CARDINAL PLANSTILL NEEDS GUARANTEES

Earlier this week a committee of the Missouri House made significant changes to a plan to build a new professional baseball stadium in St. Louis, then passed the modified plan onto the full House.

The changes make the proposal much more palatable. Among the modifications: The House plan requires the Cardinals to make $100 million in investments above and beyond the land they have already committed before any state money is spent. And the $100 million cannot come from naming rights, as the Cardinals owners proposed. Instead, this lucrative revenue stream would go into a fund to pay down the stadium debt and offset maintenance and operating costs.

The House version also requires the Cardinals to pay most construction overruns, and it caps the amount of money the state would be obligated to invest at $9.5 million per year. The House proposal also requires the ball club to pay back the state if the team breaks a 30-year lease.

The House changes are sensible protections, but they stop short in a few areas.

First, the House bill does not require the Cardinals to build the stadium in downtown St. Louis. This leaves the door open for the club to sell its downtown land, take the state's money and build on cheaper ground in the suburbs. Since boosting the downtown St. Louis economy is one of the only reasons the state should be considering the plan, the House's decision not to tie the stadium proposal to the riverfront is mystifying.

A second shortcoming is that the House plan does not take into consideration prospective gains from a new stadium if the current owners sell the franchise. While this would be a highly controversial issue, the state should demand that some proceeds perhaps on a percentage basis diminishing over time should go toward debt retirement. In effect, this would create an extra tax on the sale of ownership within a defined period of time, which is fair since the state for all intents and purposes would be subsidizing the current ownership value with a new stadium.

Such consideration is particularly important since members of the current Cardinals ownership team, when they were previously involved in ownership of the Texas Rangers, profited handsomely thanks to Texas' subsidization of a new stadium. News reports suggest that the owners' St. Louis stadium proposal is based in part on what was done in Arlington, Texas.

I realize that many in rural Missouri question the need for any state assistance to the Cardinals, especially in tight financial times. Certainly, the kinds of salaries that go to ballplayers nowadays -- $252 million to a Rangers shortstop, for example -- threaten to drive a wedge between the game and its fans, especially as ticket prices continue to rise. But there is no questioning that professional baseball adds to the quality of life in Missouri, and downtown St. Louis could desperately use the economic boost. A healthier St. Louis would ultimately be good for all Missourians.

First, however, the state legislature has more work to do on the current proposal. Until more changes are made, too many risks remain for the state -- with disproportionate value accruing to the owners.

Holy Week

It is humbling and inspiring -- indeed, transforming -- to reflect on all that happened in the last week of Jesus Christ's life. This Friday we remember his death. And on Sunday: his resurrection. Happy Easter to you! He has risen!

Jon K. Rust is co-president of Rust Communications. He can be reached at jrust@semissourian.com.