30 YEARS
LATER, TAXPAYERS STILL ON THE HOOK FOR WHITE SOX STADIUM
Illinois Policy Institute/
Eddie Damstra
While the name of the home stadium for the
Chicago White Sox has changed over the years, its status as a tax burden
has not.
|
June 30 marks the 30th anniversary of the Illinois General Assembly passing a
bill to publicly fund the construction of a new baseball stadium for the Chicago
White Sox.
And Illinoisans are still paying the price today.
Threats
Efforts to publicly finance the stadium were the product of threats by White Sox
owner Jerry Reinsdorf to move the team to Florida. Prompted by Reinsdorf’s
threats, then-Gov. Jim Thompson and then-Chicago Mayor Harold Washington
collaborated in drafting a measure to create a special-purpose government
authority for the construction of a new baseball stadium. The bill failed to
make it out of the General Assembly at first. But lawmakers passed a similar
bill months later, creating the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, or ISFA,
through which officials issued $120 million in revenue bonds to fund the
construction of a 45,000-seat baseball stadium.
Reinsdorf, however, was unsatisfied with the $120 million package and continued
to weigh a Florida relocation. And by 1988, Florida lawmakers had already
approved a deal to accommodate the team – “Florida White Sox” merchandise even
started to appear on the market. But in June 1988, Thompson made an 11th-hour
push to keep the White Sox in Chicago. Under pressure from the governor, state
lawmakers approved a $150 million subsidy for the new stadium in the final hour
of spring session – purportedly unplugging the clock on the House floor to cheat
the midnight deadline.
The White Sox remained in Chicago, and the new Comiskey Park opened in 1991. The
stadium was renamed U.S. Cellular Field in 2003, and Guaranteed Rate Field in
2016.
Debts
According to a 2017 financial report, ISFA’s combined fund deficits stand at
$207.5 million. And taxpayers are still on the hook for debt repayments
following a series of renovations at Guaranteed Rate Field and an overhaul of
Soldier Field completed in 2003.
[to top of second column] |
Through Chicago hotel tax revenue and a combined
$10 million in annual state and local subsidies, taxpayers can
expect to continue shouldering these costs for decades. More
recently, a cancelled concert at Guaranteed Rate Field cost
taxpayers more than $1 million in 2017, when ISFA failed to obtain a
full refund for the $1.6 million spent on the event.
Chicago taxpayers are also picking up the tab for
stadiums outside ISFA’s purview. For example, the recent
construction of Wintrust Arena, home to DePaul University’s
basketball teams and WNBA’s Chicago Sky, cost taxpayers $82.5
million.
Pet projects
Taxpayer-subsidized stadiums aren’t limited to the Windy City.
Despite years of substantial debt, the village of Rosemont created
its eighth Tax Increment Financing district in 2016 to fund the
construction of Impact Field, a $60 million stadium for the Chicago
Dogs, the village’s independent baseball team. The Chicago Dogs were
the fourth independent-league baseball team in the Chicagoland area
to receive a publicly funded home field, following the lead of
Crestwood, Joliet and Schaumburg.
With the Chicago Dogs still in their first season, it’s too early to
bring Impact Field’s attendance trends into account. However,
subsidized stadiums in Crestwood, Joliet and Schaumburg have each
seen inconsistent attendance trends over their teams’ tenures.
Attendance at Chicago’s Wintrust Arena and Guaranteed Rate Field
have been similarly disappointing.
This pattern of lackluster attendance among taxpayer-subsidized
stadiums should call into question the merits of publicly funded
sports venues. Many economists have demonstrated that the costs of
taxpayer-funded sports stadiums far outweigh the benefits.
It’s discouraging that state and local lawmakers have continued to
allocate taxpayer dollars toward sports venues, despite the waste
and inefficiency of such ventures. Lawmakers should learn from their
dubious track record and leave the funding of private amusements to
private investment.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |