CAPITOL EXPECTS TO FIELD STADIUM TAX DEBATE IN NEXT SESSION

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The ink isn't officially dry on the Second Regular Session of the Ninetieth Missouri General Assembly, but plans are already being made to introduce legislation early in the 2001 session to approve state participation in the construction of a new stadium for the St. Louis Cardinals.

Although supporters are now declining to divulge specific information, or even acknowledge that such legislation will be introduced, one legislator from the St. Louis metropolitan area has confided that, "off the record, some kind of effort" will be made to secure state funds for a proposed new baseball stadium.

Although no legislation specifically relating to the baseball stadium was introduced in the year's January-to-May session, the matter was discussed when owners of the Cardinals made more than one appearance at the Capitol to "mutually discuss some problems" relating to the development of the state's largest urban area. These were the words of a senior legislator, Sen. John Scott who recently decided he would not retire from the legislature despite an earlier announcement that he was leaving state politics.

There is speculation that the principal reason for Scott's reluctance to vacate his General Assembly seat is his desire to secure state assistance for the proposed major league baseball stadium in his hometown. It is generally believed that Scott, a widely respected Democrat and one of his party's legislative leaders, will be one of several primary sponsors of a stadium-funding measure when a new session begins next January.

The proposed project has thus far not entered into the expected bitter battle for governor between State Treasurer Bob Holden and U.S. Rep. Jim Talent, but the issue is expected to be raised during this fall's campaign. Neither candidate has publicly mentioned that proposal, primarily to avoid alienating voter support and jeopardizing contributions from the St. Louis area.

Talent may be in a slightly more vulnerable position that his Democratic opponent because the GOP nominee is a resident of St. Louis County and might be more sympathetic to hometown projects than candidates outside Missouri. Spokesmen for both candidates said no plans have been made to inject the issue into this year's campaign. "We've already got a plateful of issues" is the way one campaign worker put it.

If the funding bill is introduced, it is expected to create a major controversy on the Capitol's third floor, just as a similar bill in Wisconsin created the hottest political subject of the year with its call for state financing of a major expansion and renovation project of the Green Bay Packers' football stadium.

Officials in Wisconsin were not alone in debating the merits of state-funded sports facilities -- with similar debates occurring in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio.

While the Packers did not threaten to move the same kind of assurance made by the Cardinal management in their appearance here this spring professional sports franchise owners elsewhere have warned they will relocate if aid is not forthcoming. And some have moved.

Whether there are any significant public benefits associated with the high costs involved depends on who you ask. Numerous studies by economists have concluded that sports stadiums have little, if any economic impact for a state or regional area based on the number and the wages paid of jobs they generate.

However, studies by private consulting firms, such as Deloitte & Touche, have concluded that sports facilities can economically uplift blighted central cities, as well as serve as a source of civic pride.

Regardless of the validity of the opposing arguments, state governments continue to allow local voters to decide whether to institute a new tax or taxing district to help fund the construction of sports arenas. Issues surrounding the debate of stadium financing, according to an official with the Council of State Governments, Chester Hicks, focus on the three R's: Revenue, renovation, and referendum.

Hicks says that if there is one explanation for the rationale behind public subsidies for sports stadiums, "it is revenue." He notes that the astronomical increase in players' salaries has forced "team owners to search for other revenue streams that help cover their expenses." This revenue comes in the form of new taxes, tax increases or taxing districts that help governmental entities pay for stadium construction.

Like their counterparts elsewhere, Cardinal officials say they need new revenue to move out of the loss column. This is why the owners claim they cannot afford to keep teams in old stadiums unless they receive earnings from special luxury seating, food and beverage concessions, team paraphernalia and merchandise and stadium advertising.

The new-stadium proposal for the Cardinals would actually offer fewer seats than the present Busch Stadium, but it would greatly expand the luxury seating capacity and would thus provide additional funding for the team's growing expenses and higher payroll outlays.

As in Wisconsin, a new-stadium bill for professional football's Arizona Cardinals, formerly the St. Louis Cardinals, was enacted by the Arizona legislature in the final hours of this year's session. The $331 million project passed the House with the minimum required 31 votes, after six members changed their earlier votes against the plan.

Just as lawmakers this spring were either voting on or considering public assistance for new sports facilities, the cry of "Play ball" opened new major league baseball parks in Detroit, San Francisco and Houston. Moreover, with a half-dozen major league baseball teams clamoring for new digs, legislators in Missouri are expected to take their turn at bat next year as sponsors get ready to deliver them a fastball with a plus-$250-million spin.