Pawsox greeted by skeptical I-195 commission and audience

A SITE PLAN FOR THE new Pawtucket Red Sox stadium being proposed for downtown Providence, which would include a significant portion of the land opened for development by the relocation of Interstate 195. / COURTESY DAIQ & POPULOUS
A SITE PLAN FOR THE new Pawtucket Red Sox stadium being proposed for downtown Providence, which would include a significant portion of the land opened for development by the relocation of Interstate 195. / COURTESY DAIQ & POPULOUS

PROVIDENCE — Owners of the Pawtucket Red Sox presented a detailed plan for moving the AAA team to downtown Providence Monday, earning a skeptical if not critical reception from the commission that controls the site the team wants for its new ballpark.

In questions posed during the meeting of the Interstate 195 Redevelopment District Commission, commissioners questioned both the public cost and the tax benefits of the proposed development, and whether the state could find a more effective use for the site to attract highly desirable high-tech or life sciences development to the I-195 lands.

How to Safeguard Your Network Against AI-Based Cyber Attacks and Threats

Although artificial intelligence has multiple benefits in the workplace, IT leaders should still be aware…

Learn More

Commissioner Barrett Bready referred to the proposed 30-year lease — in which the state would be asked to proved $4 million a year in support for the facility — and said he questioned whether “there are much more effective ways to attract high-quality companies to that land.”

Commissioner Robert Davis questioned whether the case studies presented by the team owners, which describe economic impacts of other ballpark developments, support the argument that the PawSox ballpark will trigger economic development. “I don’t feel that what I’ve seen from the economic development side confirms that.”

- Advertisement -

The team has proposed a new $70 million ballpark for the PawSox, on 9.5 acres overlooking the Providence River. It has presented a lease-sublease arrangement for the land that would involve the state contributing $4 million a year for 30 years, less the amount projected by the team to be generated in sales tax and other state revenues. The city of Providence would similarly be asked to approve a 30-year tax deferral for improvements to the land.

Recently the team owners indicated they would be willing to consider purchasing the land. A proposal will be sent to the commission detailing that prospect, said James J. Skeffington, an attorney who is president of the PawSox ownership group.

The team owners estimate the ballpark will generate $15 million in economic benefits annually, including $2.4 million in state tax revenues. On questioning from commissioner Elizabeth Huidekoper, the team said this was gross receipts, not the added value of moving the team from Pawtucket.

Huidekoper, the recently retired executive vice president for finance and administration at Brown University, noted that although the project would not require the state to use it debt capacity, it could impact the state’s bond rating. “Rating agencies look at long-term leases,” she said. “I think it could have an impact.”

The I-195 commission meeting was conducted in public session, an unusual step for the appointed panel, which has the authority under state law to discuss development of the former highway lands in closed session. The meeting was opened to the public at the request of the PawSox ownership. It attracted a standing-room only crowd of viewers, including many who were critical of the plan to convert the planned park space to the ballpark location. The crowd broke into laughter when the traffic consultant hired by the team said the ballpark would not make the traffic in the area “any worse than it is today.”

The team’s presentation, for the first time, included the public advocacy of Larry Lucchino, president and CEO of the Boston Red Sox, who is among the new owners of the PawSox. He and others made the case for the new ballpark as a smart investment for the state in a state-of-the-art facility that would attract visitors and spur new economic development.

Lucchino said the site was perfect for the ballpark, which he said would be a “point of community pride. The stadium will hold up to 10,000 fans for the baseball games, and will be used for college athletic events, including football games, outside baseball season. The three-story ballpark planned by the owners would occupy about five acres of the site. Much of the remainder would be available to the public.

“We can’t do it by ourselves,” Lucchino said. “It does require a public-private partnership in this day and age.”

After the public presentation, in a brief meeting with reporters, Chairman Joseph F. Azrack and R.I. Commerce Secretary Stefan Pryor said the PawSox proposal needed additional vetting, but indicated they had concerns about its financial equity for Rhode Islanders.

“Broadly speaking, the financial arrangement that is proposed by the team’s ownership involves a substantial public investment, yet the proceeds or profits from the stadium primarily return to the owners,” said Pryor. “The important question to ask is whether there might be an alternative financial arrangement that might be more fair and might enable taxpayers to feel less of the burden.”

Azrack said the commission will review an analysis of the project from its own consultants, and review the proposal in depth in the coming weeks. Among his questions, following the presentation, he said, was whether the project is the right use for the land, “whether this land use is not only compatible but also synergistic with the overall development plan for the 195 land and the Jewelry District of the city of Providence.”

Among the outstanding questions, Pryor said, is the net value for the state in tax revenue if the team is relocated to Providence, as opposed to Pawtucket.
In a broader sense, he said: “We aim to create a proposal that in the end is more fair to the taxpayers of Rhode Island.”

No posts to display

1 COMMENT

  1. I would agree with Mr. Lucchino that the deal needs a private-public partnership, but why was your opening move so extreme as compared to other ballpark deals at a similar Triple A level????