Who should pay for stadiums? Barry Bonds or you?
Jul 09 '01
The Bottom Line Bottom line is that if you want a privately financed ballpark, the folks who pay the organ grinder get to call the tune.
A few years ago I worked for the San Francisco Giants as a campaign organizer for the "Yes on Proposition B, Build the Ballpark" election campaign for what is now Pacific Bell Park...yes we won the election. During the many hard months of this campaign I became a bit of an expert on the pro and con arguments concerning public money for sports arenas.
To give you a little background information. The Giants had gone to the voters 7 times in the preceeding 20 years asking for public money so that they could get the hell out of Candlestick Park. Elections were lost in San Francisco County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County, and at one point the team was packing its bags and getting ready to ship out to St. Petersburg Florida before former Mayor Frank Jordan put together a group of investors led by Peter McGowan to save the team.
This group were not particularly deep pocketed compared to other owners and there was no way they could turn around the flagging fortunes of the organization on their own...i.e get the team out of the Stick and into a ballpark where the few fans who showed up wouldn't freeze to death every night.
They came up with a pretty good solution; the first privately financed ballpark since the hated Dodgers built Chavez Ravine in 1967. Pacific Bell Park was built 100% from private financing and judging by the crowds that are now coming to see the Giants play and win, the people are happy with the outcome.
Why the ballot measure you ask if there was no public money involved? Well the Giants do get some special tax breaks from the city and the city agreed to fund the construction of all the necessary amenities outside the park such as a light rail stop, street lighting, etc and they also paid for the construction of the service (sewage, water, electricity) connections to the park. There was also a land use issue that needed voter approval.
During the campaign the "No" camp argued that even this small public expenditure was not warranted and we heard all the same tired old cliches such as, "why doesn't Barry Bonds pay for the services" or "I don't watch baseball why should I have to pay for their ballpark?" In defense of the city, it is quite clear that they got the best part of this whole deal. A toxic site was cleaned up, a new tourist attraction was put up and millions of dollars of new income is rolling into the city.
Does this mean that cities should completely fund new sports arenas? No, I don't think so. As in every debate of this nature both sides can line up a dozen Ivy League economists to say that sports teams are good or bad for a city. The bottom line is that each case has to be reviewed on its individual merits.
For a city like San Francisco which is wealthy and does not need much in the way of inner city economic redevelopment, public financing of a downtown ballpark would never fly. For cities like Cleveland and Baltimore however, it is clear that their new ballparks have helped regenerate previously rundown areas and that the yards have been good investments for those respective cities.
The thing that makes me laugh when I go to Pac Bell Park these days is the whining of those same voters who refused to put any public money into a ballpark in 7 different elections. "Why do they have to call it Pacific Bell Park? Why not Willie Mays Park?" " Why are there billboards everywhere?" "Why is the beer so expensive?" "Why is there a big Coke bottle in the outfield?" "Why aren't the Giants spending more money on free agents?"
Bottom line is that if you want a privately financed ballpark, the folks who pay the organ grinder get to call the tune.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Mattog
|
|
Member: Matt R.
Location: San Francisco, CA
Reviews written: 72
Trusted by: 37 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.