FanPost

An opposing viewpoint on publicly funded stadiums

The "anti-stadium" crowd is quick to play the "class envy" card .... but what they're selling is castor oil.

You enjoyed castor oil, didn't you?

As expected, the announcement that the Marlins are looking to leave South Florida because they can't get a ballpark built has encouraged the anti-stadium crowd in the Twin Cities.  Why, we've even seen it here.

It would be nice if the debate could be conducted in terms of "choices", as in "What does the public want its community to be and to have?"  Unfortunately, that's rarely the focus.

No, their typical focus is on the "greedy owners who want the poor taxpayer to pony up the money to build them a ballpark so they can make exorbitant amounts of money"   - in short, "Class Envy."  What they never admit (and refuse to acknowledge, even when it's pointed out to them) is that poking the greedy S.O.B. owner in the eye eventually leaves your town without a baseball team ... oh, and if you're a baseball fan, that you'll miss them when they're gone far more then they'll miss you.

Baseball is subject to the same economic pressures as any other business.  Businesses locate where the business climate is favorable and they are always on the lookout for ways to make it more favorable.  If leaving the old shop downtown and moving to the suburban mall keeps the doors open or significantly increases profits, then that's what the smart businessman will do.  Oh, and he'll do it whether the townies like it or not - it is his business and his neck on the line, not theirs.

While baseball has higher salaries and wealthier business owners, it's still a business.  If a particular location is not profitable, or if better profits are available in another location, then that owner is going to look to relocate.  And his townies aren't going to be able to prevent it by throwing a hissy-fit at "all the money the rich guys are making."

The issue is simply stated:  "Do you want baseball in your town enough to make the economics of your location work for the team?"

This isn't a "should" question, because we don't live in a "should" world. You can scream til you drop, but the owner isn't going to decide that, by God, he'll pay whatever is required to make the economics work - not as long as there are other locations which aren't as interested in a free ride as you are.

So none of this "should" stuff, as in, "The owner should pay for the ballpark, the players should take less money, MLB should subsidize the stadium, MLB should divide revenues like the NFL, etc.".

In the real world, baseball teams relocate from marginal markets to better markets.  

In the real world, baseball teams look to their ballparks as revenue sources.

In the real world, baseball teams believe their presence benefits the community they play in and therefore believe the community has a stake (which translates to money) in their continuing to play there.

If you don't believe that, then be bold - and honest - and speak the truth:  "I oppose public financial support for a new Twins ballpark and if that means they leave Minnesota, then so be it."

If you want the Twins to stay, then let your representatives know you favor doing what it takes to make the Twin Cities market one which allows them to compete for championships.