Public financing wrong for D.C.

Imagine the Krispy Kreme Doughnuts chain agreeing to open a franchise in Chapel Hill, to allow the University to extend its status as a national leader to the field of student obesity.

But imagine Krispy Kreme, as a condition of the move, demanding that the town allocate money, possibly upward of $1 million, to pay for the construction of the facility in which the building would be located.

The doughnut store would reap the profits of the sweet tooth of 15,000 eager undergraduates, and the town would shoulder the cost.

That sounds fair, right?

Well, though it may not yet be a trend when it comes to sugar-coated fried bread, public support for private enterprise has dominated the economics of professional sports facilities for years.

Municipal governments finally might be coming to their senses, though. In December, the D.C. Council nearly nixed a deal to bring baseball back to the nation’s capital over the issue of public dollars — 584 million of them.

The council understood, as we all do, that professional sports teams tend to boost public morale and improve quality of life in the city, and some would hesitate to put a price on that benefit.

But if we did put a price on it, would that price be $584 million? Doesn’t that seem like an awful lot of money just to put a slanted “W” on a cap and call it civic pride?

Granted, there are ways to make the deal worthwhile for the taxpayers who will be purchasing $10,000 bonds to support the construction of a new stadium — for example, free admission to every game.

They also deserve a couple of hot dogs on the house, or at least one of those “We’re No. 1” fingers that serve no purpose outside the ballpark unless one’s blood-alcohol level has reached double digits.

And for that price, they also deserve the right to take batting practice every once in a while.

If you find those conditions outrageous, well, you’re right, but are they any more outrageous than a yet-to-be-determined businessman charging admission to fans who paid more for construction than he did?

Despite the inherent public benefit that a team (even the Expos) would bring to a city, professional baseball remains a private entity. To ask taxpayers to pay for a stadium for which they then would have to pay admission doesn’t seem quite right.

Paying for a stadium doesn’t even guarantee a competitive team — just ask the fans in Milwaukee, who paid $413.9 million for a new stadium for owner Bud Selig, only to see the Brewers tumble into the cellar of the National League.

Much of the revenue from the new stadium — as well as “maintenance payments” received from tax dollars — actually served to pay off existing team debts and not direct costs of construction, according to The Washington Post.

And if the team continues to struggle financially, what’s to say the team won’t flee to greener pastures elsewhere?

“I would be very, very nervous if I was a taxpayer in the greater Washington, D.C., area,” State Sen. Michael G. Ellis told The Post in June. “Nobody is better equipped to show people how to fleece the taxpayers into building them a new stadium than Allan H. (Bud) Selig. He could write a textbook on how he committed the taxpayers of Wisconsin to build a stadium at no cost whatsoever to the Seligs.”

How are Washington baseball fans to know the same won’t happen to them?

The only way to ensure that owners will keep a team competitive is to force them to earn the support of fans in the city — and fans shouldn’t have to show that support before an owner emerges.

After all, if you build it for them, they certainly will come.

But if they build it, it’s much less likely that they will leave.

Contact Brian MacPherson at brimac@email.unc.edu.