In this post from last week on the proposed downtown soccer stadium, I observed that the Chronicle should simply declare that it supports the public financing of the stadium and quit attempting to rationalize that such financing makes economic sense.

Well, based on this Glenn Davis/Chronicle column, it looks as if the Chronicle took me up on my suggestion.

Actually, Davis’ column is about as good a rationalization for the public financing of the soccer stadium as you will come across. He eschews the economic-benefit ruse and instead contends that it’s worth spending public money on the Dynamo because the club represents the city well internationally, particularly in Mexico and Central America. On the other hand, Davis stretches by suggesting that "the team deserves its own stadium [because it] would elevate the sport and city even more in the eyes of the world."

Just to be clear — there is nothing inherently wrong with public financing of sports stadiums. Davis might even have a valid point that it’s worth using public funds to invest in the Dynamo to bolster Houston’s image internationally, although it would seem that at least some consideration should be given to alternative investments before coming to the conclusion that financing a soccer stadium is the best way to achieve that goal. But let’s at least have truth in advertising during the remaining public discussion on this issue — the marginal economic benefit of a soccer stadium to the community is simply not a good reason to finance it publicly.

Look, I realize that the reasoning in support of public financing for the proposed Houston Dynamo soccer stadium has not been particularly rational. But this Chronicle article takes the cake in terms of suspending reality. Chron reporters Bernando Fallas and Bill Murphy breathlessly suggest that financially-troubled Texas Southern University — which is currently seeking $40 million in emergency legislative funding simply to keep the lights on — is a serious player to make up at least a portion of the gap between the private and public financing on the deal:

Forget soccer-specific. The Dynamo would be thrilled to call their proposed stadium football-specific or even fútbol-specific.

Either way would be accurate — soccer is known as football almost everywhere else in the world — if the Dynamo can get Texas Southern University to join negotiations with the city of Houston toward the construction of a $105 million facility just east of downtown that would be home to the two-time defending MLS champions and TSU athletics, primarily the Tigers’ football team.

By the looks of things, TSU is prepared to do just that.

Two weeks after he first expressed interest in the project and a couple of meetings and phone conversations later, newly appointed TSU athletic director Charles McClelland said the school is willing to invest in the construction of the 22,000-capacity stadium in exchange for the rights to use it. [.  .  .]

Of course, the article is utterly devoid of details, such as how TSU is going to find any money to throw at this deal, much less make a multi-million dollar investment in it. Heck, the TSU athletic director and the Dynamo’s president haven’t even met yet, so it doesn’t even appear that Dynamo management takes TSU’s involvement seriously. Why don’t the Chronicle editors just come out and say that they really want the city to finance the downtown soccer stadium and spare us such vapid articles as this one? Gosh, it’s gotten so bad that even normally common sense bloggers are giving in to this silliness.

Meanwhile, J.R. Taylor over at PoliSci@UST runs circles around the Chronicle’s reporting on the soccer stadium financing with this well-reasoned post that actually addresses facts regarding public financing of stadiums. Yet another example of how the blogosphere is trumping the mainstream media in terms of providing coherent analysis of important issues.

As if on cue for the soccer stadium financing issues currently being discussed on the local scene, Dennis Coates provides this excellent op-ed in The American on the dubious nature of municipal stadium subsidies:

Clearly, stadiums built with public funds have evolved over time. No longer are they built to honor the sacrifices of American soldiers. No longer are they built to be flexible venues capable of hosting a great variety of events. And no longer does the public sector determine the appropriate price to charge private enterprise for use of this publicly supplied resource. Today, sports stadiums are largely the private domain of for-profit businesses that the public sector subsidizes, often with special taxes. [.  .  .]

Over time, both the purpose and the real cost of public support for stadiums and arenas have changed. It may be that the subsidies state and local governments provide for stadium and arena construction and operation are justified by the community benefits those facilities provide. But the evidence says otherwise. [.  .  .]

My own research, conducted with economist Brad Humphreys .  .  . finds that the professional sports environment—which includes the presence of franchises in multiple sports, the arrival or departure of teams, and stadium construction—may actually reduce local incomes. For example, we found that the overall sports environment reduced per capita personal income, a finding that was new in the economic literature at the time we published it (1999). We also found that, in many local economies, wages and employment in the retail and services sectors have dropped because of professional sports. [.  .  .]

Of course, even if the benefits of stadiums and arenas cover the subsidies, the subsidies still may not be sound policy. First, there may be enormous variation in the distribution of the consumption and public-good benefits. It is clear that not all citizens in a community benefit equally from the presence of professional sports franchises in their city. Indeed, because the tax revenues used for the subsidies are often generated from lotteries and sales taxes whose burden falls disproportionately on the poor, while the consumption benefits go mostly to relatively wealthy sports fans, the net benefits are distributed regressively. Second, we should consider the net benefits to the community of alternative uses of the funds spent subsidizing sports facilities. Good policy means using the money where the net benefit is greatest, not simply where the net benefit is positive. That’s something state and local governments should keep in mind before pledging millions of dollars to fund the next new stadium project. And it’s something Congress should remember when evaluating the future of U.S. tax policy.

Are you listening, Mayor White?

Help me out here. I’m really trying to understand the basis of the perception among a large number of Houstonians that Mayor Bill White is an effective manager.

For example, this earlier post summarized Mayor White’s dubious decision-making in regard to having the city buy expensive and not particularly well-located downtown land for the new Houston Dynamo soccer stadium. Not only did the city already own nearby property that is a better location for the stadium, Mayor White pushed through the land acquisition despite not having a binding commitment from the soccer club owners on the amount of their contribution to the cost of the stadium’s construction.

Given the foregoing, who except Mayor White was surprised last week when Major League Soccer (which is really just a minor soccer league) sent a letter to the Dynamo owners that was (again, surprise!) passed along to Mayor White that threatens to relocate the Dynamo if a satisfactory stadium deal isn’t reached? For good measure, MLS and Dynamo officials informed the city that the estimated price of the stadium has increased from $90 million to $105 million and that some MLS cities have contributed as much as 90% of the cost of similar stadiums.

So, what was Mayor White’s reaction? Tell these minor leaguers to take a hike to Corpus Christi or Beaumont? Apologize to the citizens for having the city lay out $15-20 million for property that it doesn’t need? Promise that he won’t get taken to the cleaners again in negotiations with minor league sports club owners? No, Mayor White did his best tough guy imitation:

"I’ve gotten a little bit of a reputation, probably deserved, that I don’t respond well to threats," he said. "I smiled."

If Mayor White is smiling, then imagine what the MLS and Dynamo officials are doing after the way in which those minor leaguers have had their way with Mayor Bill in these negotiations?

The only good news about all this is that the $50-75 million that the city will probably end up dropping over this soccer stadium boondoggle represents only about a couple of months of losses of this much larger boondoggle, which — you guessed it — Mayor White strongly supports. And those aren’t the only questionable management decisions that the Mayor has made during his tenure (for example, see here, here, here and here).

How much longer can Houston afford Bill White?