Utah’s elected officials have been “eager to show their support” for NHL and MLB expansion early in this legislative session, but lawmakers have “started to draw lines when it comes to funding,” according to Alex Vejar of the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE. Senate President J. Stuart Adams on Monday said, “We’ll protect the taxpayer dollar. But we’ll find a way to make it work.” Rep. Ryan Wilcox said that he “plans to sponsor legislation to create a public-private partnership” -- which would “include some amount of public funding -- to create a specific land use authority to help fund” the MLB ballpark proposed along North Temple on Salt Lake City’s west side. Adams said, “We have done hard things like this before to attract businesses and athletic events. We know how to do this, and we’ll get into the details later but fully.” Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla said, “We’re open to any combination of tools in the toolbox and I think the state plays a role as far as state investments, building infrastructure and helping communities” (SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 1/30).
SEEING THE POSITIVES: In Salt Lake City, Gordon Monson wrote he is “all for” an MLB club in Salt Lake City and an NHL team in Utah. There are “cautions and arguments” against such projects, “usually from people who are concerned about how much public funding will be called upon” to get new arenas and ballparks built. Those specifics are “yet to be fleshed out, at least out in the open, in each of the aforementioned bids.” Most economists “agree the bang is rarely worth the buck.” Monson wrote what is “good for the community” are the “collective benefits, the rooting interests, the unification of a sometimes splintered citizenry in joining together for a common cause, the competition, the fun.” The Jazz have “mostly succeeded in bringing together a state” (SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 1/30).
THE CROSSROADS OF THE WEST: THE ATHLETIC’s Eric Duhatschek notes the NHL expanding to Salt Lake City “now looks like a real possibility.” Moreover, if the NHL goes to 33 teams, fans “can be sure 34 isn’t far behind and eventually, probably, it’ll get to 36.” However, the “elephant in the expansion room” is the Coyotes. The reality is, if the Coyotes “can’t get going on a new building” and Salt Lake City is ready to go, then the “easy, and relatively seamless, solution is to transfer Arizona to Salt Lake City.” That means “no expansion fees to divvy up,” and that is the “sort of question that will divide ownership bases.” But the "right thing is to let the Coyotes move to Salt Lake City.” Too many teams is “eventually going to be bad for business.” Contraction, not expansion, “makes more sense, frankly.” But since the idea of shrinking the league “seems to be a pipe dream, the very least they can do is draw the line at 32.” And if new viable cities/options come up, such as Salt Lake City, there is “always going to be an incumbent or two, struggling at the box office, drawing dollars out of the revenue-sharing system, that will be candidates for relocation” (THE ATHLETIC, 1/31).
