Critics dampen Patriots stadium excitement

COURTESY CITY OF HARTFORD PATRIOTISM: Civic activists are outraged at plans to build a stadium for the Patriots on a Hartford site laden with toxic chemicals.

For three months, Connecticut Governor John Rowland has been singing the praises of the state's deal to bring the New England Patriots to Hartford. But in recent weeks, critics of the deal have blasted the deal's financial implications and revealed that the proposed stadium site is contaminated with toxic chemicals.

A report submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on Tues., Jan. 19, described the site area as thoroughly contaminated with such toxic chemicals as lead, cadmium, and benzene, according to a Sat., Feb. 13, article in The New York Times. The report also revealed toluene, an industrial solvent, in groundwater 52 feet below the surface. Cost estimates to clean up the site fall around $10 million.

"The workers excavating the site are going to be exposed to this," Ralph Nader, founder of the Public Citizens community activist group, said. "If they build underground garages, that's another consideration. These chemicals are getting into the water."

The original report by the Mead Group in West Hartford was released just before Connecticut's legislature voted on the stadium deal on Tues., Jan.15. According to environmentalists, the report downplayed the pollution problems, projecting costs of only $9.5 million for cleanup.

Some activists find it suspicious that the new, more damaging information has been released only now. "The `new information' they refer to in the January 19 report came from studies done in the '80s," Donna Donovan, a member of the Stop the Stadium group, said. "It seems funny to me that this material was in state files and they somehow neglected to include it in their report."

Opponents of Rowland's plan also point to another major controversy surrounding the stadium: whether it really has the capacity to spur the city's economic growth. When the Connecticut legislature unanimously approved construction of the stadium, it seemed to be a sign that economic revitalization was high on the state's agenda. Hartford's economy had been much slower than that of the rest of Connecticut. Many thought a major football stadium could signify that Hartford was on the way up. "We felt like losers, and we wanted to be winners," Fred Carstensen, professor of economics at the University of Connecticut, said of the city.

But does "feeling like a winner" alone justify a new stadium? Steve Kraus, PC '99, who is writing his senior essay on the Patriots deal, said many of the legislators he has spoken to see the stadium as a way to make a statement, more than as an investment. "They want to create the impression that Hartford is a first-tier city," Kraus said. "Many of them admit that maybe it won't make economic sense, but they want a symbol that Hartford is on the way up."

Nader believes symbolism isn't en-ough. "People are not going to go and live in Hartford because the Patriots are there," he said. "I don't even think the Patriots themselves are going to live there. Saying Hartford needs a stadium displays a lack of self-confidence."

Nader also believes the stadium funds should have been used for more worthy causes. "The government has no business building football stadiums," he said. "Those dollars should be used for serious appropriation. The stadium is open only eight days a year, plus a smattering of other events. Three hundred fifty million dollars is an unconscionable fiscal subsidy in a state with a great deal of needs."

Carstensen agreed with Nader on this point. "If you asked me to rank order the things we should be spending money on, stadiums for professional football teams are not going to rank very high."

Recent literature has warned against publicly funded stadiums, arguing that they contribute little to the economic development of cities. One such book is Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, edited by Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist. "The data indicate that the only time there is an economic benefit to a city from a stadium is when that stadium is privately financed and the state does not subsidize it," Noll, an economics professor at Stanford, said. "Most politicians don't want to admit that they are supporting a stadium not because it is a good investment but because they are sports fans. The stadium in Hartford is a good example of that."

Dean Pagani, Rowland's spokesman, insisted that the stadium would not only serve as an economic engine, but also make Hartford a more vibrant city. "The governor probably would not be as supportive of the stadium if it was isolated," he said. "But this is part of a larger project that aims to make people live, work, and play in Hartford. We're not just dropping it in the middle of a desert." The city hopes to locate hotels, restaurants, and convention centers around the new stadium.

This idea has convinced Carstensen to support the stadium as a means to revitalize the city. "If it were only a stadium I myself would be more critical," he explained. "But if you're only talking about the stadium, you're missing the point. It's the whole area. Hartford is horribly underserved by hotels and convention centers--and conventions have become a huge business across the nation. Hartford now has a commitment on four major hotels, and the stadium may have been important in creating credibility for the city."

Although Pagani emphasized that the stadium deal has been finalized, critics maintain that discussions are not over yet. Donovan pointed out that the EPA has not approved development of the site. Nader also pointed out that the NFL has not yet approved the relocation of the Patriots to Hartford, a much smaller city than Boston. Ultimately, Nader forecasts a bleak future for the stadium. "Frankly, I don't think this stadium is ever going to be built," he said.

Back to News...