Ballpark Figures:
Voting Guide

Michael Cox

It's the silly season again, and never as silly as this year. I just wish my favorite TV shows weren't marred by endless numbers of crappy, distorted political ads:

"Elect Joe Shblacki: He won't vote to have amputees put to death."

"Vote for Jack Krelb. Because Joe Shblacki punches cuddly bunnies."

"Jack Krelb -- Worse than DIVX.
(Paid for by Friends who Really Are Just Friends of Joe Shblacki and not Joe's Election Committee Under a Different Name.)"

One key for aspiring politicians: Use the word "taxes" often when mentioning your opponent. Even if it doesn't make sense, it apparently makes dumber voters vote against him/her.

In our eternal quest to ignore such divisive crud as politics, we've done an excellent job of insulating our readers from this kind of thing. However, there are a couple of issues subject to balloting on Tuesday that directly pertain to us: ballparks.

In the San Diego and Cincinnati areas, they'll be voting on ballpark plans, but the exact subject of each vote is very different in each case. While Southern Californians will be voting on whether to build a park (plus much more), Southern Ohioans will be voting on a site. New Yorkers won't be voting on diddly -- yet.

In the Land of the Chicken, the Padres owners want to build an intimate park for their team in an area near the waterfront and downtown, plus a large amount of development in the neighborhood. The city would be kicking in $275M, mainly raised through the now-customary hotel taxes. The Pads owners will contribute $115M directly to the park, and secure another $400M in private investment for commercial development.

The ancilliary development is a new twist for a ballpark proposal. In other cities like Denver and Cleveland the park simply had to be built and development occurred on its own. In San Diego it will be jumpstarted, which was enough to convince even Major League Losers author Mark Rosentraub, who usually makes his money opposing sports facilities, that it was a reasonable deal.

A great story that came out during the campaign for the park was that the opponents of the plan were being outspent by 708-1. While on the surface it makes you think of them rich fatcats wearin' top hats and puffin' on big ol' stogies while ramming their wishes down the peoples' throats, the underlying reality is that the opposition had trouble raising even $2000. Two thousand dollars. What that really means is that nobody hates this deal enough to contribute money towards defeating it. 'Nuff said.

Over in Cincy the whole deal is about siting a park that we know will be built. Voters already approved a financing plan for a new Reds stadium in 1996, but the team wants the park on prime land near where Riverfront Stadium, er, Cinergy Field is now, while some civic activists (we'll call 'em civic activists, anyway -- they're in the city, and they've certainly been active) are plumping for a more central location.

My first reaction is that Marge sure has been doing some hand-wringing over this whole issue -- while most teams try to convince you that time is of the essence, the Reds have waited two years with money in hand while the siting has been ironed out. So money isn't the issue here that it is in many other ballpark debates.

What is, is the atmosphere and neighborhood of the park. Advocates of the in-city "Broadway Commons" proposal say it'll be cheaper and easier to build a park there, and because it would be a "neighborhood" park, it would be a boon to local business.

The Reds and other "Baseball on Main" (or Riverfront) supporters cite that the park would be better accessed and there would be more space for parking in that area. In addition, a cynic might say that the team would retain more revenues due to the less-urban area. Both camps portray their plan as being more "scenic."

If I had to pick, I'd choose Broadway Commons (that's a "yes" vote) because I'm a sucker for an urban park, plus I'm not scared to take a bus if I have to. This all may end up moot, however, because a third option has the Reds mostly tearing down Cinergy itself and rebuilding it as a baseball-only field.

So, to recap: Vote Yes in San Diego; Vote Yes in Cincy. Now fly, my pretties! Fly!

 

about the author

Michael Cox will spend Election Day personally stuffing socks in the mouths of politicians silly enough to be stumping near his polling place. Send your stanky sox to mc@strikethree.com.