City May Have to Refuse New Arena Deal

The Baltimore Sun reported that the president and chief executive officer of the Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Willard Hackerman, has offered to put up some $900 million for the construction of  an 18,500-seat arena in downtown Baltimore.  The building would include parking garages and a 500 room hotel. 

City and state officials are understandably very pleased with Hackerman's offer.  The city would get a shining state of the art facility that could possibly attract some top tier conventions and events.

At first blush, this sounds like a fantastic offer that the city can't refuse.

The only problem is that the project calls for attaching the current convention center to the new structure.  That part of the enterprise would cost $400 million and could end up having to be financed by Baltimore City.   

I am all for a new convention center and hotel.  The design of the building is spectacular.  It appears to even have a grass covered rooftop which would be environmentally friendly and big attraction in its own right  (maybe they could put a miniature golf course up there.  That would be neat.).  And the hotel would be a welcomed addition to our skyline.

Still, I have to wonder if Baltimore City can afford to float another $400 million in bonds, especially when we are laying off and furloughing city employees, raising fees on residents to cover city expenses and paying the highest property tax in the state.

Certainly the argument will be offered by our city mothers and fathers that the venture will bring jobs and much needed cash to the city.  That may be true.  It may not be true.

How many long term jobs have come to Baltimore since the Inner Harbor and Camden Yards sports complexes were built?  I would bet that not too many good paying, full time jobs, have been created.  And, even if they were, I'd have to ask how many of those jobs were filled with Baltimore City residents? 

And how many fees and tax increases have we endured since our downtown received a makeover beginning in the Schaefer years?  I'd bet plenty.

The fact is that these renewal schemes are sold on the trickle-down theory.  Proponents for such projects argue that the money spent now will translate into money earned later, thus creating jobs and benefiting the city's revenue coffers.  Yes, that is true, if the money stays in Baltimore City.  But it usually doesn't.  And, if it does, it doesn't seem to benefit the residents of the city in any visible way.  

I have my doubts that Baltimore City will see any long term benefits from any new arena/hotel project.  I think the $400 million could be better spent on actually improving the lives of Baltimoreans.  I can think of ten things off the top of my head that the city could spend that money on.     

Now, that is not to say the region wouldn't benefit from a new arena in Baltimore City. But, if that is the case, then the region should cough up the $400 million needed to cover the costs.