Honey vs. Vinegar:
The Politics of Ballpark Opposition

Michael Cox

I saw something interesting the other day as I perused Usenet for baseball news. It was an ad (some might call it spam) for the book Field of Schemes by Joanna Cagan and Neil deMause, posted by deMause. I found it curious that the authors of a book decrying any public spending for a ballpark or hockey rink were relying on a device wherein the public foots most of the bill for the ad.

If it sounds like I have a problem with the book and/or its authors in the first place, that's because I do. Field of Schemes is just the latest in books that preach to the choir of indignant, angry folks who oppose public spending involving sports. That in itself wouldn't be so bad. However, in these books, the baby of sports and what it means in very real terms to the American - no, scratch that - world public is thrown out with the bathwater of poor government judgment and greedy ownership. Every stadium is a "swindle", "scam" or "boondoggle", and anyone who approves same is either an idiot or a crook. The world is still waiting for a balanced book on the ballpark boom, and I'm guessing that I'll pass out from holding my breath before one does.

Living in Seattle, I got to see this attitude in a nutshell during the Mariners' ballpark travails. We had on one side a team ownership who, while seeming fairly rational about the need for a park and realistic about their chances of fielding any kind of team in the KingDome (c'mon! the KingDome!), also insisted on a retractable roof and a contribution of precious little of their own cash. You would hope that some reasonable souls would form an opposition to the worst aspects of the plan, trying to broker a deal that would work out for all concerned, right?

No such luck. Instead, we got three factions of opposition (who, of course, rarely worked together or even acknowledged each others' existence) who made costly court challenges, endlessly appealed despite repeated judgments against the plaintiffs which seemed to border on a lecture on groundless assertions. It is unknown how much public money the nuisance suits cost, but suffice to say they added a reasonable amount to the cost of the park. Yet in the world of the ballpark opponent, they were fighting the good fight.

Even in cities like Detroit, where the public voted overwhelmingly to build a new ballpark for the Tigers, twice, team ownership was only "using their money and their political muscle to get their way even against stiff public opposition". Sometimes public support for a stadium is attributed to the money owners spend for advertisements, other times it's just because the populace simply had the wool pulled over its eyes (God knows, the public can't be trusted to vote correctly). The Field of Schemes website even calls into question the expansion joint that fell in Yankee Stadium (they assert it was a piece "about the size of a car battery" in a section called "The Sky is Falling". Yep. Nothing to worry about. No need to think it could happen again.

I think my biggest objection to this is that I turn to baseball to get away from the bipolar disorder of our political climate. Then, when the ballpark debate erupts, the same kind of people who normally want to impeach Clinton now or freeze all US logging operations attempt to force the issue into that same fake black-and-white. they go back and forth with threats that it will take books away from schools, conflicting economic analyses and flippant comments about "bread and circuses" (read: "the public is stupid").

The fact that is never addressed is the apple pie-and-Old Glory concept that keeps the ballpark battles happening (and always will): good, old-fashioned American competition. To wit:

Fact #1: Baseball teams are businesses. They have a right to locate where they get the best deal (unless somebody passed a law while I was sleeping).

Fact #2: People can tell any team to go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks at any point, and they don't have to pay for a new ballyard.

Fact #3: People consider Fact #2, and generally plump for the new park.

Fact #4: You can bitch and moan, like Cagan and deMause, about politicians and owners all you want, but the actual common people of this great land (cue patriotic music) have the right to vote in referendums and kick out whatever representatives have not been adequately representing them. Here in Seattle, not one representative at any level has been ousted for supporting the ballpark.

Prudence and fiscal responsibility might be well-served by opposition to the more outrageous demands of owners, but as long as ballpark opponents continue to position themselves as against even the concept of a park, they're destined to continue writing bitter manifestoes like Field of Schemes.

Michael Cox offers an open invitation to all ballpark opponents to sit with him for a game at Safeco Field next year. Take him up on the offer at mc@strikethree.com. Strikethree.com offers you the opportunity to purchase books reviewed herein in association with Amazon.com .