Fiscal Conservatives Betray Cause With Mariners Stadium Vote

Do billionaire club owners and millionaire ballplayers in Seattle deserve our help more than family breadwinners in Spokane who work for less than welfare pays?

Republican state lawmakers from Spokane stood solidly against raising the minimum wage last legislative session.

But last week these same legislators voted en masse to make Eastern Washington taxpayers help pay for a fancy new home for the Seattle Mariners costing hundreds of millions. Spokane’s GOP pols dumped on taxpayers here, incredibly, after Seattle taxpayers had rejected a tax boost to build their own stadium themselves.

And Spokane’s GOP delegation to Olympia did it, incredibly, only months after slashing vital human services in the name of fiscal austerity.

Even more egregious, the double-cross comes at a time when the city and county of Spokane are unable to balance their own budgets without cutting local services.

Unlike state pols, Seattle voters refused to be blackmailed by threats to sell the Mariner franchise to another city, if foreign owners don’t get their way on a deluxe new arena.

Can there be any doubt what Spokane voters would say to that given the chance?

Politicians, lobbyists for the rich owners and players, tourism promoters and pro-sports junkies argue it’s good business.

Here’s the deal: The team owners will contribute $45 million. The public must cough up $275 million.

Of the $275 million in public funds, King County would collect $168 million by hiking sales taxes on restaurants and bars, car rentals, and tickets to stadium events. The tax hike would be local, but visitors to Seattle would all get dinged.

A new state sports lottery theoretically would generate another $48 million. But critics claim it will only siphon off money from the existing state take on lottery, which helps pay for other programs.

And $59 million would come from a sales tax credit. Again, the resulting shortfall in state revenues would have to be made up by taxpayers statewide.

But the fiscal conservatives who voted for this giveaway have to know that more spending for one thing translates into less spending on another.

But don’t take my word for it. A timely article in Investors Business Daily makes the point very well.

The article reports on a study by Chicago-based Heartland Institute. Research by economist Robert Baade showed that money spent on stadium tickets, food and drink is simply shifted from other entertainment.

“In other words,” says the article, “people go to baseball games instead of the movies - not both.”

In only one out of 32 cities studied by the researcher did adding a pro sports team produce a positive effect on the local economy as measured by real personal income growth.

“In 27 of 30 cases,” reported the article, “there was no long-term economic effect from building a new stadium.

“In the three remaining cases - St. Louis, San Francisco-Oakland, Wahington, D.C. - it actually hurt the economy.”

That’s because the jobs created by sports franchises are almost all low-wage. Poor pay for parking cars and restaurant work serves only to depress overall per-capita income.

“The data suggests that stadium subsidies and other sports subsidies benefit not the community as a whole, but rather team owners and professional athletes,” reported research economist Baade.

Political wheeler-dealer Todd Mielke of Spokane came close to saying as much in a Spokesman-Review story last weekend, in which he told of hearing fans in a pizza parlor cheering the Mariners. “I don’t really buy the argument that baseball is of statewide economic benefit,” said the chairman of the House Republican caucus.

“But,” he explained, “anything that brings that many people together and creates that kind of joy is a good thing for the state.”

Is this fiscal accountability? Or is tawdry special-interest political deal-making.

“A high-powered cadre of high-priced lobbyists banded together, gratis, to help gain aproval of the proposal,” reported David Ammonds of The Associated Press. They were aptly christened the “Dream Team.”

And the razzmatazz about regional pride and status? That’s all bunk.

If Spokane pride and ego and status depend on a sports team in Seattle with foreign owners and overpaid players who don’t even know Spokane exists, then this community badly needs to get a life. And the same goes for pro-sports groupies.

There’s still hope the bailout will be vetoed, not by the governor but Seattle officials. The King County Council still has to approve it, and at last count nine of 13 council members were leaning against it.

, DataTimes MEMO: Associate Editor Frank Bartel’s column appears on Monday, Wednesday and Sunday.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Frank Bartel The Spokesman-Review