when does it count as the ballpark taking money from the schools?

 

Yes, I made this myself in Canva

I had missed the initial publication of the latest coverage from Worcester Business Journal (thank goodness we have them) on Worcester's boondoggle, Polar Park. If you have been following this at all, you will not be surprised to learn that, no, it is not paying for itself: 

The slower-than-expected development of the Madison properties is the main reason the City of Worcester expects to have another revenue shortfall of around $792,000 in the ballpark district this year. This will mark the second year in a row the City will need to use general taxpayer funds to cover the bonds payments on the publicly owned $160-million stadium and reverses the promise made in 2018 to only use revenues generated in the ballpark district to pay for Polar Park, even as City finance officials remain optimistic the stadium and its surrounding developments will become a net-positive for taxpayers funds over the 35-year life of the bonds.

Thus, no, it is not using only revenue from the ballpark and its surrounding district to pay for it, still. 

It was a framing later in the article that raised my eyebrows, however: 

 “When we do the budget, if we weren't moving monies into the District Improvement Financing account, those monies would be used for other municipal purposes,” McGourthy said. “So in that sense, the DIF would compete against every other public purpose that the City does. But we've never taken money out of a school account or road account and moved it over to the DIF.”

IF we weren't moving money INTO the DIF account, the money would be used for OTHER MUNICIPAL PURPOSES.
There is no sense in which that is NOT competing against every other public purpose the city funds.

...including, yes, the Worcester Public Schools, notably not funded at the legally obligated level again this year. 

Still waiting for literally anyone involved in any aspect of city government to raise this.