Youngkin Cheers On Stadium Subsidies. Do They Make Any Sense?

There are few things politicians enjoy more, and generates more bipartisan enthusiasm, than committing vast sums of taxpayer money to the construction of new stadiums and arenas for pro sports teams. How much enthusiasm? A proposed deal that would bring Washington, D.C.’s NBA and NHL franchises to Virginia has raised the bar for this breed of corporate welfare. As The Washington Post reports, a J.P. Morgan analysis of the deal could put state and local taxpayers on the hook for more than $1.3 billion dollars:

That includes $1.15 billion directly for the project — more than any comparable facility on record, according to J.C. Bradbury, a Kennesaw State economics professor who studies sports facilities and reviewed the study for The Post. … Bradbury, who has calculated the public cost of 220 venues going back to 1909, said Virginia’s subsidy could top even much larger venues such as Olympic Stadium in Montreal and the planned Tennessee Titans stadium, both of which received about $1.2 billion in 2020 dollars.

Stable, sensible, AAA bond rated Virginia…going all in on a deal that makes the ill-fated Montreal Olympic fiasco look positively tame by comparison. Of course, the head cheerleader for spending all this taxpayer money is the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. His excellency says there’s nothing to worry about, all will be well, and so on. Which is standard political boilerplate for such deals. But to The Post’s credit, it does what few stories in this genre have done before: noting how such a sweetheart deal for Washington Capitals and Wizards owner Ted Leonsis (estimated net worth: $2.8 billion) would require trade-offs in other state spending:

An analysis attached to the presentation from Public Resources Advisory Group, a consultant hired by Virginia, concluded that backstopping a similar amount ($576.9 million) wasn’t likely to change the commonwealth’s credit rating on Wall Street, though it said Virginia could have “reduced debt capacity and flexibility for other projects” depending on how the debt was categorized by budget officials.

In other words, corporate welfare has real costs that effect residents who live far away from the proposed taxpayer-funded sports palaces. One might think that self-described fiscal conservatives would understand this. But that’s rarely, if ever, the case. After all, they like being fêted in team owners’ luxury boxes as much as the next grandee. How could mere taxpayers dare to deny them – nevermind question – such gaudy pleasures? The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of The Republican Standard.