performing,” Di Guilio said. “If he walks, he loses everything.”

The new deal also addresses other concerns raised in the past month. It slices $8 million from the construction costs spelled out in Hofer’s September proposal. It also guarantees a rent high enough to make up for interest the city will lose by spending reserve money on the project.

*

Pearson, the Camarillo landowner pushing a stadium, said his investors and he would own the team, as well. But so far, he has had trouble finding a team. Repeated letters, phone calls to California League President Joe Gagliardi have elicited no response, he said. And why should the California League go to him, when there are cities willing to build minor league ball stadiums?

Stadium debate is further complicated by politics. Analysts also point out that stadiums have become a clever political ploy in election years because when voters go to the polls they do not remember how much their taxes rose. They remember whether their politicians brought sports heroes to town.

“Politics plays a role,” Berthoud says. “Politicians have decided that few voters will remember if they raise taxes. But they will remember if they brought in and kept a baseball team in town.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Comparing Stadium Proposals

Ventura Deal in September

Size: 5,000 seats

Location: 20 acres of celery fields near Johnson Drive, south of the Ventura Freeway.

City contribution: $18.7 million--$16 million to build stadium, $2.7 million to install curbs, lighting, road improvements in the area.

Developer contribution: 20 acres of land estimated at $2 million to $5 million; $600,000 to $700,000 in maintenance costs; $300,000 to $350,000 in annual rent.

Ownership: The city would own the stadium after 20 years.

Team ownership: Unclear, but not the city.

Ventura Deal Now on the Table

Size: 4,500 seats

Location: Same as earlier plan.

City contribution: $10.5 million to build stadium. Area road improvements to be considered separately.

Developer contribution: 20 acres of land; maintenance costs; rent that covers the interest the city would have earned on money it’s spending for stadium construction; costs of special election on stadium.

Ownership: The city would own the stadium after 25 years.

Team ownership: Hofer Enterprises would be team’s majority owner.

Proposed Camarillo Stadium

Size: 6,500 permanent seats, 1,500 temporary seats, to use for concerts and other events.

Location: Bean fields south of the freeway in Camarillo, between Las Posas and Central Avenue exits.

City contribution: Nothing on the stadium. Negotiating on road and utility improvements. Developer would pay back the money with a percentage of money from ticket revenues.

Developer contribution: $12 million for stadium, 50 acres of land, money for highway interchange, assessed by city on the property--in the millions.

Ownership: Co-owned by landowner and investment group

Team ownership: Landowner and investment group.

Source: City of Ventura and Camarillo developer