By Chris Powell
While downtown Hartford’s Dunkin’ Park, which opened in 2017, may be the most beautiful minor-league baseball stadium in the country, it will be a long time before it can be considered a success.
For the Hartford Courant reported the other day that city government is losing more than $3.7 million per year on the stadium, the difference between the income the stadium brings to the city — a little more than $900,000 annually — and the $4.6 million the city pays annually in interest and principal on the nearly $69 million it borrowed to build the stadium. Almost $56 million remains to be paid.
When the stadium idea was conceived a decade ago it was presented as a way of revitalizing Hartford even as city government was essentially bankrupt. Predictably enough, the project’s execution was quickly botched with a 25% cost overrun, then with the firing of the original contractor, and then with a $10 million payment to the fired contractor to settle its lawsuit against the city for damages. It was a caricature of urban public administration in Connecticut.
So without any substantial debate or even awareness of what it was doing, the General Assembly approved Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s legislation to have state government assume Hartford’s bonded debt of $500 million, essentially reimbursing the city for its incompetence with the stadium project and for a lot more previous incompetence. Producing big Democratic pluralities in state elections is really all the competence city governments in Connecticut need to get by.
No one now in charge of state or city government bears any responsibility for the stadium project. While the administration of Hartford’s new mayor, Arunan Arulampalam, is stuck with the payments, he and nearly everyone else in authority likes to pretend that the stadium is a big part of Hartford’s chances for revitalization.
The present is something else. At least Hartford City Councilman Joshua Michtom acknowledged to the Courant that the stadium has yet to produce the promised economic development and property tax revenue growth. “It has not in any way that we can measure helped the city’s coffers,” Michtom says, noting that the stadium will cost the city money for another two or three decades, “a generational black eye in terms of funding necessary services.”
The big problem with Hartford and Connecticut’s other cities is that they are too full of people who need government services — that is, too full of poverty, which state government profitably manufactures in the cities with its education and welfare policies. Without those policies and the many people who haven’t learned to support themselves the government class might collapse.
Like hospitals, museums, and concert halls, a stadium may be an attraction for a city, but probably not so much for a small one. After all, the Yard Goats, Dunkin’ Park’s tenant, play only about 70 home games per year, leaving 295 dates to fill if the park’s value is to be maximized.
The attraction most needed by Hartford and Connecticut’s other cities is market-rate, middle-class housing for people who don’t need extra government services, people who can pay their own way. Fortunately Hartford city government has started to recognize this and is acting accordingly with development plans.
Connecticut’s housing supply is so tight that almost any sound, new middle-class housing probably can be filled by owners or renters. These days even middle-class people with children might consider city living because regional “magnet” schools allow escape from neighborhood schools overwhelmed with neglected children.
If a middle-class influx into housing in the city reached critical mass, supermarkets and the other necessities and accoutrements of middle-class life might follow. The decline of the city might be halted or even reversed. City living used to make sense and could again.
Of course such good things might happen in the city if welfare and education policy ever elevated the poor instead of keeping them poor and dependent on government and scaring the middle class away. But there aren’t yet many advocates for that.
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)
-END-
Chris Powell column 
ChatGPT offers some surprising examples of cities that may be overcoming economic decline:
Pittsburgh, USA – Once known for its steel industry collapse, Pittsburgh has transformed itself into a hub for healthcare, education, and technology. Investments in education and research institutions, such as Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, have played a significant role in this turnaround.
Detroit, USA – After facing severe economic challenges, particularly due to the decline of the automotive industry, Detroit has seen a resurgence through efforts to revitalize downtown, attract new businesses, and invest in infrastructure and community development. Initiatives like the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force and the development of the Detroit Innovation District have contributed to this recovery.
Cleveland, USA – Cleveland has diversified its economy beyond its traditional manufacturing base, focusing on healthcare, biotechnology, and education. Institutions like the Cleveland Clinic have become major economic drivers, and investments in cultural institutions and neighborhood revitalization have helped stimulate growth.
Baltimore, USA – Baltimore has worked to reverse its economic decline by focusing on its port, health sector, and education. The city has invested in waterfront redevelopment, which has attracted new businesses and residents, and has also leveraged its institutions like Johns Hopkins University for economic development.
LikeLike