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.