Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Downtown Stadium Blues

I've read endless numbers of columns and commentaries the last few days regarding the public rejection of a downtown ballpark by David Glass and the Royals. But the one that really struck a chord was Joe Posnanski's column Tuesday in the Star. His theory was that Kansas City is the exact opposite of every other city who has been taken hostage by a whining billionaire sports team owner. Our town cries out for a new stadium, backed by tax dollars and Glass says that the Royals are content to ride out the lease and stay put. Posnanski's point was that to get a new stadium, the current one needs to be a "dump". I certainly understand, as that's how we managed to get the ball rolling on the Sprint Center after watching Kemper decompose for the last 10 years. Plus, Kauffman Stadium in and of itself is hardly in need of a replacement.

But I don't think the point of building a new ballpark downtown has to do with whether the current stadium is adequate or not. It has to do with continuing the momentum of the revitalization of downtown Kansas City. The H&R Block/Kansas City Live District is what started to get citizens and business leaders thinking more progressively about what realistic (and necessary) improvements could be made to the core of downtown. That spurred on the mayor to back the concept of the Sprint Center. Finally, after as many years as I can remember, Kansas City is starting to creep out of the ultra-conservative, risk-averse shell it has been in. A downtown ballpark would build on this momentum.

The benefits to the city would seem to be obvious. If the ballpark was built near Union Station (as has been speculated), it would give a much needed boost to what has become a totally mismanaged mess. The Union Station idea was sound, in theory, but it lacked the support of a lively neighborhood. Crown Center is near, but there needs to be more. A ballpark would bring tens of thousands of people to the area for 81 dates per year. People will come early to eat and shop, watch the game and stay late to drink a beer and analyze the game. Existing businesses will benefit. New businesses will want to locate themselves in a vibrant area. Does any of that happen at the Truman Sports Complex? Absolutely not. Unless your idea of post-game fun is hanging out at the Taco Bell.

I think one of the main (supposed) drawbacks is parking. The Royals point out that their fans would have a more difficult time finding a place to park. And that they would have to walk further to get to the park. I've parked at Kauffman stadium. A four block walk through that parking lot is not uncommon. It just seems like less because you can see the stadium in front of you. And I don't buy the "ease" argument, either. Coming down I-70 before a game and following the flow of traffic into the stadium is irritating and time consuming. And that's before you pay NINE STINKING DOLLARS to park your car. And that's where the real issue comes into play. The Royals make good money on parking. Pure profit. I'm sure they don't want to give that up.

The Royals and the city need to work something out. The time for progress is now. After making the fans of the Royals suffer through losing seasons in all but one year of the past decade, it seems to me the Royals owe it to the town to make an effort. I loved this quote from Detroit Tigers owner Mike Ilitch: "After our disastrous season [43-119 in 2003], I made up my mind, we've got to build a championship team. The farm system still isn't developed, but I can't wait around. The city doesn't want to wait around, either. I've got to do everything in my power -- I have to extend myself, and keep extending myself." The difference is that the Royals have a young core of players that, with time and a little luck, will hopefully bring us back to respectability sooner rather than later. It would be nice if our owner would make that extra commitment to the fans and the city.

No comments: