Why I don't root for Missouri teams.

Matt Chaney of the Sedalia Democrat sums up my sentiments nicely, although he leaves out another argument I would have made -- how does a stadium in St. Louis, KC, or Columbia help ME? The answer is simple. It doesn't. So why should I be forced to subsidize it? The answer is again simple. I shouldn't.

Welfare of sports franchises burdens Missouri


By Matt Chaney
The Sedalia Democrat


The vital concerns for Missourians everywhere, urban and rural, have hardly changed within contemporary America.

Government and education, roads and bridges, manufacturing and service industry, small business, natural resources: These are Missouri's lifeblood components and will remain so, and today each faces pressing problems, some at critical mass.

The well being of professional sports franchises, meanwhile, are nowhere on the list of legitimate needs for Missouri, nor any other state for that matter.

Yet, since TV transformed American sports into mega-entertainment, leaders of many urban areas -- particularly figures in government, media and sport business -- are convinced a civic image they vaguely define as "major league" is critical to the survival and advancement of a metropolitan area.

Never mind the economic facts prove otherwise. This image thing about a city being major league, proponents insist, is real and must be fed periodically with state-of-the-art stadiums and arenas -- and taxpayers should pay the majority of financing.

Unfortunately for Missouri, this misguided, baseless policy has cost us a billion dollars in recent decades.

In addition, we're still on the hook for hundreds of millions earmarked toward existing or approved stadiums and arenas. Decades into the future, Missourians will pay costs in construction, maintenance and debt for facilities in Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis.

Incredibly, this public farce may only grow in scope, because influential people pushing major sports are hell-bent to secure new public aid for lavish venues.

Moreover, such power brokers seem oblivious that most Missourians have learned enough about sport economy -- understanding what it doesn't do for mankind, versus what it allegedly does -- to object at the polls.

Our sports mongers just don't get it. To wit:

"Like living in a big city? Then pay up," growled a recent headline in the Kansas City Star, above a mirror commentary by sportswriter Joe Posnanski.

The Poz and other KC sports boosters wanted area voters to approve a new quarter-cent sales tax measure, Bistate II, that in part would've provided $600 million to renovate stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals, along with a same amount pegged for regional arts.

The campaign was dubbed "Think Big," directly dissing anyone who disagreed, but the measure failed convincingly on Nov. 2, losing in four of five counties polled.

Still, while citizens rejected Bistate II, they couldn't kill the never-say-die attitude of supporters.

Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt has reacted more like the good ol' Texas billionaire he is, instead of the supposed local folk hero he isn't.

Hunt says now it might be time to just deck Truman Sports Complex and build two new stadiums.

Much in stride with Hunt, other KC sports boosters say the Bistate defeat really means the public needs a new stadium or two in the downtown.

Royals owner and billionaire David Glass, to his credit, is cool to anyone's idea about another stadium for his team. And Glass, a native of Willow Springs who married a Walton, appears sympathetic to taxpayers in this issue. But he still wants public aid, even if he's talking about much less after Bistate's failure.

As for Hunt, I say go ahead, man, build your stadium. You just write the check. Forbes knows you can.

Elsewhere in Missouri, St. Louis County voters struck a blow against stadium subsidy on Nov. 2, overwhelmingly approving Proposition A.

The new statute bars public assistance for professional sports stadiums without voter approval. It follows a like measure voters passed two years ago in St. Louis City.

The laws are too late to nullify public aid politicians gave the St. Louis Cardinals, about $200 million in tax breaks, infrastructure and bonds to help build the new ballpark downtown.

But St. Louis voters can ward off possible welfare bids by the football Rams, who are expected to seek aid for "improvements" to the A.G. Edwards Dome, and the hockey Blues, for subsidy they would want to survive. The dome, incidentally, already will cost taxpayers a reported $720 million before debt is retired in 2022.

Taken collectively, Missouri's enormous investment in pro sports equates to folly, and downtown St. Louis is a case in point.

In the last decade, the Cardinals have made one World Series and reached the NLCS in three other years. The Rams have made two Super Bowls. The Blues have made the NHL playoffs repeatedly.

The dome has opened, Savvis Center has been renovated extensively, and the Cardinals are replacing Busch Stadium.

Yet downtown St. Louis still has dead economy, still needs revitalization, and still awaits great ideas by civic leaders.

Thinking big for Missouri's future, urban and rural, isn't about small-minded, worn-out concepts like huge funding for stadiums. And it's time our sports mongers accept the fact.

They can learn from George Steinbrenner in New York, the Yankees owner planning a new $800 million ballpark in The Bronx.

King George says he'll pay $700 million for the project if the city will kick in $100 for infrastructure.

This proposal is reasonable. Private enterprise would pay the lion's share, while public aid is enough to cover any immeasurable benefit to local economy.

Say what you want about Steinbrenner, but his thinking on stadium funding is major league.