Kinder alone on stadium bill among local lawmakers

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Particularly in regions dominated by a single political party, state senators often count on the state representatives who fall within their geographically larger legislative districts to help push their legislation in the House.

But when it comes to state tax subsidies for stadium projects in St. Louis and Kansas City and elsewhere, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, won't be able to rely on the support of any of the eight Southeast Missouri House members with whom he shares territory.

Those lawmakers, Republicans all, are unified in their opposition to the stadium bill, which Kinder successfully steered through the upper chamber on Tuesday.

"If there is anybody I'd like to do something for, it is Peter Kinder; he's always been good to me," said state Rep. Rod Jetton. "But I've talked to Peter and he understands that the voters in my district are strongly against it."

To a man, Kinder's representatives say that their opposition reflects the will of their constituents. Most have done unscientific surveys on the issue, with responses running 80 to 91 percent in opposition, depending on the district.

"Almost all of them are against it," state Rep. David Schwab, R-Jackson.

State Rep. Tom Burcham of Farmington expanded on that sentiment.

"The people of my district are overwhelmingly against it in its current form and almost any form that you could put it in," Burcham said. "I think you could put me in the solid 'no' column."

Of course, the constituents of those House members are for the most part the same ones Kinder represents in his six-county district. Kinder has acknowledged he is going against the wishes of many he represents in sponsoring the stadium bill.

Spur development

However, he sincerely and passionately believes it is the right thing to do to spur economic development throughout Missouri, but particularly in downtown St. Louis, which has been bleeding jobs and residents for decades.

The Senate spent a total of 20 hours debating the bill -- more than any other single piece of legislation this session -- before moving it to the House, where many feel it faces an even tougher battle for passage. By most estimates, the measure would fall at least 20 votes shy of a majority if the vote where held today.

Kinder said he is disappointed at the lack of support from his fellow Southeast Missouri Republicans but is neither surprised nor upset.

"They arrived at their conclusions, as I do mine," Kinder said. "I would hope some of them would look at the facts and get beyond the mistaken public perceptions about the bill. But basically we're trying to make our plans for House passage without them."

That being said, Kinder understands that electoral realities prevent some area representatives from following him on the stadium package, and he respects their decisions.

"I haven't leaned on them, and I don't plan to," Kinder said.

Not the right time

State Rep. Pat Naeger of Perryville said with the state grappling with financial problems, now is not the time to consider stadium bills, regardless of the potential benefits.

"My opposition to the stadium is no way a reflection on my respect and admiration for my senator," Naeger said. "As I respect my senator's stand on this issue, I think he respects my stand and has in no way tried to put any pressure on me."

State Rep. Rob Mayer of Dexter agreed the state has more pressing priorities.

"I regret that we can't be with him and support him on this bill," Mayer said. "Certainly he has legitimate reasons for backing the ballpark. I just don't think its a good time to be supporting that measure."

In addition to a new downtown ballpark for the St. Louis Cardinals, Kinder's bill includes money to renovate or maintain the existing stadiums used by the Kansas City Royals and Chiefs and the St. Louis Blues and build convention centers in Branson and Springfield.

Supporters say all the public investments would more than pay for themselves by generating new tax revenue.

The Cardinals component would cost the state $210 million over 30 years. The team would have to reimburse the state if revenue fell short of promises and pay a penalty if it failed to build a companion development consisting of shops, offices and housing. It would also have to share the profit from a sale of the team.

State Rep. Lanie Black of Charleston said more of his constituents might feel differently about the bill if they knew more about it. However, the perception is that lawmakers would be sending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars "to a bunch of rich ballplayers and rich owners."

"I'm not telling you I absolutely will not vote against it," Black said. "But I am telling you it's a 95 percent probability that I won't."

State Rep. Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau said there are still too many costs associated to the project that proponents haven't adequately addressed, such as who would pay for potentially substantial road and infrastructure changes around the new ballpark. He also said Major League Baseball isn't a good investment for taxpayers.

"I've got a real problem with baseball as a business model," Crowell said.

State Rep. Peter Myers of Sikeston said he will vote against the bill should it even make it to the House floor in the remaining seven working days before the General Assembly adjourns for the year but didn't wish to offer further comment.

The bill is SB 1279.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608