In a recent Globe op-ed piece, Harrington referred to stadium subsidies as an ''investment'' no less than five times. Public ownership of teams has been suggested by everyday fans as well as people who study stadium subsidies for a living. When teams are sold to new owners, the city must get a piece of that windfall. That can help to pay off the costs of the stadium. Or, in exchange for funding the new Fenway, the city must get an equity stake in the team.
Owners always talk of partnerships.
But the taxpayers, who have up to now been asked by these robber barons to mine the baseball diamonds, no longer need be left behind in cold, dark caves of debt. They can share in the gleaming profits at the jewelry store. The skyrocketing value of teams with new stadiums should end any more taxpayer subsidies that do not involve an equity stake. The only team not to see exponential gains was the Chicago White Sox, which built the ugliest of the new stadiums and has been playing to mediocre crowds. How taxpayers are paid back is certainly negotiable, whether in annual payments to state and city coffers or in a massive lump whenever the team is sold.