This is a follow-up posting to address some of the comments (particularly some of those in the latter half of the string) on my baseball column Sunday.
Lee, Brent, Nathan — calm those itchy, libertarian trigger-fingers. There’s no target here to shoot at.
Read the column again. The only governmental entity involved is USC. USC is going to build a ballpark one way or the other, no matter what I say or what anyone else does. And before your hands start twitching toward your anti-tax guns, remember that the USC athletics department supports itself financially.
The issue here is whether the Gamecocks will get to play in a better ballpark in a better location. That can only happen, as I clearly stated in the column, if a private partner comes along — one that sees a way to put together a deal that benefits both USC and the investors.
Will the city need to be involved at some point? Sure. It is the source for key infrastructure, not to mention zoning and other issues. And if the city kicks in a little something — land, or a break on infrastructure costs — fine.
But — whoa, I see you going for your guns again. Hold on, pardners! I need to make two quick points that ought to settle you down a bit.
- The first is that any material involvement by the city should be minimal. You’re probably forgetting that this editorial board rejected a plan for a dual-use ballpark put forward by the city because it had too much financial involvement on the part of the city — and therefore too much exposure of city taxpayers to cost and risk. (The mayor is still ticked because we complain about not having minor-league baseball, yet we didn’t go for his deal.) What we liked was the later deal that was offered by private investors, which had minimal city involvement. We tend to be guided by what we call the "Publix Standard." We believe it appropriate for the city to put forth the kind of incentive it did to get a supermarket downtown, as that was key to so many other goals for the city — goals that should eventually dramatically expand the tax base within the city, and more than pay today’s taxpayers back. The kind of deal we oppose is on such as the city’s awful plan to own and run a hotel. And we don’t want them essentially owning a baseball team, either.
- Second point — The City Council’s politics being what they are, it may or may not be possible to get so much as a dime out of it. The mayor has been burned enough he seems to have little appetite for making a proposal. The council, which seems to be generally ticked at the mayor lately (perhaps over the city government restructuring panel that he convinced it to appoint?), seems inclined to say no to anything he does suggest. The city right now is a huge question mark, and whether it could participate at all will depend upon just how attractive a deal is presented to it.
The University and private partners will drive whatever happens, if anything does happen. And I surely hope it does.
Related Posts
Brad,
That is something that I can agree with. I think that it would be great if what you are proposing above can happen. As long a the city keeps thier dollars out of it (this is a philosophy, not personal since I neither live nor work in Columbia), I think that the people of Columbia should be happy with it. The University can do what it wants through the athletics department. Thanks for the clarification.
Who says USC needs a new baseball field?
If USC can pay its own way, why should it work with developers, the city, or any minor league baseball team?
This baseball story is, like so much of what the editors produce, a diversion or smokescreen, intended to move our attention away from real issues:
* USC Research Park – all real estate, no plan
* Wasteful spending by the city and state
* State retirement system bankrupt
* Tobacco settlement money embezzled and spent
* Career politicians making $500,000+ annually on the side representing clients before their cronies and appointees
* Public education unable to overcome the decay of the black family and community
Well, Lee, to answer the questions you raised before you veered off into the realm of conspiracy theory:
Here we go again with the socialist disconnect:
“The people are standing outside the ballfield because there are not enough seats, but there are not of them willing to pay for a new stadium with enough seats.”
Economics 101 – There is always excessive demand for a free lunch. USC should raise its prices now to the price it would have to charge for a new stadium to reduce the crowds while still filling the seats, maximizing their revenue. After a few years, they save enough money to build a stadium big enough to hold more customers at the same or a reduced price.
The Greedy Homeowners don’t want to pay for your party.
http://www.wrisley.com/comment.htm
Come on, Lee, you’re not really a socialist…
Brad, if you are not capable of anything more than a childish word game, perhaps you should not have invited critics of government waste to discuss sports.
If you don’t understand that your economic arguments are contradictory, just say so and I will explain it again, addressing the point where you became lost.
Brad, I have to admit ignorance of the situation here since I have never been to Frye field. But, you have a group of 17 to 21 year old kids playing baseball for a period of how long (college and minor league ball are long over now)? What about spending a few bucks to fix up Frye field? Would you propose to tear down Wrigley because its old and people have to wait for tickets. Use the nostalgia for an advantage. I said this before but DO NOT depend on minor league teams to provide revenue. They jump towns like kangaroos, always seeing the grass and money greener in the next town. Just one taxpayers opinion, but with a baseball stadium sitting empty for 8 months a year, how inefficient is that. I read Warren Bolton’s column on the lack of a true strategic plan for the city of Columbia. That is what is needed to bring in new visitors, residents, and dollars. One idea for example. Picture a complete section of town, a two or three block area, rebuilt to period as a Civil War museum, of course, with eateries, bars, shops, all in period mode. This would draw year round tourists to the city. Who pencils in Columbia as a vacation spot now? Zero maybe. That is the type of idea you should be supporting. Think big. Columbia has the climate and the highway system to make big ideas work. Anyway, just my thoughts.
I thought sports WAS about childish games…
Government has been turned into a childish game by corrupt politicians and journalists who cover for their graft of tax monies to subsidize their friends’ business ventures and entertainment.
Brad, I have one simple question: Why are you so against Alan Kahn’s idea to have baseball in the suburbs? Minor league baseball failed downtown. That is a fact.
Now we seem to have a developer and a team ready and willing to risk their own money that a team will succeed in the suburbs, and you are so vehemently against it — because it is not, in your words, where you live. That seems very selfish.
If someone wants to bring minor league baseball to our region, and can build a ballpark without using existing tax money or imposing new taxes, I am all for it. For you to say in your article that a baseball team in the Northeast would “do nothing” for the Midlands as a whole makes you sound like a spoiled child — “If they can’t build the baseball stadium where I want it, then don’t build it at all” seems to be your position.
Listen, you are not putting any money at risk. Kahn is. If he thinks a baseball team would work at Sandhill, I am all for it. Mr. Kahn, count me among your season ticket buyers!
I am all for Alan Kahn paying 100% of the cost of a baseball team near his latest subdivision.
I am also in favor of developers paying 100% of the costs of roads, sewers, water, schools and fire and police station construction for their new housing developments. Let them build the cost into price of the house, and let the home buyers finance it, instead of the taxpayers financing it with bonds.
Brad, I agree with Kelly. Baseball “bombed” in downtown Columbia. Why would a different team bring a different result? Let Alan kahn build his stadium at Sandhills and see if people will go there. I think they will. i live in Blythewood, and I would NEVER go downtown if I did not have to. But I would definitely go to Sandhills to shop or watch a ballgame. If people want to see baseball downtown, they can watch USC. For the rest of us who prefer life in the county, I have a message for Alan Kahn: build it and we will come!
Lee is a little off with his comment about USC needing to raise ticket prices. (Sure they could do that and I have no issue with it either way).
However, USC barely makes any money on baseball. (Most colleges lose money on baseball). Travel is expensive and the team rides on a bus- they don’t fly anywhere.
There aren’t enough seats at Sarge Frye to raise ticket prices, still keep the place full, and save money for a few years and build a new stadium. Ticket prices would have to be $50 a piece for years to do that and no one would pay that price for a baseball ticket. So sure, they could raise the ticket prices enough to save money toward a stadium but there would be 30 people in the stands to watch a game. That would mean recruiting would take a huge hit because no one would want to play in front of 30 fans a game.
USC should continue to pursue building their own stadium with their own financing as they have done.
Lee, John Wrisley is a nice guy but he is dead wrong on a lot of issues. I remember him talking for years on WVOC how building a new downtown arena and a convention center would be a big money loser. John was wrong.
News flash for David:
The convention center is a big money loser, according to its annual report, because it was not designed to make a profit. That thought effort was not put into it. I drop by there once in a while. It is empty. Most of the events are small, locale affairs by the same tax-subsidized groups which lobbied for this new play house.
Have you, David, actually performed a detailed analysis of the demand elasticity for USC baseball tickets, to determine what they could currently charge, and what they could charge for a new, larger stadium?
I would like to see that, because it is one of the first steps usually skipped by those who are not spending their own money, and who have no job risk if they fail.
The Convention Center has been a money maker for many businesses in the downtown area. It ranked 22nd in the world for total tickets sold in 2003 by Pollstar Magazine. Just go anywhere on Gervais street before a USC basketball game or before or after a concert at the center and try to find a restaurant that isn’t packed or close to it. (The USC athletics department pays for any operating losses at the center through their funds which are donated by boosters, not tax dollars)
It has a variety of events. Elton John, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, Kenny Chesney, Jimmy Buffet, family events, motor cross, monster truck shows, 18,000 folks in the seats last week for a pre-season NBA game, etc.
No, I haven’t performed any studies of USC baseball tickets. I don’t have the time. I know they need a new stadium. The place only seats about 3500 people. A basic baseball stadium that USC could use and would match up with some of the newer facilities in the conference would cost USC 10 million. (LSU is building a new one that is 23 million).
USC wants a new stadium because their current one is the worst one in the conference by far. They are going to build one. They are going to finance it and pay it back in interest with athletic department revenue and money from boosters.
If the Convention Center is such “a money-maker for downtown businesses”, why didn’t these businesses invest in it?
Because they could get the taxpayers to take the loss on the Convention Center, which is not a money maker, and while pocketing the spillover business.
Greenville’s first convention center, Textile Hall, was built by private investors and run at a profit for decades.
One reason Columbia cannot make progress is that those in control are not free market capitalists. The city as a whole is not their first priority. They are politicians using the city as a vehicle to create jobs and projects for themselves.
PS: If you have not performed a detailed economic analysis of the customers, you don’t KNOW anything about USC baseball support. You just FEEL that they need a new stadium, you want it, and you want mama the taxpayer to buy you one.
Brad and all, I saw this in The State where feedback is requested re what should Columbia look like in 2015, what does it need? Pretty interesting. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/12849911.htm
You guys keep avoiding the issue: Who cares whether the convention center makes money? We had pro baseball here and then the Bombers left. Now, we have a chance to get a new team that actually WANTS to be here –unlike the Bombers, who never did — and we can see them in a beautiful, safe, and clean facility in the Northeast. I say, we need minor league baseball in the Northeast, regardless of whether the downtown convention center makes money.
Who cares if the (Convention Center, AirSouth, Koger Center, etc, ______) makes money?
Nobody. That’s the problem. That’s why they fail to live up to the hype. No investment = no commitment = no focus = no plan = floundering.
I have performed no economic studies (never have, never will) You can get a study to say whatever you want it to say.
USC needs a new baseball stadium. Anyone with a brain, that has been to other college stadiums in the southeast that USC competes with, in their conference, can see that plainly.
Parking is awful near the current stadium and they have to turn away crowds for quite a few games every year due to selling out.
Lee doesn’t have to like it. But USC will get a new stadium and they will pay for it.
The city might chip in some money to help with street scaping around the stadium and maybe some sewer and water line work but that is about it.
Businesses in the area of the stadium will do quite well when it is built.
Now David has sunk to the argument form of “nyah, nyah, USC is going to get a stadium whether you taxpayers like it or not”.
It is a shame our schools keep graduating people whose concept of democracy is the majority of society’s lower echelon forcing the more productive, frugal and thoughtful minority to subsidize bread and circuses.
Lee,
Have you thought of moving to a place that is run more to your liking?
You don’t have to accept it. I am just pointing out that USC is going to build a baseball stadium. That is a fact.
If you know a place that is better run than Columbia, why not try to learn from them, instead of just moving there?
Actually, I know a lot of places that have lots of things which are done better than Columbia, and South Carolina. Some other things they do worse. What we should be doing is adopting the things that are good, and learning to avoid the mistakes of others.
Lee,
Problem is that what you may feel is better run and what I, or others, may feel is better run or probably two totally different things.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. There are places that are run better and worse than Columbia (you can fill in any city name here). Some of their problems are worse, some of them aren’t.
It just always amuses me to read folks (not necessarily you) that complain of Columbia or Richland and Lexington taxes a large majority of the time but they continue to live there. Newberry, Kershaw, Fairfield, Saluda all have lower taxes but they also might not offer what you want in a hometown. So you have to decide.
I don’t just feel that Columbia is poorly run. I am a professional consultant, a systems engineer who has worked in almost every major city, sometimes for months and years at a time. I have seen cities like Indianapolis, Portland, and New York be turned around by better leadership and undoing mistakes. They still have a ways to go. Almost any city can teach something to Columbia.
Most new residents of the Midlands have David’s attitude of just giving up on Columbia, and living outside is why cities like Columbia hollow out – crime scares off the shoppers, retail moves away, and then the restaurants and hotels follow.
The city “developement teams” are too busy flying to Germany with subsidies to bother with keeping the talent from the latest layoff from moving to Atlanta or Charlotte.
Criticism is not welcomed by the tiny cabal that runs things for their own self-enrichment and agrandizement. Politics is so filthy that decent people don’t want to be involved.
No Lee, I haven’t given up on Columbia.
Life is too short to complain and fuss all the time about how lousy the city is (or their leaders), etc. I moved out several years ago for a variety of reasons but found that living in nearby areas was better for me. The lower taxes wasn’t the reason I moved but I have enjoyed them.
Every city has a multitude of problems. Columbia is no different. I also travel frequently and I long ago discovered that the local newspaper of any city is usually (almost always) filled with letters to the editor complaining about how wrong the local leaders are at everything.
For someone who claims to have not given up on Columbia, you sure sound like a quitter. The newspapers could probably print 100 times as many letters from people justifiably disgruntled with the lowbrow management which typifies almost every city. The letter writers are right most of the time.
But I am not talking in generalities. I name specific projects and tell what is defective, in concept, execution and process. That is called constructive criticism. It’s not negativism, though it may appear that way to those who just want to loaf along to retirement and the grave, without caring what sort of mess is left to the next generation. The world if full of such people. Politicians wish more people would adopt a fatalistic acceptance of waste, stupidity and corruption.
Lee,
Then you keep “fighting the good fight.” You certainly have that right and you keep right on complaining and fussing and arguing about it.
I moved out of Richland County years ago and while the town I live in has their problems, they are fairly minor and the taxes are lower. I enjoy living here and my family does as well.
You keep up your personal war.
I’ll keep fighting for the quitters, too.
Lee,
You do that. LOL