TAX-FUNDED ARENA NOT WORTH MUCH IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPORTS.

Byline: Robert Sexton

LAST week a divided Los Angeles City Council (11-3) gave approval to a plan to build a $240 million luxury downtown sports arena.

Proponents see the new arena propelling Los Angeles into the ``sports center of the nation'' while opponents are concerned over the cost to taxpayers.

The current plans have earmarked $70 million in public money for the construction of this new arena.

The public investment will come largely from 25-year bonds that the city will purportedly pay off through a surcharge on ticket sales, parking revenues, and sales and business taxes associated with the new arena.

But if the revenues are not there, the city is liable for any additional costs.

The opportunity for one group to benefit at the expense of others through governmental projects is not new. Special-interest groups have been quick to realize the advantages of getting everyone to chip in a little to support their projects.

The obvious question

But a natural question is, if the project is so desirable, why do we have to come to government to get public funding? If everyone needs a good or service so much, why aren't they willing to pay for it? (In which case some enterprising entrepreneur will be glad to supply all of it.)

Most special-interest advocates will have a couple of answers for this. They will argue that most people aren't aware of all the benefits they will receive from the project, or that the project is a public good and deserves support on that basis.

The first answer should persuade very few. If you don't benefit from a private good, it's because you don't care enough to purchase and consume it.

However, if the claim is that it is a public good and that the community will benefit, some questions have to be asked. Does the project convey important benefits to the community at large? Is it impossible to deny anyone these benefits once the project is completed? These are strict requirements, and we might expect few projects, like national defense or flood control programs, to qualify for government support as public goods.

But you would be amazed at the number of projects that are funded at public expense because they are supposedly public goods.

`Benefits the city'

Many other big cities have either built or are planning on building large sports arenas, largely at taxpayers' expense. Supporters claim that a sports arena, with the professional sports teams that usually go with it, will bring recognition and fame to the city. The argument goes that this will benefit everyone who lives in the city, whether they ever go out to the ``old ball game'' or not, because they will be living in a more prestigious community.

And this excuse is used to justify coercing everyone in the city to contribute to the sports arena.

Clearly, this argument is flawed. The people who receive the primary benefit from a sports arena are those who frequent them to watch games.

It's easy to prevent a person from receiving this benefit if he or she doesn't pay at the gate. The assertion that everyone would benefit from a new arena has to be questioned.

A sports arena will generate growth and congestion that many will find undesirable. To these people, paying for a big sports palace makes no sense.

Perhaps some people who never go to a sporting event may feel a little bit better just knowing they can or knowing that their city makes national news occasionally for something other than a rising crime rate.

But does this justify commandeering funds from everyone in the city to build a sports arena? What about fine restaurants? Certainly fine restaurants enhance the reputation of the city. Many people are happy to know that one is nearby waiting to serve them, whether they visit it or not. But most people would find a proposal to publicly finance restaurants a little far-fetched.

If desirable side effects justified government subsidies, well-kept yards, hair styling, pretty clothes, face lifts, carwashes, toothpaste, underarm deodorants, smiles and athlete's foot medication would all qualify for a handout.

Regardless of the desirability of requiring the public to pay for certain things, it should be recognized that special-interest groups expend a lot of effort to get subsidies for those things from which they receive enjoyment and profit. Many of these efforts have been successful; the sports arena example is only one of many.

Other abuses

The more cultured, and usually wealthier, members of many cities have managed to obtain government support for symphonies, operas, ballet and the performing arts in general.

The stated justification for requiring everyone to pay for entertainment that caters primarily to the tastes of the rich is similar to that given subsidizing sports arenas. Supposedly, everyone in a community will benefit, even those who prefer to sit home with a can of beer and watch all-star wrestling on television.

Most cities have somehow decided that everyone benefits from golf courses, whether he or she plays golf or not. Consequently, people in many communities find themselves contributing to public golf courses and subsidizing golfers who would complain of the insufficient number of golf courses if their green fees were raised to cover the full cost of providing these courses.

Many more examples could be given of special-interest groups trying to drain a subsidy out of the public trough for goods and services that benefit them primarily. Just follow the proposals and requests that come before meetings of locally elected officials.

You will probably be surprised at the number of ``socially concerned'' people who have identified some urgent public ``need.'' Many of these urgent needs will be provided for with the help of public subsidies. Most of these projects receive funding at public expense because they benefit individuals and groups that exert a lot of influence on public decision makers.

Are we dumb/

As Councilman Nate Holden said about the proposed arena, ``We're not dumb. Certainly, the taxpayers are not dumb. We'll be in debt from the very beginning.''

Perhaps we should let the private entrepreneurs take the risk rather than the taxpayers, as Councilman Holden fears. There are many of us sports enthusiasts who would love to have a new arena, but not at the cost of the defenseless taxpayers that would not.