3 days ago
Consider KC stadium funding if subsidies are fair and can improve our quality of life
Missouri lawmakers return to Jefferson City Monday to begin a special session with a limited but highly important agenda on their desks.
The centerpiece of the session: a proposed financial support blueprint for stadiums in Missouri for the Royals and the Chiefs.
Some lawmakers, from both the right and the left, will oppose any public support, of any kind, for stadium projects here or anywhere else. They think sports stadiums are not essential to a community or state, and provide little economic benefit.
We respect that judgment. But let's also be clear: public subsidies for private industries have been a part of Missouri's political structure for decades. Missourians paid tens of millions of dollars over three decades to build a domed stadium in St. Louis, for example.
Missouri currently pays for upkeep at the Truman Sports Complex. The Cardinals are reportedly eyeing state help for repairs and upgrades at their stadium.
Missouri provides assistance for job training expenses. It offers a long list of tax credit programs designed to boost businesses. It authorizes cities to offer subsidies for construction, housing, business and other industries. Much of downtown Kansas City has been built with taxpayer help.
We have long been skeptical of these programs, and others, but we don't reject them as a matter of principle. Instead, Missourians must look closely at the details and goals of public subsidies to determine if they're fair, and can reasonably be expected to improve the quality of life in the state.
We hope lawmakers will use those guideposts in their discussion of state help for Kansas City sports stadiums.
Here's how:
The subsidies should be as low as possible. They must reflect the direct impact of the teams on the state's economy and tax structure. Also, the teams should pay for a significant portion of their new or rehabbed facilities. They should do so in public, with firm commitments (including coverage of cost overruns) before the state disburses any money for the projects.
On this score, we remain deeply disappointed at the lack of public engagement by the Chiefs and Royals over the past year. Basic questions remain unanswered. If the teams want billions in subsidies, they should ask the people first. Other shoulds:
The teams' patrons should contribute significant money to the building projects.
The package under consideration requires a local government commitment to the projects in order to qualify for state funds. That's not only a good idea — it should be reinforced by voters: The General Assembly could require a local vote, for example, before local taxes are spent on stadiums.
The Royals and Chiefs must show a real commitment to local and state benefit agreements, signed before taxpayer dollars are allocated. At minimum, it should include inclusive hiring and job training opportunities on the projects.
Kansas City's new airport terminal project could be a model for these agreements.
Meeting these and other goals during the special session will be extraordinarily difficult. Relationships among members of the legislature are at an historic low. There are a hundred reasons to vote against these projects and only one reason, really, to vote yes: Professional sports franchises are important in Missouri.
That fact is often forgotten in the blather surrounding this subject. We don't buy — nor should you — the notion that sports franchises are unique drivers of economic development. They aren't.
Instead, the Royals and Chiefs provide a different value. They unite our often splintered community, making this a better place to live. That benefit is significant, and can't be quantified in dollars and cents.
We think it's an added value lawmakers should fully consider. That could lead them to approve an aid package that is fair, targeted, low-cost, transparent and helps everyone who lives and works in Missouri.
If the people of St. Louis need additional resources to rebuild following May's devastating tornado, legislators should provide that help. The starting offer of $25 million for emergency housing aid seems astonishingly low for a storm that may have caused more than $1 billion in damage.
States, including Missouri, must get ready for these kinds of spending decisions, since President Donald Trump has said he would limit or end the federal government's role in disaster response. When the storm hits, apparently, we're on our own.
Lawmakers must also consider and approve a list of state building projects, including, potentially, more than $48 million allocated for a 200-bed mental health hospital in Kansas City. The project is part of a massive capital spending bill that collapsed in the closing days of the regular session.
These projects deserve a vote. Lawmakers should provide it.
