Get this. Bud Adams, owner of the Houston Oilers, is tired of the Astrodome and
wants the city of Houston to subsidize a new $235 million dome downtown. Adams
complains that the old dome is too small, too old, and that he has to share it
with a baseball team. He maintains that in order for the Oilers to compete in
the free agent market and “field a competitive team” (they were 2-14 last
year), they need a larger stadium. He threatens that the Oilers will move away
unless the new downtown dome is built. Mayor Bob Lanier says there are higher public priorities than football.
Lanier, one of the most popular mayors in Houston history, has spurned all of
Adams’ attempts at city funding for a new stadium. Finally, on July 18, Adams
wrote to Lanier, setting a July 25 deadline for the mayor to declare his
“unqualified public support” for a new stadium.
Lanier wrote back, advising Adams to talk with Harris County officials because
the Astrodome is a county stadium. He reminded Adams that the county share of
the bed tax is already dedicated to paying off around $100 million of dome
improvements during the 1980s. Ten thousand seats were added in that expansion,
and Adams agreed to an Astrodome lease through 1997. Lanier also pointed out
that he is a long-time season ticket holder, and expressed hope that the Oilers
could sign Steve McNair and go to the Super Bowl.
Adams countered last week with a high-profile visit to football-hungry
Nashville. There he agreed to a 70-day period of exclusive negotiations over a
move to Nashville. During this period, he can’t negotiate for better facilities
with Houston, and Nashville can’t negotiate with any other teams over a
possible move. Nashville officials are even exploring ways of buying out the
last year on Adams’ Astrodome lease and moving the team to Tennessee for the
1997 season.
In response, Lanier once again reaffirmed his opposition to city
funding for a stadium. The mayor also questioned the business wisdom of the
potential move, pointing out that Houston is a much bigger media market than
Nashville. He expressed hope that the Oilers would stay and predicted, rather
sagely I suspect, that “they will have a hard time finding a city that will be
as loyal to the Oilers over a period of time.”
Now, it could be that Lanier, like a lot of fans, has had it with
the Oilers and Adams’ boneheaded management. Maybe he doesn’t care what they do
as long as it doesn’t cost him or the city anything. On the other hand, it
could be that Lanier is taking a much larger stand. For one thing, he is
bucking a national trend in which cities compete for teams with ever-spiraling
packages of taxpayer-financed incentives. County commissioners in Cincinnati
recently approved an extra cent on their sales tax to finance two new stadiums
at a total of $540 million. St. Louis spent more than $350 million to lure the
Rams from Los Angeles.
As these bidding wars continue to escalate, Mayor Lanier is saying Houston
won’t play (although he holds out the possibility of some sort of new deal with
the Rockets, who play in the city-owned Summit). In an era of government budget
cutbacks, Lanier is saying that basic city services and programs for youth must come first. He appeared on the local news this weekend at a
youth soccer field, explaining that this is the level of sport the city should
fund.
Houston’s citizens are solidly behind Lanier. In fact, Oilers officials
complain that Lanier turned against a city-financed stadium for the
Oilers
only after seeing poll numbers on the subject last year. And a recent,
unscientific, Houston Chronicle call-in poll, conducted after Adams
signed the negotiating deal with Nashville, revealed that 80% opposed public
financing of the stadium. “Good riddance,” read the Chronicle headline.
Regardless of whether Lanier is following the polls, acting out of conviction,
or both, he is making a stand. The outcome could have far-reaching impact on
professional sports financing, and on public attitudes about the use of tax
dollars.
Meanwhile, at least one Houston businessman has advanced a startling concept
in stadium financing. Jim McIngvale, described as “a business leader and
Houston sports booster” in a front-page Houston Chronicle story on
Adams’ Nashville trip, says that a new stadium is worthwhile, but maintained
that no public funds should be used. “I think a new stadium would do us good,”
says McInglave, adding pointedly that “public money could be better spent, but
private enterprise ought to get out there and talk to business leaders about
private funding.”
Whoa. Now, imagine that – private business people investing in something that
would likely pay off for them financially – what a concept. It sounds very
unusual, but I think someone coined a term for this sort of endeavor a few
years back. It’s called capitalism.
Could there be any chance that this concept could catch on in our own teeming
metropolis? Probably not.
The Minor Leagues
Austin’s own sports financing drama recently took a dramatic turn. In a
stunning victory for former Councilmember Bob Larson’s Save Austin From
Extravagance (SAFE) coalition, Phoenix Firebirds owner Martin Stone and Austin
Mayor Bruce Todd last Friday acquiesced to SAFE’s demands for an election on
city subsidies to bring the AAA Firebirds (to be renamed the Austin Swing) to
town. The city would contribute some $10 million, and the team $10 million,
with another $3 million needed from the city for roads and other
infrastructure. A council vote to set the election is scheduled for the day
this paper comes out, August 17. The proposed election date is October 7.
Of course, this is the same council that in April voted unanimously (save for
Brigid Shea, who was out of the country) to dedicate some $13 million in
taxpayer dollars to the stadium. The funds were passed on an “emergency” basis,
which is the only way to circumvent the city charter requirement that all bond
debt must be approved by the voters. The majority of the city funds – $8.4
million – are to come from certificates of obligation (CO), bonds in everything
but name. Another $1.6 million was obtained by allocating the city’s entire
“sales tax excess,” meaning collections above what was predicted to come in.
Another $3 million for stadium-related infrastructure, mainly roads, was
approved even though the city aknowledged no source has been identified. This
$3 million is no longer mentioned in official accounts, neither by the city nor
by Swing corporate sponsor the Austin American-Statesman.
Larson styled SAFE narrowly around the issue that the charter requires an
election. His core group consists of fiscal watchdogs who are angered by many
of the things on which the city spends money, but Larson also forged coalitions
with environmentalists and social advocacy groups who once despised him. For
example, Public Citizen, a consumers’ rights watchdog group that gathered many
signatures in the 1992 Save Our Springs petition drive, signed on with SAFE.
Also key in gathering signatures was Linda Curtis of the newly forged Patriot
Party. Even the city employees’ union – which once may have disliked Larson’s
politics even more than environmentalists did – collected signatures.
In the type of culture-melding for which Larson is becoming famous, the
retired Air Force sergeant spent several Saturdays collecting signatures in
front of the new Whole Foods grocery store. Shea, who defeated Larson to win
her council seat, joined his cause and at least once collected signatures with
him at Whole Foods.
Once an election is officially set, SAFE must decide whether or not to
actually oppose the bond issue. This new alliance could be a potent addition to
Austin politics, but Larson has said throughout that his goal is to get an
election, and says now that he won’t campaign publicly for or against the
baseball funding. He offers, however, that his initial instinct is to vote “no”
on the philosophical grounds that public funds could be better used
elsewhere.
The Booster Line-up
One reason that Todd and Stone backed down is that public opinion seems to be
running massively in favor of SAFE. A question in the most recent Austin Trends
poll, still unreleased in full, asks respondents if they favor public votes on
debt financing. An overwhelming 86% said “yes.” A Statesman call-in poll
conducted when the Firebirds deal was first announced produced similar margins
against public subsidies for a stadium. While not entirely parallel, the
results seem to echo public sentiment in Houston.
Many average folks in the two towns may be feeling alike on sports subsidies,
but the story is different when it comes to Austin goverment and business
leaders. In stark contrast to Houston, the majority of both groups are lined up
in favor of public funding for a stadium. The most enthusiastic stadium backers
on the council are Todd, Max Nofziger, and Ronney Reynolds. Reynolds worked
behind the scenes for about six months to bring the team to town. (That’s
before the proposal was sprung on the public as an “emergency.”) It’s unclear,
however, if the rest of the council will stay behind subsidized baseball. Gus
Garcia, for example, has said that he will consider changing his support for
public funds if the team doesn’t meet its September 30 deadlines. But now, Todd
is asking the council to extend and change some of those deadlines. (See “Naked
City.”)
Shea is likely to oppose the baseball subsidy, and has called on the council
to put the entire $10 million on the bond ballot, and plough the $1.6 million
in sales tax back into next year’s budget. Garcia says he backs that approach.
There is also controversy over the election date. Shea favors a November 7
date, when the city can save more than $80,000 by holding the election
simultaneously with the state constitutional amendment election. Todd favors
October 7 because, he says, that is the date he worked out with Stone. October
7, by the way, just happens to fall on the first Saturday of major league
playoffs in two years. Swing backers are doubtless hoping that this little
coincidence will help them turn out the fans to vote. We can expect to see
campaign commercials during the games.
Meanwhile, an all-star lineup from what the Statesman calls the
“business community” is ready to go to bat for public funding. In sports
parlance, it’s a veteran team that’s been together for a long time, and
features many of Austin’s heaviest hitters. There’s the Greater Austin Chamber
of Commerce, longtime leaders in winning public subsidies for private ventures.
Also on board is the Chamber’s house organ, the Austin
American-Statesman, which signed on in July as a corporate sponsor of the
Swing. Joining along with them was KLBJ-AM radio – including talk show host
Paul Pryor, who was originally a baseball subsidy critic. On Friday, the same
day that Stone was summoned to the mayor’s office and dropped his opposition to
an election, Bank One, Miller Beer, and Pepsi were announced as new corporate
sponsors. More corporate sponsors are likely to join up as booster forces move
toward the election. Also on board, though not as corporate sponsors, are the
editor and publisher of this paper.
Lessons from
the Sports Pages
Sports can be a metaphor for life. As such, we can often learn from them.
Also, these dramas provide us some raw, freeze-frame glimpses of city leaders
in action. So let’s study some lessons from the sports financing controversies
of Austin and Houston.
The most vivid lesson on display here is how routinely Austin’s “business
community” relies on taxpayer subsidies, to a much greater degree than some of
their counterparts in Texas. A related lesson is how eagerly Austin’s political
leadership hands out these subsidies. If the Chamber of Commerce suggests a
subsidy (remember the proposed $60 million subsidy for the downtown mall?), it
immediately becomes a higher priority than basic city services or taxpayers’
well being. At the time of the baseball “emergency,” word was spreading that
some calls to the city’s emergency 911 number were going unanswered. It was
also known, among other things, that the city was falling behind on maintaining
an adequate fleet of police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances. Yet the stadium
will add to the tax burden at a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult
for people of average means to afford living in Austin. Is it just coincidence
that the loss of the $1.6 million in excess sales tax collections, combined
with this year’s debt service on the CO, equals almost exactly the revenue
expected to be generated from the proposed property tax increase?
Another sad thing is the eternal bad timing of city government/boosters. In
the 1980s, the city bought two buildings for millions over the appraised values
just before Austin became the empty office capital of North America. Around the
same time, they bought land for a coal plant in Webberville, then admitted that
the city had more than enough generating capacity, and didn’t need the plant.
Now, they get into subsidized baseball in the midst of lingering bitterness
over the major leaguers’ strike, and while public opinion is against such
frivolous expenditures.
The baseball drama also provides a glimpse of the Statesman‘s coziness
with the “business community.” It seems particularly raw and apparent in this
case. It’s even official. But the emerging drama of new Statesman editor
Richard Oppel complicates the situation somewhat. Some real information has
made it into Statesman baseball coverage, but there has been a definite
pattern of failure to mention that the paper is a partner or corporate sponsor
of the deal. Baseball will be Oppel’s first big test. Can he really obtain his
goal of “fierce independence” when his paper is a Swing corporate sponsor?
Is Private Enterprise Dead?
In Austin, there has been no call for total private financing, at least none
that has appeared in the pages of the corporate sponsor. Why not? Pepsi stands
to sell a lot of sodas at the stadium. Miller can sell a lot of beer. KLBJ will
likely get the broadcast rights. Bank One will probably make a loan and/or get
some deposits. And is it just me, or does it seem a little odd for a monopoly
newspaper to be sponsoring a drive for municipal baseball subsidies? As a
matter of fact, it seems odd that a bank would be campaigning in favor of
public subsidies for baseball. If this is a solid deal, why doesn’t the bank
lend all the money needed to make it happen?
If bringing minor league baseball to Austin is in these companies’ interest,
then they should get together and cut a deal. It could be a beautiful thing.
After all, attending minor league games can be, as team owners maintain, a nice
way to spend an evening, or many evenings. It is a great place to take kids.
Baseball does, as claimed, bring citizens together. There could be people of
all races, classes, and political persuasions there together, cheering on the
home team. Democrats could cheer alongside Republicans, developers with
environmentalists – Chronicle and Statesman reporters cheering
side-by-side. And it could all be financed under the grand old American
tradition of free enterprise.
If nothing else, we will have a lot of political drama this fall, from now
through the baseball election. Swing backers will wax eloquently about the
glories of baseball, and gloss over the fact that it’s a very lucrative private
business. They will likely have the cooperation of all corporate media,
including puffy coverage on the local news. This, combined with the heavy
hitting booster line-up and the election date during the major league playoffs
will make the Swing a tough team to beat.
In contrast to the seasoned pro-subsidy team, any opposition that emerges will
be like an expansion team cobbled together just before the season begins. But,
hey, in sports anything can happen. Maybe citizens will join together and send
a message to the Chamber, the corporations, and their politicians; a message
that public funds are precious and should not be spent frivolously. Maybe some
of our elected officials will show the strength and courage displayed by Mayor
Bob Lanier down there in Houston. Maybe even some business leaders in Austin
will emerge and, like Mr. McIngvale of Houston, suggest that the stadium be
financed entirely through private investment. It could be beautiful. And one
day, we could all gather at the ballpark by the river, and root for our beloved
home team. n
This article appears in August 18 • 1995 and August 18 • 1995 (Cover).