|
|
|
Should Taxpayers Play Ball?
|
Business New Haven
4/16/2001
By: BNH
|
Four years ago when the issue of the inadequacy of the New Haven Ravens' Yale Field home was first raised, we editorialized against public funding for stadium improvements. It's not that we don't or didn't like the Ravens, but that we believed that Joe Taxpayer ought not be milked to pay for improvements to Yale University.
Now the paradigm has shifted, and the Eastern League champs want a new ballpark. Mayoral challenger Martin Loony has made a new Ravens facility a plank in his platform, calling for a $20 million field of dreams either downtown or on the harbor (see story, page three).Incumbent John DeStefano Jr., doesn't exactly oppose the idea in principle; he merely has said he didn't think it was one of the city's top two or three economic-development priorities.
We continue to oppose public participation in private, for-profit enterprises, whether it's lab space on spec for phantom biotech firms or that $20 million white elephant of a decade ago, the Connecticut Tennis Center (another Yale improvement at taxpayer expense).
How has the paradigm shifted? For one thing, the success of Bridgeport's three-year-old Ballpark at Harbor Yard has come partly at New Haven's expense, as Ravens attendance has dwindled.To further rub salt in New Haven's wounds, Bridgeport this fall will host a new American Hockey League club skating in a new - taxpayer-funded - arena. This just two years after New Haven lost its own AHL club.
In many or most instances, new ballparks attract new audiences, at least for a time. On the major-league level, the appeal of retro parks such as Baltimore's Camden Yards and Cleveland's Jacobs Field have endured even as they approach the decade-old mark.
But the bloom may be off that rose. Over the past ten years 13 of 30 major-league teams have opened new parks, while eight more are planning them. As a result, points out the April 11 Wall Street Journal, “The competitive advantage of having a new home has shrunk every time another one has come on line.”
A similar dynamic exists on the minor-league level. The Trenton Thunder's seven-year-old Waterfront Park has helped make that club the first Double A team to draw more than 400,000 fans - six seasons in a row. That's more than twice the 185,000 the Ravens drew last year.
Contrast that with the five-year-old, 6,000-seat New Britain Stadium, home of the Rock Cats. The Cats can catch flies but not draw them, since only 220,000 fans made it out to the old ballgame there in 2000.
So the argument that a new ballpark is the magic bullet for Ravens' attendance is pretty shaky. Nevertheless, our position on the issue has evolved to the point where we believe some public assistance might make sense under certain conditions. Here's how we see it today:
• The idea of public subsidies for private sports palaces is a genie that is out of the bottle. Both Bridgeport's and New Britain's parks were built in part with tax dollars; we think it is not unreasonable for the Ravens to request similar consideration.
• The Ravens have paid their dues. Over eight years owner Ed Massey has endured an indifferent city administration, two affiliation changes, a declining corporate base, dwindling attendance, and even lousy spring weather. He is still here. That counts for something.
• They are the reigning Eastern League champs, but it does to us. Toiling in obscurity, they rose to the top of a 78-year-old league that has played more than 40,000 games in front of more than 60 million fans. Unlike the cobbled-together “independent” leagues, the Eastern has tradition, and its ties to the majors are unbreakable.
• We do not favor a downtown location for a new park. There is too little available land, and what there is (e.g., the Malley's block) should remain earmarked for other commercial development. The Sports Haven site would offer the visibility and access the team wants.
• We would like to see a high ratio of private to public financing - whether that private capital comes from corporate sponsorships, naming rights, or individual investors. No one wants to see another Connecticut Tennis Center.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
