Ballpark Figures:
You Can't Stop Progress

Michael Cox

Wow. You'd think that all those copies of Field of Schemes they're selling (they are selling lots of copies, right?) would have convinced everyone to lock up the pocketbooks and live with those '70s concrete circles for another thirty years, but instead there's been a rash of new developments on the civic amusements front.

Behold:

PITTSBURGH: After having a new tax levy turned down by voters, city and county officials figured out a way to build the Pirates a new ballpark: use the money saved by tearing down Three Rivers. Almost all the money to build what has been named PNC Park will come from existing revenues and the Pirates ownership themselves.

SAN DIEGO: After what seemed like irreconcilable financial differences between team ownership and local officials, a marathon session resulted in a ballpark proposal that will be sent to the voters in November. As part of the deal, team ownership will also develop 850 new hotel rooms and 750K square feet of office and retail space.

CINCINNATI: With financing already approved by the electorate, the issue of siting the Reds' new park has hung up the process for a long time. However, voters have collected enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot. Backers of a Broadway Commons site hope voters will back that location over Marge Schott's desire for riverfront property.

MINNEAPOLIS: With their butts still smarting from getting run out of North Carolina, Twins officials negotiated a two-year lease "enhancement" at the Metrodome that some hope will lead to a rational process resulting in a new park, and hopefully, a new owner to go with it.

SEATTLE: With only one year until completion, the Public Facilities District in charge of building the Mariners' new park (Safeco Field) announced a substantial cost overrun. The team, obligated by contract to pay for overruns, held a press conference to say that they'd pay for the overrun, and in fact, they had even approved the extra charges. When asked how they'd pay for it, team owners said, in effect, "With our money." When further asked whether they'd raise ticket prices or cut payroll based on the news, they said, in effect, "No, why?"

Add in the nice construction progress in San Francisco, Houston, Detroit and the aforementioned Seattle, and things are looking up.

Of course, I wouldn't be so psyched about all this if our economy wasn't so incredibly able to absorb the cost, and if the deals weren't becoming more and more weighted towards significant private spending. Proposals in Montreal and Boston would use mostly private funds, just as those in Detroit and SF do now. Even the significant increase in private funding caused by the Seattle overruns (to the tune of $80M) gives me a sort of twisted pleasure.

Where am I going with all this? Well, at a time when some would like to incite some sort of civil unrest over the issue of public financing, or even public facilitation of stadia, what the doomsayers and curmudgeons are actually doing is convincing people (and by extension, politicians) to keep a watchful eye on ballpark projects, reject financing proposals when they're bad, and hold owners' feet to the fire when they allow the owners a place to play.

The extra development in San Diego, the siting issue in Cincy, the new (old) funding in Pitt, and the pressure over the overruns in Seattle are all a form of "tough love" imposed by the citizenry that in the end will assure they have it both ways: they'll get to keep the team in town and a ballpark that based on history should last them twice as long as a multipurpose stadium, but with a reasonable cost.

And if an owner doesn't like it? I bet you could find a new one who will.

Michael Cox is an advocate for Drinkin' and Swearin' sections in all new ballparks. No kids allowed, huge bouncers (like Fenway) to keep the peace, and what the hey - glass the sucker in. Tell him how much you'd pay at mc@strikethree.com.