The Rhode Island Senate certainly took its responsibilities seriously in looking into the pluses and minuses of a new public baseball stadium that would host the Triple-A Pawtucket Red Sox. The Senate Finance Committee, under Chairman William Conley, held eight hearings, lasting some 29 hours — virtually as much time as the 29.5 hours spent analyzing the vastly more consequential reform of public pensions in 2011.
The committee did not merely go through the motions. It listened carefully to the public’s concerns about the deal struck between the PawSox and the Raimondo administration.
Last week, Chairman Conley announced changes he would like to see, mainly to limit the risk to the City of Pawtucket. Under his plan, the team would surrender half of the value of the naming rights it won in the earlier negotiations, helping to tide over Pawtucket during the initial period when tax-generating development around the park would still be taking shape. A surcharge on premium tickets would go to Pawtucket instead of the state, helping the city to fund its share of the borrowing costs. And language that would have broadened the city’s ability to take property under eminent domain was struck out.
The PawSox, not surprisingly, were cool on Chairman Conley's refinement, since it would add to the team’s burden. It has already pledged $45 million toward the cost of the stadium, and to cover any costs of construction that run over budget.
By the standards of professional stadiums these days, that is an excellent deal. Indeed, the more than 50 percent to be borne by the PawSox constitutes a far greater percentage of private money than was contributed to the 14 new Double-A and Triple-A ballparks built from 2006 to 2016. The average for those stadiums was 21 percent.
Gov. Gina Raimondo is a supporter because the state would lose more money in tax revenue if the PawSox were to depart than it would cost it to keep the franchise in Rhode Island. On top of that positive equation, Rhode Island would retain an asset that provides great enjoyment for families, boosts local pride, stimulates charity and advertises a vibrant place to the outside world. Many stadiums also spur significant surrounding development. The benefits, after all, are what led other communities to kick in much more toward their public stadiums.
House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello remains cool to the idea, however, and many Rhode Islanders are bitterly negative about public-private partnerships. That makes a vote for a baseball stadium a tough one in 2018, an election year. In the past, strong leaders pushed through such measures as an airport expansion and a convention center, both of which have dramatically enhanced the vitality of Rhode Island, in the face of opposition. Courageous leadership is an essential ingredient of any thriving state.
In Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker is touting Worcester as an ideal site for the Triple-A franchise. “We certainly believe that you have an opportunity on this one,” he told a meeting of the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce this month. “And we will do what we can as a commonwealth to help you leverage that in the course of your discussions with the folks at the Red Sox.”
What will happen remains unclear. But in the denouement of this long stadium debate, we hope all sides can come together and that Rhode Island’s leaders — Governor Raimondo, Speaker Mattiello and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio — put the interests of the people of Rhode Island first.