June 8, 2000
Where to locate, how much of taxpayers’ money to spend, and who will benefit by how much over the next generation?
These decisions should be based on one’s vision for Philadelphia in 2015, not in 2003. These should be investments that will move us toward our goals for the next generation, rather than based on incremental modification to the present state of affairs.
My answer is in the form of raising and answering 2 questions:
1. Is it appropriate to invest taxpayers’ funds to construct stadiums for the benefit of for-profit teams, further enriching already very wealthy persons?
My answer is "no" unless very significant – not incidental – benefits to the larger community and institutions are realized.
2. Once we get beyond the first question: Should there be one or two new stadiums, at what costs, and with what significant benefits to the larger community?
My answer to the second question is at 3 levels:
First, a downtown stadium would most significantly benefit the larger Philadelphia community through economic growth and further human development in Center City and the northern districts up to Temple University. While Temple University would prefer the Broad & Spring Garden site because it would more rapidly transform the image of Temple as an extension of Center City, the Mayor’s recommended site would probably yield greater benefits for more persons over the long run.
Second, two new stadiums in South Philadelphia would have only an incremental effect on the larger community, and primarily would benefit a small cadre of already wealthy persons. I consider the use of these public funds for such a limited, targeted beneficiary to be bad public policy.
Third, if a downtown site is not selected, then in "cost-benefit" terms, the best alternative is to renovate Veteran’s Stadium for both football and baseball, and seek authority to invest the "savings" in other urgently-needed public projects to benefit the larger community.
Peter J. Liacouras
Temple University
###