A New Stadium Is Affordable, Lance Berkman, and Rays Spring Training Information

The Baseball Stadium Financing Caucus, a group of business leaders from both sides of the bay, released the findings of a stadium financing study yesterday which concluded that the area can afford a new baseball stadium. The caveat; the public could be on the hook for at least 60 to 80 percent of the cost, assuming that the Rays cover 20 to 40 percent. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “The Bay Area Baseball Finance Summary says that about $350-million would be available from a number of sources in either county. The report assumes the Rays would pay 20 to 40 percent of the cost for a retractable roof stadium, which the group estimates at $500 million.”

The study group did not offer any suggestions on where a new facility should be built, nor did they include factors that would hinge on any specific site; factors such as the compensation for St. Petersburg if a stadium was to be built in Hillsborough, or sale of Tropicana Field acreage if a new stadium were to be built in Carillon.

The Times put together a list of fast facts (below) pertinent to the financing of a new stadium. Pinellas County citizens would not be on the hook for any new taxes would a new facility to be built in St. Petersburg, or in any areas that could be annexed within city limits. However, recent studies have shown mounting evidence which suggests stadiums and arenas almost always cost more than originally planned. What’s more, they almost never bring about the revenues or economic development that is promised. It wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that either Pinellas or Hillsborough County citizens could be on the hook for a significantly higher amount than the projected estimate of $350 million.

According to a recent Think Progress article, “the cost of the stadium rose to $634 million. All told, the cost of repaying the bonds will be an estimated $2.4 billion over the next 40 years. The stadium deal, and leaks of official documents detailing franchise profits that indicated a higher value than the team had let on during negotiations (and that owners had pocketed revenue-sharing money), led to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

Personally, I’d be much more comfortable with the Rays plunking down 40 to 60 percent of the costs, especially when you consider that a new facility could be exorbitantly greater. Granted the caucus is basing their figures the Rays contribution toward the failed proposed waterfront stadium, estimated at costing $400 million. The Rays were willing to contribute close to 40 percent of the cost of that facility. Perhaps they’d be willing to do the same in this case.

Sources of potential stadium funding