Although I haven’t traveled extensively to other MLB stadiums, I have rarely had a bad experience at Miller Park. It’s the entertainment venue I frequent more than any other, and if I were to try and add up all the money I’ve spent there over the years it would probably give me pause.
As much as I enjoy my time Miller Park, there is more than enough room for criticism for how it came about. Like most sports arenas of the modern era, Miller Park was built with public financing – a 0.1% sales tax in five counties that began in 1996. I must admit, although Miller Park exists thanks to one of the most shameless, indefensible forms of corporate welfare imaginable, that fact doesn’t normally detract from my satisfaction with the ballpark experience.
That said, it’s healthy to keep in mind that these kinds of dreadful subsidies never, never, never work out as advertised. We were reminded of that indisputable truth when an update on the status of the Miller Park tax was provided yesterday:
A Miller Park stadium district consultant said Tuesday that the 0.1% stadium sales tax could be retired as soon as 2018 or as late as 2020.
There is some reason for optimism the sales tax can be retired sooner than later. Last year, the district experienced an increase in sales tax revenue of 8.78%, which is far higher than in recent years.
That does sound like good news. The bad news is this isn’t the first time we’ve heard the Miller Park sales tax is this close to being ended. In 2012, that same consulting group said that the tax could end in 2017. I look forward to the report in 2018 that says the tax will be retired in 2022.
Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that the Miler Park tax will ever end. At one time, it was envisioned the tax would end in 2014…but all the way back in 2006 the Miller Park stadium board was saying the 2014 deadline was too aggressive. And it was.
A few years ago, Bruce Murphy wrote a must-read piece headlined “The Eternal Stadium Tax” that still holds up today. Not only did Murphy remind us that the original sunset date for the tax was 2010, but he also describes how the Brewers never held up their end of the bargain:
A decade ago, I did a story for Milwaukee Magazine that tabulated all costs of the ballpark, including countless hidden tax subsidies: the total bill was more than $1 billion, or $1,585 for every household in the five county area. […]
The original cost was supposed to be $250 million for construction of the stadium, with $90 million coming from the Brewers, plus $72 million for infrastructure.
But it turned out the Brewers couldn’t come up any money, besides $40 million in naming rights the team would be paid by Miller Brewing, so there was a scramble to throw in more money, with $15 million coming from the city’s Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation.
Meanwhile the board of the public stadium district, which oversees the project, began to creatively expand the parameters of how it could spend our money. Legislators thought the $250 million would pay to construct an entire ballpark, but the district decided to lease such items as a scoreboard, roof-drive mechanism, concession equipment and furniture, adding some $45 million in costs, the audit bureau estimated.
Other unexpected costs itemized by the audit bureau included a $28 million increase in infrastructure costs, some $15 million (over five years) for the stadium authority’s administrative and operating costs, and $4.9 million on furniture and equipment the Brewers requested, including a whirlpool bath, ice machines, sauna and steam room, batting and pitching machines, exercise equipment and video coaching system — all financed through the generosity of the taxpayers.
It’s a good thing that most of us are able to separate our enjoyment of the game and our loyalty to our home team from the reprehensible behavior described above. As healthy, well-adjusted adults, we can put aside our disgust at this corrupt misuse of public funds and still have fun at Brewers games. But given what we know about how badly these public financing schemes turn out, we should probably be very skeptical next time someone wants a subsidy to build a sports arena.
(Image: Tom Lynn/Getty)
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
