Ballpark bill in for tough innings

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Both supporters and opponents of taxpayer funding to help build a new St. Louis Cardinals ballpark agree that if the General Assembly voted on the plan today, it would fail.

However, this game is only in the second inning. In the legislative process, as is baseball, anything can happen.

Supporters boast a lineup of heavy hitters they hope will drive in enough votes to carry the day by the time lawmakers adjourn for the year May 17. That roster includes Democratic Gov. Bob Holden, the ranking Republicans in both legislative chambers -- Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder of Cape Girardeau and House Minority Floor Leader Catherine Hanaway of Warson Woods -- plus a bevy of politically connected lobbyists.

For the opposition, House Speaker Jim Kreider, D-Nixa, was hostile to the idea last year but has since softened his stance. Still, the opponents have the numbers right now, particularly among rural lawmakers.

Last week the project took two important steps forward: A project agreement was reached spelling out the Cardinals' obligations in exchange for support from the state and St. Louis city and county, and an omnibus stadium bill was introduced that included projects in Kansas City, Springfield and Branson.

Supporters say the project agreement secures a better deal for taxpayers than any other publicly subsidized sports arena in the nation and that the inclusion of other cities will garner the needed votes.

"This is a ballgame that the taxpayers cannot lose, and it is a ballgame they stand to win big," Hanaway said.

Opponents concede the agreement is better than most but still question whether building stadiums is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars, especially with the state facing an uncertain economic future. Including other cities, they say, could bloat the bill so much -- giving it a pricetag nearing $1 billion by one lawmaker's estimate -- that it will collapse under its own weight.

"The proposal has been improved somewhat, but not to the point where I can support it," said state Rep. Mark Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff. "Frankly, I'm not sure it can be improved enough for my folks to be supportive of it."

Hard bargaining

The Cardinals want a $346 million, retro-style facility to replace Busch Stadium. Team officials say a new home is needed to generate sufficient revenue to keep up with ever-escalating player salaries and field a competitive team.

The team has pledged $138 million, including the value of the land in downtown St. Louis. The public portion, paid over 30 years beginning in 2005, breaks down to $210 million from the state, $126 million from the city and $95 million from the county. The money would go to pay off bonds sold to finance construction and interest.

The state's share would come from new revenue generated by the ballpark, and not cost the state money it already gets from the team. Proceeds from naming rights would cover shortfalls in tax revenue earmarked for the bonds.

In exchange for public support, the Cardinals pledge to spearhead construction of a privately financed Ballpark Village, which they say would more than recoup taxpayer investment in the stadium. The companion project would include housing, office space, restaurants and entertainment facilities.

It would be built in two phases. The first would be started in 2006 and completed in 2011 at a cost of $100 million. Phase two would begin in 2009 and finished in 2014 at a cost of $200 million.

If the village weren't built, the team would have to pay up to $100 million in penalties to the state and city.

The Cardinals would sign a 35-year lease for the ballpark and would be responsible for maintaining the facility. If team owners sold the Cardinals within the first 10 years, the public would share up to 16 percent of the proceeds.

"The Cardinals negotiators drove a hard bargain to get us to this point; the state's negotiators drove a harder bargain," Holden said. "The result is an agreement that outshines any stadium development agreement in the country in terms of benefits to the public and protection of the taxpayers."

However, state Rep. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, said Major League Baseball is a "flawed business model," making it a poor investment for the public.

"The only reason they need public funds is they don't have salary caps; they don't have revenue sharing," Crowell said. "Teams like the Cardinals say that in order to compete with the Yankees, because we don't have huge TV contracts, we need Joe Taxpayer's dollars. I just don't buy that argument."

St. Louis 'on the line'

With the fierce opposition of Crowell and most other Southeast Missouri lawmakers, who say they are reflecting the wishes of constituents, Kinder's support is all the more notable.

Kinder said he has received much "nasty mail" and also been criticized by fellow Senate Republicans because of his stance. However, he said supporting the stadium is the right thing to do.

"I happen to believe the survival of the city of St. Louis is on the line," Kinder said. "I don't think the city of St. Louis would be much without the Cardinals."

Team officials have said they would consider leaving downtown if the stadium deal fell through, perhaps heading across the Mississippi River to East St. Louis, Ill.

Kinder, who is considering a run for statewide office in 2004, said going to the wall for a stadium bill likely won't win him any political points.

"It probably makes me more vulnerable in a Republican primary, not less," Kinder said.

On Friday, the last day to file bills, Kinder introduced his 100-page omnibus stadium proposal. Ironically, because Kinder was in Kansas City stumping for the proposal, one of the plan's most vocal opponents -- state Sen. Larry Rohrbach, R-California -- submitted it for him.

Kinder called his bill "an attempt to move the debate from a sterile, urban-rural split to a more productive discussion of how we can improve the whole state of Missouri."

While the Cardinals ballpark is at the heart of the plan, the bill also calls for up to $7 million a year for 30 years to improve cultural facilities in Kansas City, as well as the homes of baseball's Royals and the NFL's Chiefs.

The measure would also provide up to $9 million over 23 years for an exposition center in Springfield and no more than $32 million for a convention center and arena in Branson over the same timespan.

Kinder said there would be no funding for a Southeast Missouri project in the bill.

Simply spin

Though such proposals were known as stadium bills last year, supporters have since dubbed them economic development measures. Richardson said the change in terminology is simply spin to make the bill more palatable.

"Everyone knows in the legislative process if you want to get something passed you got to convince the body it's for the children, the old people or economic development," Richardson said. "They chose the most relevant of the three."

State Rep. David Schwab, R-Jackson, said with lawmakers dealing with massive budget cuts this year, the timing isn't right. He said he doesn't accept the argument that because no public money would be expended until 2005, the state's present situation shouldn't be a factor.

"We don't know what position our budget will be in over the next several years," Schwab said. "When we've got a tight budget and we're making cuts throughout all of the different departments, to turn around and subsidize a ballpark sends the wrong message to the people."

State Rep. Lanie Black, R-Charleston, cited a letter he recently received from a state employee from Portageville concerned about the Cardinals proposal in light of the budget problems.

"It's foolish to him to fund building a stadium when we can't even afford to give state workers a pay raise," Black said. "His last sentence is 'If they move, call me. I'll help them.'"

State Rep. Phillip Britt, D-Kennett, said it would be better if local governments subsidized their projects without asking for state help. If the state were to be involved, he is concerned it would end up a financial boondoggle.

"I'm not convinced and haven't had the assurances I need that it is absolutely going to pay for itself," Britt said. "I'm not sure that I would vote for it if I did have those assurances."

More than 20 votes short

Everyone from Holden on down last week said the bill doesn't have the 18 Senate votes and 82 House votes needed for passage.

Richardson estimated the number of House votes at 60. "And that would be giving them the benefit of the doubt," Richardson said.

State Rep. Pat Naeger, R-Perryville, said the bill won't even make it to the House floor for debate unless supporters know they have the required votes.

House Speaker Kreider said the chamber would take up the measure once other priorities are met, such as passing the budget and providing ample funding for education. Kinder said the Senate will have to provide leadership for the bill to be successful.

"There is neither the atmosphere nor the leadership in the House to get this moving, so that's why I'm stepping forward with some in my caucus thinking I'm crazy," Kinder said.

Kinder estimated he has only 16 or 17 votes in the upper chamber, with another six or seven senators uncommitted. Assuming he can avoid a filibuster from Senate opponents, Kinder said stadium supporters "have a fighting chance" of passing the measure.

If the bill heads to the Democrat-controlled House, it would be up to Holden to spearhead the push, Kinder said.

"It's pretty clear what it will boil down to then is can this governor deliver a speaker of his own party, the majority floor leader and members of the majority party over there?" Kinder said.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608