Story by
Mark Woods: A good deal with a big asterisk — by today's stadium deal standards
- Story by
- Mark Woods: A good deal with a big asterisk — by today's stadium deal standards
Ever since the Jaguars unveiled plans last June for what the team called "the stadium of the future," I've written basically the same thing again and again.
I grew up going to stadiums of the past, some actually revered for just how old they were and how little they had changed. I don't like that in recent decades, sports venues have gotten more and more opulent, with the cost to taxpayers going up and up (and sports economists producing study after study saying public subsidies for stadiums inevitably have a lousy return on investment).
Advertisement
But, like it or not, it is the reality. If you want to have a major professional sports team in your town, there is a price tag. I don't buy that a $1.4 billion renovation will lead to $26 billion in economic benefits. I do buy there are benefits, sometimes hard to measure, to having one of the 32 franchises in the most-watched sports league in America.
When Jacksonville was awarded an NFL team in 1993, everyone should've known that in another 30 years or so there would be some sort of stadium dance.
So what to do now that we're here, with an agreement headed to city council ?
'A binary choice'
Mayor Donna Deegan says that when she held community meetings last year, the stadium came up at every single one of them. When she asked how many people wanted to keep the Jaguars in Jacksonville, hands shot up. She estimates about 85 percent said they didn't want to lose the team. She also estimates that nearly the same percentage said they didn't want to spend public money to prevent that.
Advertisement
"While nobody wants to spend a lot of money, the truth is this was a binary choice," Deegan said this week. "We can build the stadium or we can lose our team."
Looking ahead: Future of Jacksonville has to be about more than 'stadium of the future'
Calculating value: What is an NFL team worth to a city?
At what cost?: Stadium memories are priceless. Stadiums are not.
From the start, some people seemed to quickly fall into two camps on that choice. Don't give a billionaire NFL owner another dime; we'll be fine without the team. Give the Jags whatever it takes; losing them would be devastating. I guess I always fell into that unrealistic combination the mayor referenced — I'd like to keep them without spending anything — but also a more pragmatic one.
Advertisement
I've always assumed there would be some sort of stadium deal and it would involve a lot of city money. No matter who was mayor, it was going to happen. My hope was that it could be as good as possible in today's stadium climate — and that it could be tied to something that would help finally transform our riverfront.
We still don't know all the details of this deal but at first glance, if Jacksonville wants to keep its NFL team, this deal makes sense. I'm not going to go so far as to say it makes perfect fiscal sense to spend this much on a stadium. But I will give the kind of endorsement that probably won't end up as part of the pitch at community huddles: It could've been worse, a lot worse.
There are four reasons, not to be confused with Four Seasons, why this is a good deal (with an asterisk — * by today's NFL stadium deal standards).
The overall cost
Advertisement
We're not building a new stadium. That alone keeps the total cost below the multiple billions of recent stadiums and deals — topped by $5.5 billion in Los Angeles, but including $2.1 billion in a more comparable market like Nashville.
Granted, viewing a $1.4 billion stadium renovation as a bargain is kind of like saying the used Lamborghini didn't cost as much as the new one. It's still a huge amount, in this case leading to both the largest single city expenditure and largest private expenditure in Jacksonville history.
The split
Yes, there are places — all of them major metropolitan areas — where NFL owners have built stadiums without taxpayer money. As I wrote on the day the renderings were unveiled, I would've been all for the city getting out of the NFL stadium business, handing Shad Khan the keys to EverBank and letting him own it. That wasn't going to happen here.
Advertisement
So while the first question was the cost, the second was the split.
It was unveiled as a 50-50 split of $1.25 billion for the renovation — or $625 million for team and city. But it also calls for the city to first do $150 million in maintenance and preparation. (The city says that, even if the Jaguars weren't in our future, much of this would be necessary to simply keep the stadium ready for the Florida-Georgia game, the Gator Bowl and other events. So there wasn't a zero-dollar option.)
If you include that $150 million, it makes the bottom line about $775 million for the city, and a 55-45 percent split.
Again, it could be worse, much worse. Look at Oklahoma City, a place with a somewhat similar scenario (a similar population and one major pro sports team, the NBA's Thunder). To keep the Thunder, Oklahoma City is building a nearly $1 billion arena — and the team is chipping in less than 10 percent of the cost.
Advertisement
Taxpayer protections
In addition to the 30-year lease, the Jaguars are responsible for renovation cost overruns and a much larger percentage of ongoing expenses. For instance, in the past the city covered gameday expenses. In the new lease, the Jaguars cover about 80 percent. In the past, maintaining the stadium fell to the city (and sometimes fell by the wayside). Now that shifts more to the Jaguars.
Deegan is right when she says this lease is "light years" ahead of the last one.
A $300 million community benefits agreement
To me, this is an important piece.
Nearly every NFL stadium deal has some community benefits piece beyond the actual stadium. Sometimes it's more of a P.R. move than anything meaningful. That isn't the case in this deal.
Advertisement
Future has to be about more than stadium
The Jaguars initially proposed $100 million in community initiatives, particularly in the Eastside neighborhood near the stadium. It would also go toward countywide programs for affordable housing, workforce development and reducing homelessness. The city said make it $150 million and we'll match it — with $70 million going to parks, including notably to finally finish the series of riverfront parks on the Northbank.
It would be the biggest community benefits agreement ever for an NFL franchise and city.
Community asset: Duval residents should feel like they own football stadium. Because they do.
Advertisement
More: Mark Woods: We don't want to compete with Nashville in this NFL game — stadium spending
So it was disappointing, but not surprising, to see City Council member Rory Diamond quickly shoot down that particular part of the deal, posting on social media as it was being announced: "That's a non-starter, and Council will remove it."
It's worth noting that Diamond voted for Lot J , the entertainment district that would've cost taxpayers more than $240 million, and included an unusual interest-free loan for Khan. And that he voted for more than $100 million in taxpayer incentives for a luxury hotel . And that he very well might end up voting to give the Jaguars what they want for the stadium.
If that happens, but Diamond stands in the way of the community benefits agreement, think about what this and other votes would mean: He supported $1 billion in taxpayer funding for Khan projects, but fought funding plans for public schools and parks.
Advertisement
Removing the community benefits agreement from this deal changes it dramatically. And if council ultimately approves the stadium deal but rejects this piece, it would be such a shame.
As I wrote the day the stadium renderings were unveiled, the future of Jacksonville has to be about more than the "stadium of the future."
This could both add challenges to that goal and help make it happen.
Simply building an NFL-approved stadium doesn't transform downtown or the riverfront or any neighborhood. If that were the case, it would've happened 30 years ago. So we shouldn't think that simply creating a shinier NFL stadium will do it today. But it could be a part of it.
Advertisement
All things considered — the going-rate for stadiums, the inability to use state funds like many other NFL towns, and the initial details of this agreement — it seems like a good deal.
Again, I say that with a big asterisk.
* By today's stadium deal standards.
mwoods@jacksonville.com
(904) 359-4212
This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Jaguars stadium deal could've been worse for Jacksonville
