Probably not, but it is still pretty terrible. Almost as bad as the Braves themselves.
With few exceptions, most stadium deals end up looking pretty horrible in the cold light of day, something that sports economists—and a slowly increasing number of journalists like myself, and an even more slowly increasing number of elected officials—have been pointing out for decades. So asking subsidy experts to rank them by awfulness is like asking them to say which of their children they find the most annoying on a long car ride.
Nonetheless, I asked. According to Holy Cross economist Victor Matheson, the Braves project scores “pretty high on the list of despicable stadium deals,” both for replacing a stadium that is the same age as Miley Cyrus, and because “they want to move out of their ‘old’ stadium because it is in a bad neighborhood that they had 18 years to turn into a good neighborhood like they promised in the first place. And now they are promising a new location that the new location should subsidize the new stadium because a stadium will improve that neighborhood.”