Stealing Home: Political, Economic, and Media Power and a Publicly-Funded Baseball Stadium in Denver

Abstract

In 1990, the Major League Baseball owners announced that the National League would add two new franchises in 1993. Two issues immediately confronted the various groups attempting to secure a baseball franchise for Denver. One was finding an owner for the franchise, the other was providing a stadium for the team. This study focuses on the events and social processes involved in the baseball stadium issue in Denver's bid to secure a major league baseball franchise. The taxpayers of metropolitan Denver were asked to vote on a sales tax initiative that would finance the construction and operation of a new baseball stadium ifaMajorLeagueBaseballfranchisewasultimatelyawardedtoDenver. This study centers on how various forms of power were used to persuade taxpayers that they should pay the costs of constructing a baseball stadium and how the same forms of power were later used to obtain a stadium lease agreement. Other issues addressed by this study include why citizens were not more active in questioning either the public expenditure of money for the construction of a stadium or the terms of the stadium lease agreement. Analyses and explanations for these questions are grounded in the dynamics of power as it was employed by the various entities whose interest was in securing a Major League Baseball franchise for Denver. n June 1990, the Major League Baseball (MLB) owners' Expansion Committee announced that the National League would add two new franchises in 1993.Denver, Colorado, a city with organizations that had been desperately seeking a MLB franchise for more than a decade, was expected to make a strong bid to acquire one. While awaiting the owners' decision on where the franchises would be awarded, two immediate issues confronted the Denver groups. One was finding an owner for the franchise, the other was providing a stadium for the team. This study focuses on the events and social processes involved in securing a stadium for MLB in Denver.The taxpayers of metropolitan Denver were asked to vote on a sales tax initiative to finance the construction and operation of a new baseball stadium, in the event a franchise was ultimately awarded to Denver. Whether or not voters should have approved the sales tax initiative is not the focus of this study. Instead, it is centered on how various forms of power were used to convince taxpayers that they should build a stadium for the use of a privately owned corporation (the franchise owners) and then extend them an incredibly generous stadium lease agreement. This study also examines why citizens were not more active in questioning the public expenditure of money for stadium construction or the terms of the lease. Analyses and explanations for these questions are grounded in the dynamics of power as it was

Revisiting Norton Long's Ecology of Games: A Network Approach

“…Although proponents of stadium development portray it as a useful investment project for cities, scholars tend to disagree. Massive stadium projects tend to command a great deal of cities' available resources, and the human and economic capital usually could be better spent on other projects (Baade, 1996;Cagan and deMause, 1998;Eisinger, 2000;Noll and Zimbalist, 1997;Sage, 1993;Swindell and Rosentraub, 1998). The fact that support for both viewpoints on this issue are widespread makes controversy over the pubic funding of a stadium almost imminent when such a proposal is made public.…”

Civic pride or civic duty? : an examination of willingness to support a professional sport stadium referendum.

“…The literature has found a variety of stakeholders potentially influence the outcome of a stadium referendum. Politicians (Danielson, 1997;Paul & Brown, 2001Sage, 1993), the media (Brown & Paul, 1999;Buist & Mason, 2010;Delaney & Eckstein, 2007Sage, 1993;Turner & Marichal, 1998), stadium proponent groups (Brown & Paul, 2002;Paul & Brown, 2001), the business community (Danielson, 1997;Delaney & Eckstein, 2007;Kalich, 1998;Mason & Buist, 2013;Sage, 1993), and team owners (Brown & Paul, 1999;Fort, 1997) are each key definitive stakeholders in stadium construction projects . Additionally, these five groups have historically been proponents of professional stadium construction projects (Brown & Paul, 2002).…”

“…Stadium construction projects often maintain saliency throughout a municipality due to the project's massive nature, its visibility, and potential affective connection with the local residents. Fort (1997) (Brown & Paul, 1999;Sage, 1993). Beyond these groups, there may be a number of stakeholders that can affect or are affected by a stadium construction project.…”

“…Beyond these groups, there may be a number of stakeholders that can affect or are affected by a stadium construction project. For example, proponent groups are created to support and promote the stadium measure, while opponent groups almost instinctively appear as conversations of stadium projects arise (Fort, 1997;Freidman & Mason, 2005;Sage, 1993). Additionally, neighborhood groups have been key factors in the ultimate decision of stadium location (Euchner, 1993;Pelissero, Henschen, & Sidlow, 1991).…”

“…For example, leagues often mandate specific criteria such as single purpose baseball and football-only venues instead of multi-purpose facilities when considering new cities for expansion and relocating teams (Mason & Slack, 1997). Such demands came to fruition in Denver with the MLB expansion of the early 1990s (Sage, 1993).…”