opinion

Tully: Pull the Indy Eleven stadium plan off the field

If there was a moment when I jumped off the Indy Eleven stadium bandwagon, it was probably around 9 a.m. on Feb. 16, when its advocates told a Statehouse committee that they were suddenly adding the tax revenue from a not-yet-completed Downtown hotel to the funding mix.

That development in the stadium debate was troublesome both because it threatens tax revenue that could fund other projects and needs, and because it contradicts the long-stated promise of stadium backers that only those who use the stadium would pay taxes on it. If you don't go, you won't pay a penny. Or so went the sales pitch.

The initial idea sounded reasonable: Stadium bonds would be paid back by things like ticket fees, sales taxes on food and drinks, and income taxes on stadium-related salaries. It was one of the main reasons I celebrated the proposal in an overly enthusiastic column last year, and it's also why I supported a full hearing on the stadium in a more cautious column two weeks ago.

But turning to taxes paid at a hotel several blocks away, its only connection to the stadium being that the Indy Eleven owner is building it — well, quite frankly, that idea stinks. It's unfair and turns this already-debatable government-backed plan into a sweetheart deal.

And while that amendment alone was probably enough to lose me, in reality I've grown more and more concerned about the plan for months. Several other aspects of it have raised enough red flags (or is it yellow cards?) to warrant shelving the plan.

For now.

(Please don't take this as opposition to the team, the sport or my hope that professional soccer is now a permanent part of Indianapolis. This column is none of those things. Instead, it's a bow to the idea that this particular proposal is not yet ready for its close up, and that we don't live in a city that can afford every item on its wish list.) So, along with the hotel surprise, here are other concerns about the proposal.

1. It has been moving through the state legislature but lawmakers are insistent that the state be held harmless if the revenue projections ultimately prove to have soared above the net. Some lawmakers have talked about forcing the team's ownership to back part of the project, and that's great. But, in the end, Indianapolis would be on the hook if the team goes under, or even if the team thrives but the stadium fails to generate enough money to pay back 30 years of bonds.

If this project is as critical and valuable to the state as backers insist, then Indianapolis shouldn't be forced to risk so much of its already wobbly fiscal future on it. There are too many other needs, and far too many real concerns about the city's financial condition, for it to take all or even a large majority of the risk. Particularly when there is nothing close to a guarantee that all of the non-soccer events the team envisions helping to fund the stadium will actually take place.

The addition of the hotel tax revenue, meantime, underscores the uncertainty that this project's numbers add up.

2. Previous major projects in Indy, such as existing stadiums and the convention center, were driven by city leaders. In this case, the lead advocate in the Statehouse, aside from team lobbyists, is Hamilton County Rep. Todd Huston. He's a smart and hard-working lawmaker from Fishers, but there is something wrong about this bill being driven by a lawmaker whose community won't be asked to risk anything.

If leaders in Indianapolis aren't willing to take the lead on this project, it's time to rethink it. Moreover, the city is less than nine months away from electing a new mayor. Putting this issue into the campaign mix, and seeing how voters in Indianapolis respond, is a good idea. Why rush things?

3. Speaking of that, I've fallen for the wisdom of those who say we should wait and see whether the Indy Eleven's first-year attendance figures at IUPUI's Carroll Stadium hold up. One season is probably not enough time to use as the foundation of a decision this big. The best scenario seems to be for lawmakers to push this off until the legislature's next budget-writing session, in 2017.

That's not a long wait for a stadium that would be around for decades. And if support for the team remains strong for two more full seasons, the argument for a new and larger stadium likely would be widely embraced.

Indy Eleven leaders argued in a Star Editorial Board meeting recently that the new stadium is needed now to sustain and propel the team's popularity. But that contradicts their other argument — that soccer is wildly popular and here to stay. If that latter argument is true, and I believe it is, then the temporary lack of a larger and glitzier stadium shouldn't be a major setback.

4. Finally, we should have a broader debate about what type of stadium the team needs and where it should go. Would a much less expensive upgrade at Carroll Stadium be sufficient? Would that do more for the city than building a new facility south of Lucas Oil Stadium? Could Carroll Stadium be upgraded to add thousands of new seats and improve both the fan experience and the team's revenue? These questions are worth answering, and other options are worth considering.

So, yes, I'm officially off the new stadium bandwagon. For now. It's taken me a long time to get here, but, to quote a friend who used to work in the mayor's office, "something just doesn't seem right about this plan."

Ultimately, several things didn't seem right about it.

You can reach me at matthew.tully@indystar.com or at Twittter.com/matthewltully



