The upcoming mayoral election in St. Louis, which will happen April 4, has largely been decided by the democratic primary that happened in March. Given the city’s history as a liberal community, we fully expect Lyda Krewson to be the next mayor of St. Louis, however, the general election will still be a crucial moment for a major economic conflict in the city: a potential St. Louis soccer team. On the ballot, St. Louis residents will be asked to vote on Proposition 2, an initiative to provide the investors of the team $60 million in public funding for the construction of an Major League Soccer (MLS) stadium.

It is fair to say that MLS expansion in our city is designed to appeal to a specific type of St Louisan. Nationally, the sport is still largely only for middle and upper class Americans, a fact that the US Soccer Diversity task force has directly admitted. The stadium is also set to be built west of Union Station in Midtown, a neighborhood that is more than 60 percent white. Evidently, the cultural impact of a soccer team is likely never going to reach the areas outside of Downtown St. Louis or the non-white communities of the city. So, for many voters outside of the central corridor, this stadium has little relevance.

Ultimately however, a soccer team gives our city another attraction and a potential avenue for economic growth for certain businesses and individuals. Those in support of the stadium say that it will have a positive impact on the city’s revenues (conservatively, $77 million of profit in 30 years), tourism in St. Louis, and public infrastructure (the introduction of a North-South Metro line). In addition, the project isn’t being funded directly by taxes on St. Louis citizens: businesses within city lines will see a raise in their use tax, which taxes items purchased by businesses outside of Missouri.

However, for many communities on the outer edges of St. Louis, investing in a sports team will not solve the larger issues of a poor education system, high crime rates and infrastructure disrepair. Foremost, the use tax in St. Louis currently helps serve the Affordable Housing Commission, and by increasing the use tax now, the city loses a potential option to find additional funding for other public infrastructure projects for underserved communities in St. Louis. In addition, the use tax may adversely affect small businesses that do not have the ability to take further losses without going out of business, or do not want to pay for a tax they believe will not help their business.

In the meantime, the city will have to take on $4 million in additional debt to fund the soccer stadium. Though this number seems miniscule, the city already has a $20 million shortfall in their 2018 budget, and it may be fiscally unwise to take on more financial obligations in a city that already has a poor credit rating. On principle, taking on debt that does not have a holistically positive impact on the city is problematic. If the city’s credit rating decreases in the near future, then other communities will suffer because St. Louis has less access to loans to fund public projects.

Admittedly, if the investors behind an MLS team in St. Louis do not get the $60 million in public funding, there is a greatly diminished chance they will be able to win an expansion team or even want to burden themselves with the additional capital investment. However, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Jose Ortiz points out that building a cheaper stadium (without a need for city funding) is possible. By standing against the proposition on stadium funding, we hope to underscore the reality that at such a critical moment in the city’s history, it is crucial to make sure we are maximizing the use of public taxpayers’ money for all of the niches’ within the St. Louis community.