op-ed Submission
In response to ‘The Longest Con’
Evaluating the St. Louis riverfront stadium proposal is not a simple task, despite the claims made by a recently published article titled “The Longest Con.” The previous article overlooked, or didn’t include, integral information that must be brought to light in order to provide an accurate picture of the stadium initiative. A new stadium would be extremely beneficial to the city of St. Louis financially and emotionally and would go a long way to revitalize an impoverished neighborhood.
First, though the article describes a “nearly unanimous” consensus of interviewed professors, one professor, Rich Rydell, actually supports the stadium. Further, Rydell is not the only person affiliated with Washington University that supports the stadium initiative. In fact, the initiative is led by a Governor Nixon-appointed task force (not Nixon himself, as the article leads readers to believe) chaired by Dave Peacock, former president of Anheuser Bush and alumnus of the Olin School of Business at Washington University. The article failed to mention Peacock or his partner Bob Blitz even once, yet calls the motive behind the stadium initiative “political.” Neither Peacock nor Blitz are politicians.
Next, the article pointed out the robust baseball culture in St. Louis, pigeonholing the city as merely a baseball city, instead of recognizing support for the Cardinals as evidence for a great sports town. This claim was supported by nothing apart from a quote calling the Rams the 12th-most-supported team in the city. Evidence shows that St. Louis is a great sports town, and that the city supports the NFL. Even with 11 consecutive losing seasons (record of 49-110-1 since 2003), the Rams have averaged 57,000 fans per game (more than capacity of either Busch Stadium or the Scottrade Center), and when the Rams were enjoying the success of the Greatest Show days, they regularly sold out games.
Finally, the article painted the picture that St. Louis is trying to build a new stadium solely to appease Rams owner Stan Kroenke. Of course the primary objective is to keep the Rams, but the overall goal is to have St. Louis remain an NFL city, leaving open the prospect of an expansion team or a different team’s relocation.
Now the problem with building this new stadium is obviously the cost. This proposal calls for about $388 million in public funds. The previous article argues this cost is too high so the stadium should not be built. This point is valid, and in a perfect world, the public should not have to spend any money to build a stadium for a billionaire owner and a rich organization like the NFL. However, since this is the only way to build the stadium in St. Louis, the project should be pursued despite the public costs.
The difficulty in making that decision is in quantifying the monetary impact of a new stadium and NFL team in St. Louis. Granted, many of the benefits are intangible, but they must still be considered:
— Building a new stadium would move the Rams out of the Edward Jones Dome, freeing the convention center to attract more business during the football season and generate more revenue for the city.
— NFL players and coaches have an impact on their communities through income taxes as well as injecting their personal money into the area.
— Another source of revenue is the potential of an MLS franchise expanding to St. Louis in the new stadium, a proposal that MLS commissioner Don Garber has repeatedly discussed.
— As professor Rydell brought up in the previous article, having an NFL team is a big draw for businesses, and brings attention to St. Louis and its corporations.
— And of course there is the not purely financial matter of civic pride: The nearly three million residents of the St. Louis area take value in having an NFL team in their city.
A new stadium would also instigate redevelopment. The previous article argued that the stadium would not adequately redevelop the north side, but did not discuss the current state of this area apart from its “urban character.” The north side is mostly full of vacant buildings that are falling apart and have been that way for many years. Building a stadium in this area would transform urban blight into a community gathering place. The stadium would be an anchor for other businesses to grow in the area and more redevelopment to continue.
The previous article argued that St. Louis can simply follow their team on TV, so there is no reason to keep them in St. Louis. The critiques to this point almost go without saying. If the Rams were to leave, then they wouldn’t be St. Louis’ team anymore. There is no substitute for an NFL team. The Rams should stay in St. Louis, and they need a new stadium.
The stadium issue is certainly divisive, nuanced and passion-provoking. At least now the facts are in order, and the benefits clearly defined.