The Arizona Diamondbacks are in a bit of a pickle. Their once classic yet futuristic ballpark is now outdated, breaking down, and in sore need of significant upgrades. A few legislators came up with a potential solution which would cover the costs without putting an extra burden on taxpayers if they do not go to games. The concept is, if you go to the games you help pay for the upgrades (read our coverage here).
It makes perfect sense…right? Anything that seems too perfect to work is almost always never that easy in politics though, as this solution is demonstrating.
This plan is running up against a tough opponent to this plan: Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego.
What’s the mayor’s problem? It’s pretty simple…the income, state, and local tax revenue that is generated at games, that tax revenue that the plan would divert to help pay for the stadium upgrades, currently goes to the city in order to help fund its operations.
How much would this plan generate or divert, based on who you’re asking? Proponents say it would bring in $15 to $20 million a year. Since that revenue comes from three different sources, it’s difficult to know how much of that would be generated from the city side. The budget of the City of Phoenix is around $2 billion, so that $20 million estimate would represent 1% of the budget. While the actual shortfall that the city would have to make up is unknown, it is likely that it is enough to make city leaders nervous.
It’s worth noting that the state would also have some tax revenue diverted, yet state leaders seem to be generally in favor of this plan. Meanwhile, the city benefits more from the Diamondbacks playing in Phoenix specifically than the state does, so you would think that city leaders would be willing to acquiesce as much as state leaders, right? Of course, the state budget is much, much larger than the city’s, so the percentage of a hit that revenue would be is significantly smaller, but still…
Considering the multiplier effect of 81 games in Phoenix per year and what that spending in the city, both before and after games, means in the way of economic growth and tax revenue, it seems as though the onus should be on the city to come to the table in a more accommodating way. Losing that potential economic impact would be catastrophic, and the city shouldn’t see itself as in a position of strength here…because they’re not.